Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 172 posts

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#61

Post by alistproducer2 »

libertymcateer wrote: post #44
alistproducer2 wrote: post #9

ZH is the infowars of the financial world.

Hear hear. This site has long been a bewildering mishmash of doomsaying and cassandra-like apocalyptic predictions - but the other shoe has simply never dropped. During the days when the financial crisis was hot and fresh this brand of naysaying seemed really insightful and prescient - but, in retrospect, it was just something of a firehose of "short the system." That a lot of analysts read it doesn't make it credibl…

yep, the crisis made asshats like Peter Schiff seem like smart guys. Lots of doomdayers created awesome careers because the world legitimately did appear to be falling apart. The irony is, if anyone had listened to the ZH's and the Schiffs of the world, it actually would've fallen apart.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#62

Post by tptacek »

tomp wrote: post #58
tptacek wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the spying the NSA does on the Internet falls more into the category of "worst kept secrets" than "conspiracy theories".

You could say that about all conspiracy theories, especially those that have since come true.

So what? That's not analysis, it's numerology. Just because some things are true doesn't mean all theories are equally deserving of dignity. But the notion that the USG was monitoring the Internet was entirely deserving of dignity:

* It's their job

* The software security industry is full of people who used to hack professionally for them

* There'd been a major news story roughly every other year since the 1990s Echelon thing about NSA dragnet surveillance

There are still things people say about NSA that have the tenor of conspiracy theories --- some of them being things Snowden actually said! --- and you might be able to make observations about the character of the people who believe those things (I don't know, that was the other commenter's point).

But the basic outline of what NSA is doing with the Internet is not a conspiracy theory.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#63

Post by pjc50 »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #54
tomp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, all people who were saying that NSA is spying on the whole internet (before Snowden, that was the conspiracy) were secretly authoritarian?!

No. I'm speaking about people who spend most of their time online on conspiracy sites. I should know, I used to be one of them. I was 17 when 9/11 happened and spent most of the early 2000's reading about lizard people, the Illuminati and the bilderberg group. I'm ashamed to admit it, but once upon a time I was a daily reader of Alex Jones. There are conspiracies. They exist. But I'm mostly speaking to the mindset of…

That's the weird thing about conspiracy theorists. There certainly are big historic coverups; here in the UK we're dealing with finally having an inquest that acknowledges the truth about Hillsborough, for example. But they form a tiny part of the conspiracist worldview.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#64

Post by xlm1717 »

tptacek wrote: post #52
tomp wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, all people who were saying that NSA is spying on the whole internet (before Snowden, that was the conspiracy) were secretly authoritarian?!

No, the spying the NSA does on the Internet falls more into the category of "worst kept secrets" than "conspiracy theories".

I think you're just splitting hairs there.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#66

Post by danielweber »

natrius wrote: post #48
maze-le wrote: post #16

I stopped reading this site some years ago. It had, and probably still has some interesting opinins and analysis. Most content is pretty far fetched / sensationalist, but if you have your grain of salt, this is not a problem, since most media outlets do this in one form or another. About 2 years ago the tenor of the publications shifted from libertarian to more and more reactionary (bordering on proto-fascist). When…

In a world of centralized media, the incentives led outlets to promote viewpoints supported by the elite and omit viewpoints that would offend them. Their access to viewers, leads and advertising dollars required the party line product we all recognize. In a world of decentralized media, you can't get readers to keep coming back if you're just another mainstream news source. Instead, you have to choose a niche viewpo…

The simpler, less sinister explanation, is that normal moderate viewpoints do not pay the bills, but extreme and sensational viewpoints -- whatever the flavor -- do.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#67

Post by fweespee_ch »

maze-le wrote: post #16

I stopped reading this site some years ago. It had, and probably still has some interesting opinins and analysis. Most content is pretty far fetched / sensationalist, but if you have your grain of salt, this is not a problem, since most media outlets do this in one form or another. About 2 years ago the tenor of the publications shifted from libertarian to more and more reactionary (bordering on proto-fascist). When…

> About 2 years ago the tenor of the publications shifted from libertarian to more and more reactionary (bordering on proto-fascist). When I skip the articles nowdays, I think that the authors have no problem with authoritarianism, as long as taxes are reduced and social welfare is gutted (it is obviously not stated as such, but most opinion-pieces speak for themself).

I think the problem with this is their ideological goals are to starve the beast and play at being antiestablishment. They were always unscrupulous about the how and have been since at least 2011 when I first noticed they existed.

I honestly don't think the tone has changed substantially.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#68

Post by CyberDildonics »

tobltobs wrote: post #10
dmichulke wrote: post #6

Zerohedge is one of the most remarkable web sites today. I started reading it after 2009 and today it's (along with HN) my daily read. For me as a Westerner there are few places where I can read non-mainstream opinions on things like the war in Syria, the oil price and currency wars, the daily SNAFU in the financial worldlike Negative Interest Rate Policy (NIRP). To be sure, the headlines are often sensationalist but…

That is astonishing. If you remove the usual conspiracy theories and the right wing populism crap there is not much more left than you can read on bloomberg or any other financial news site.

They do end up with actual charts and graphs so there is some data to be had there.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#69

Post by didjdjjdjf »

didjdjjdjf wrote: post #53
alistproducer2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think that the authors have no problem with authoritarianism Like any conspiracy site, it's going to attract people who share a view of the world in which everything must be orchestrated, controlled - a reason for all things. Randomness has no place in the mind of a conspiracy theorist. The order provided by conspiracies comfort the conspiracy theorist: paradoxically making the world feel safer, more ordered while…

What's sad is no matter how often people like you are proven wrong you'll just keep on repeating the same bullshit. I recall HN saying gold market manipulation was conspiracy theory, ZH was right HN commenters were wrong. There's a long list but when it comes to finance HN commenters are typically poorly educated.

Typical childish behavior, down vote criticism, ignore the facts.

Re: Unmasking the Men Behind Zero Hedge

#70

Post by apercu »

tomp wrote: post #5
apercu wrote: post #2

A for profit news editorial site based on sensationalism. Why is anyone surprised? That's "news" today. Just turn on the television in the US. I haven't been able to watch CNN since the mid-90's.

The value in ZH is that their sensationalism is pretty much the reverse of most other mainstream media. "Anti-establishment" as they say.

That's fair, I haven't read it.
Post reply on HN