151–160 of 180 posts
(Warning: controversial and conspiratorial opinion; fake news if you will) I used to think Zuckerberg's pandering to the Chinese government was a power grab, an expansionist desire. Now I think it's a hedge strategy. He knows he's not very welcome in some of the circles he's been in for the past few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes people who scrutinize things fail to see it from the working class's perspective (the "poorly educated" be they white or black, or something else.) I think there are quite a few people on HN who never hung out with poor people or never paid attention to how they may think, in some situations. If their "horse" wins, whatever the means, they're glad it wins. Case in point is O.J. Everyone knew he got away wit…
Your assertion that the poorly-educated/working-class don't care about integrity is incredibly condescending and ignorant.
It's fascinating that widespread outrage over privacy finally materializes when data is used for hated political causes. Commerce, law enforcement not so much... but "Trump" or "Obama" and suddenly people care.
The Facebook outrage is interesting since it is tied to Trump. When Obama did it, no one cared. For example, there's a video of Jim Messina, Obama's 2012 campaign manager, talking about how they obtained the entire Facebook social graph and used it to target voters. [1] I don't remember any "delete Facebook" campaigns back then. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZmcyHpG31A
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-th...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your assertion that the poorly-educated/working-class don't care about integrity is incredibly condescending and ignorant.
Explain Deflategate and the OJ trial reactions. I also grew up with them. It's not condescending, it's been observational. I didn't claim it's universal or it's like that for everything in their lives, but if one of their horses cheats a bit, gets away with something, it's not the end of the world.
The loudest and most attention-grabbing voices are generally the least thoughtful. The reasonable voices tend to go unnoticed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Explain Deflategate and the OJ trial reactions. I also grew up with them. It's not condescending, it's been observational. I didn't claim it's universal or it's like that for everything in their lives, but if one of their horses cheats a bit, gets away with something, it's not the end of the world.
> Explain Deflategate and the OJ trial reactions. The loudest and most attention-grabbing voices are generally the least thoughtful. The reasonable voices tend to go unnoticed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://ijr.com/ijr-red/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-di... You have a former Obama campaign staffer saying that what they did raised alarms with Facebook. Hence, what they were doing was not OK by someone’s standard. Plus, the intent of the app is irrelevant. By using it you authorized it to get information on everyone in your friend list, something they’ve since disabled for, wait for it, privacy reasons becaus…
IJR is an extremely biased source
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody ever did what Trump, Cambridge Analytica (Mercers/Bannon), Russia, Wikileaks/Assange Wait, how did Russia, Assange and Trump coordinate? I keep hearing people talk about it, never seen any clear explanation.
Russian hacked the DNC and Podesta. They coordinated on the content and messaging around cherry picked emails with the Trump campaign, and they were released through Wikileaks as an intermediary. The hacking part is me just repeating the assessment of DHS and CIA, per congressional briefings. The coordination is my suspicion based on known interactions with high level Trump campaign surrogates (Trump Jr, Stone) and A…
Is that Comey's hearing? I remember listening to that. He believed that Russians hacked the DNC but he has not seen any evidence of it and he (the FBI) had no access to the servers. He says it comes from believing Crowdstrike. It seems the only solid peace of evidence comes from this one company.
Crowdstrike has made up stuff before. In their report about the war in Ukraine they published a made up number about the losses of artillery units. The Ukrainians publicly called them out on it http://www.mil.gov.ua/news/2017/01/06/informacziya-po-vtrati... and they were forced to update their report https://www.crowdstrike.com/resources/reports/idc-vendor-pro... They put more effort into the zombie soldier from the front page than the content of the report itself. Given the thousands and thousand of hours and all the pages and books written on this topic, they'd be a lot more evidence than just the Crowdstrike's report.
> they were released through Wikileaks as an intermediary.
Assange denies they came from the Russians or a state actor. He could be lying, Hillary certainly wanted to "drone that guy". But as an organization, if he was speaking on behalf of Wikileaks, they have been pretty factual. They obviously pick what they report on but once they say something I have not seen them blatantly lying.
> https://www.factcheck.org/2018/02/words-trump-russian-meddli...
Thanks for the link! The first part is saw is point out how Trump is contradicting himself. There is a whole sub-reddit (trump vs trump I think) and is basically just that. He is saying contradictory thing about anything, I don't see that as proof of collusion.
The timeline re-iterates that the evidence came from Crowdstrike. I'd hope there'd be more evidence than that. Maybe let DHS should take a look those machines. They should be able to find someone interested enough to investigate that. Wonder why they didn't / won't do it
I see what you mean by Trump Jr. coordinating with Assange on tweeting a about emails and how Assange wanted Jr to "leak" a tax report from Trump. Yeah that does look shady, agreed.
One thing I still don't see is Russians colluding with Trump compared to the volume of news and articles convinced of it: "he looked at him at the G20 summit", "he congratulated him on a bogus election", "he acts like he is subservient to him", "they have a piss tape". Those are fun to listen to and pretty effective, certainly keep people clicking and retweeting, but there needs to be something more solid there I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Facebook outrage is interesting since it is tied to Trump. When Obama did it, no one cared. For example, there's a video of Jim Messina, Obama's 2012 campaign manager, talking about how they obtained the entire Facebook social graph and used it to target voters. [1] I don't remember any "delete Facebook" campaigns back then. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZmcyHpG31A
Please stop spreading the "Obama did it too!" canard, they didn't exceed authorization.