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

Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#41

Post by Chris2048 »

refulgentis wrote: post #18
chinese_donald wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture." I feel the same way about Hillary: She defended a rapist husband, used the government as her personal piggy bank, used the mainstream media as her attack dog, and conspired a…

A vast majority of these claims are extraordinary and have no sourcing. Source on using government as her personal piggy bank?

"and have no sourcing"

Where do authoritative sources come from? Government? Mainstream media?

I think "personal piggy bank" might refer to Clinton foundation donations and collusions, but don't expect it to be too easy to find that information, no time will be spend producing fancy interactive info-graphics to make that easier to understand...

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#42

Post by jazzyk »

anentropic wrote: post #31
zigzigzag wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Echo chambers? Would you lump existing media outlets into that bucket? I think if there's one thing that 2016 revealed very clearly it's the extent to which journalists tend to line up behind whatever the political elite groupthink is, regardless of how well it matches what the overall population thinks. The Guardian has become something of a joke paper - on the rare occasions these days that they open the comments t…

you're speaking as someone who takes a wildly extreme position so the mild liberal/left views in The Guardian seem like "wildly extreme" positions to you probably you live in a right-wing social media echo chamber

That's why we should avoid labels such as "extremist", "radical", "fringe" - they are deeply subjective.

Fun fact: Austria' Freedom Party's (invariably labeled as "fringe") presidential candidate came close to winning the election a few months ago. If you get close to 50% of all votes, you are not exactly fringe, are you?

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#43

Post by pdubbs90 »

Fake news is a real problem, but this seems like an unfair no-win for Facebook from major media outlets. When they had more human editors on trending topics it was "Facebook is injecting their own bias into news and manipulating the public."

Now that it's more purely algorithmic it's "Facebook isn't policing content enough and making it too easy for fake outlets to manipulate the public."

I'm certain that when they follow up by cranking up machine learning to censor fake content it will be "algorithms don't stop everything fake and sometimes block real things, thus manipulating the public."

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#44

Post by blusterXY »

refulgentis wrote: post #36
blusterXY wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Clinton Foundation is known to have directly misappropriated government donations. Donors to the organization also seem to have received preferential treatment from the State Department: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-chel... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/114379... Other major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti. If you need direct evidence of Hillary's…

I had to find the emails the first article references by myself because they didn't link to them. I was drawn to because the pull quotes sounded out of context, and they are. The emails referenced dont say nearly what the article claims, it's extremely unclear how they came to their conclusion. The second article you cite expressly avoids saying any preferential treatment was received, and notes the donation was unso…

This is hilarious. Bill Clinton's right-hand man accuses Chelsea of misappropriating Clinton Foundation resources to pressure her into stopping her investigation into the way he handled Foundation finances and you think his accusation is "out of context" and "extremely unclear". It is precisely the context of the emails that make it so clear.

> The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited.

And you apparently can't distinguish between a journalist reporting a fact ("Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules") and the same journalist attributing a claim to a third party (yes, the "claim" that the donation was unsolicited comes directly from the Clinton Foundation).

You can Google Uranium One for Russia and earthquake recovery contracts for Haiti if you really want to dig into the patterns of criminal behavior, but I wouldn't worry about it. The FBI is confirmed to have multiple ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation. And we know for a fact that Clinton intentionally deleted work-related emails after getting subpoenaed by Congress, which is two felonies right there (obstruction of an investigation, and destruction of evidence). So throw out the claims that these are "extraordinary claims" with "no sourcing"... it's highly suggestive evidence of corruption with documented attempts to obstruct investigative work that continues to justify extensive Federal investigations.

If I find the emails Hillary put through the shredder I will let you know. Fortunately, there is enough to put her in jail based on the materials that have already been leaked.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#45

Post by eggy »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #28
eggy wrote: post #26

Hold on. The NYT just admitted bias recently regarding their reporting on the election, and an opinion piece talks about 'Liberal Intolerance' in the NYT, but now FB is almost as culpable due to false stories? I still think there is a higher signal-to-noise ratio when there are many people able to debunk a piece on FB or other social media, than when a hardcopy, accepted as trusted source such as the NYT once was, po…

The fact that a lot of media didn't think Trump would win is unrelated to the fact that fake news is damaging to democracy. Just like fake science is damaging to scientists. Fake scientific articles are read, quoted and shared through the scientific community and it can take a long time to weed out. How many people still believe Obama is a muslim because they read it (repeatedly) on Facebook? I'm guessing millions.

FB is only a platform for social media, not the source of news stories, so I found it irking they were calling FB to task on this.

The NYT claims to be a news journal, a source of news, and then openly admits bias. Fact-checking seems to be in question too. Maybe not fake news, but wishful news at best.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#46

Post by refulgentis »

blusterXY wrote: post #44
refulgentis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to find the emails the first article references by myself because they didn't link to them. I was drawn to because the pull quotes sounded out of context, and they are. The emails referenced dont say nearly what the article claims, it's extremely unclear how they came to their conclusion. The second article you cite expressly avoids saying any preferential treatment was received, and notes the donation was unso…

This is hilarious. Bill Clinton's right-hand man accuses Chelsea of misappropriating Clinton Foundation resources to pressure her into stopping her investigation into the way he handled Foundation finances and you think his accusation is "out of context" and "extremely unclear". It is precisely the context of the emails that make it so clear. > The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited. And you appare…

You're iterating your talking points without explaining the previous state of them, so it's very tiring, so I have no interest in participating. None of my questions have been answered :( Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions because you feel it betrays sympathy for people who disagree with you, and it's bundled with even more extraordinary claims.

Before reading the following, please consider that I genuinely wish you well and think you're making an honest effort at staying out of ideological swamps. There's no need to feel that I'm judging you or your choice of sourcing, I'm only curious about this subject and genuinely want to learn more, so I'm trying to find more source material.

When no charges are bought after 4 years under a president and attorney general who have been thirsting to try her for anything, I hope you reconsider the fever swamp of information we've been discussing. These...news...sites contradict their own sources, and from the research I've done and the form of your answers, it seems impossible to find justification for their extraordinary claims.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Is in Denial

#47

Post by blusterXY »

refulgentis wrote: post #46
blusterXY wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is hilarious. Bill Clinton's right-hand man accuses Chelsea of misappropriating Clinton Foundation resources to pressure her into stopping her investigation into the way he handled Foundation finances and you think his accusation is "out of context" and "extremely unclear". It is precisely the context of the emails that make it so clear. > The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited. And you appare…

You're iterating your talking points without explaining the previous state of them, so it's very tiring, so I have no interest in participating. None of my questions have been answered :( Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions because you feel it betrays sympathy for people who disagree with you, and it's bundled with even more extraordinary claims. Before reading the following, please consider…

> Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions

Nope, my complaint is that you write-off Hillary's destruction of federal records, multiple active criminal investigations, and suspicious evidence of pay-to-play (in direct violation of her ethics agreement) as nothing warranting suspicion. And then accuse anyone who points out these flagrant breaches of public trust of being mired in a "fever swamp" and making "extraordinary claims" instead of factual observations.

It is certainly possible that Clinton is guilty of no further crimes than those which have already been revealed, although I wouldn't be money on it. With that said, I'm glad to hear you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into HRC and the Clinton Foundation, and view it as an exonerating step that will redeem Hillary's questionable political legacy.

Post reply on HN