Excuse me...but I'm at sea here. Maybe I'm dense, but could someone explain to me what Niall was trying to say about these particular blog services or about blogging in general. Sounds like he was making a satirical pt. but it escapes me.
 

I think there are several potential points made by the poster -- that's what makes it interesting.

There is -- and will be -- pressure on employees to 'clam up' on their weblogs, lest they leak info or create perceptions against the aims of their employers.

As with the WW2 poster, the pressure will often be couched in a message of: "you could do real damage with your loose talk." There will even be the menacing subtext: the job you destroy could be your own. (Is the dead soldier a victim of the loose blogging, or the blogger himself?)

But also as with the WW2 poster, the pressure may have a legitimate rationale. Loose lips in wartime can cause military setbacks, death and destruction; loose lips in the work world could undermine product launches, cost jobs, and create legal liabilities.

Then, you could consider the sentiments of the poster hyperbolic: no blog is going to get someone killed, you might think.

But the US is at war, with ongoing military operations around the world. All sorts of people, including active duty soldiers and people on all sides of the conflict, are blogging about it. If there hasn't yet been an incident where blogged information is blamed for a military setback or death -- there will be, it's just a matter of time.

So even at a more literal level, as actual wartime education/persuasion/propaganda, the remix with blog tool logos is meaningful and thought-provoking.
 

if you want get hd amateur porn videos, then click TORI BLACK IS AN AWESOME FUCK! - PopGoesTheC this video link.