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

Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#101

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jessaustin wrote: post #96
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I yearn for the Obama days when this and Beghasi were the biggest scandals that anyone could come up with. Now it’s collusion, financial opacity in business dealings, sex with playmates, etc... it really is too much.

I thought it was kind of scandalous that Guantanamo never closed, contrary to campaign promises...

Isn't "not keeping campaign promises" in a different league from "not using email correctly", which in turn is in a different league from colluding with Russia and using government office for personal gain?

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#102

Post by darepublic »

cmac2992 wrote: post #100
jklinger410 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. I am really tired of this twisted version of the relative privation fallacy. Trump is worse != Hillary was good Her email situation was, in fact, an issue. Worse than Trump? Absolutely not. But even in context it doesn't belong in "as if that were somehow important" territory. Under normal circumstances (had she been elected) we'd probabl…

We are still talking about it and she wasn't even elected. The emails should definitely have been a scandal. Being the leading story for a few weeks seems reasonable, but its being treated as a massive, important scandal years later.

How is it being treated as a massive important scandal? I can dig up mainstream articles that denounce the importance placed on it. Can you point me to a mainstream article of any recent origin that makes a big deal out of it?

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#103

Post by jerf »

jonny_eh wrote: post #67
jerf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an accurate summation: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 "The entire social graph" did not agree to be used by the Obama campaign. What the Obama campaign did was worse that what CA could have done because by the time CA rolled around the API holes had been closed. (As I said yesterday, CA was deceptive and the Obama campaign wasn't, sure, because the Obama campaign didn't have to ask at all .…

CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules.

Not violating rules because there were no rules is also not an impressive defense. Plus, again, I'd say reading the first-hand source I linked shows that yes, they knew they were doing something skeevy.

You would not approve if Trump did the exact same thing. That is not a question, because it doesn't need to be, and please don't insult anybody's intelligence by trying to claim otherwise. Either apply the standards evenly, or don't be shocked when the world turns on Silicon Valley for its unwillingness to apply the standards evenly.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#104

Post by ordinaryradical »

ixtli wrote: post #17
WallWextra wrote: post #15

Here is, roughly, the media's playbook: 1. Never stop talking about Trump. Mention his name 300 times an hour on CNN. He's not a serious candidate, but he is entertaining so they give him free publicity until he is a serious candidate. 2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. 3. Now Trump is elected. In these tough times, it is more important than ever to support high-quality ind…

I realize that this is tangential to what you're talking about but your comment reminded me of it strongly: As much as it's clear that there was some funny business with trump's people and russia, the way liberals are salivating over mueller's investigation makes me uncomfortable. they need the legal system to pronounce in some way that trump and his people broke the rules, in order to avoid acknowledging that the ge…

I find it strange you’re made uncomfortable by this as opposed to a president privately profiting off the White House, actively courting a foreign power for his own gain in the election, empowering his own family like banana republic dictator, wantonly obstructing the investigation like a petty child, and being surrounded by incompetents and shady characters who keep dropping like flies for actually breaking the law and getting caught for it.

If this were Nixon, wouldn’t it be an appropriate response to hope that all involved were caught?

If wanting to see this kind of criminality be ended is “salivating” call me Mr. Drooly.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#105

Post by KirinDave »

jklinger410 wrote: post #95
WallWextra wrote: post #15

Here is, roughly, the media's playbook: 1. Never stop talking about Trump. Mention his name 300 times an hour on CNN. He's not a serious candidate, but he is entertaining so they give him free publicity until he is a serious candidate. 2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. 3. Now Trump is elected. In these tough times, it is more important than ever to support high-quality ind…

>2. Start blathering about Hillary's emails, as if that were somehow important. I am really tired of this twisted version of the relative privation fallacy. Trump is worse != Hillary was good Her email situation was, in fact, an issue. Worse than Trump? Absolutely not. But even in context it doesn't belong in "as if that were somehow important" territory. Under normal circumstances (had she been elected) we'd probabl…

If her emails were such an issue why have multiple members of the Trump Cabinet and House and Senate members been found to do the same thing and continue to do the same thing. Objectively: voters don't care.

Mentioning it at this point is sheer deflection. If you need a go-to example, pick someone in power like Kushner or Pence.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#106

Post by jessaustin »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #101
jessaustin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought it was kind of scandalous that Guantanamo never closed, contrary to campaign promises...

Isn't "not keeping campaign promises" in a different league from "not using email correctly", which in turn is in a different league from colluding with Russia and using government office for personal gain?

Certainly. The first scandal was easy for voters to see: closing Gitmo was kind of Obama's thing, from the very beginning of the primaries. The second scandal required a fair amount of investigation, but that investigation was fairly legible to voters. The third requires voters to believe what they're told by unnamed sources: thus far no one will go on the record with any proof of anything. The fourth should be easy to see, so I look forward to hearing more about it. I would love to see a precedent set that corruption leads to impeachment; I'm not holding my breath.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#107

Post by cmac2992 »

darepublic wrote: post #102
cmac2992 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are still talking about it and she wasn't even elected. The emails should definitely have been a scandal. Being the leading story for a few weeks seems reasonable, but its being treated as a massive, important scandal years later.

How is it being treated as a massive important scandal? I can dig up mainstream articles that denounce the importance placed on it. Can you point me to a mainstream article of any recent origin that makes a big deal out of it?

Flip on fox. someone mentions it basically everyday. Fox is the most watched cable news channel.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#108

Post by KirinDave »

This article is amazing to me. You've literally got the e staff and c suite on camera talking about voter manipulation, compromising politicians with human trafficking victims, revealing that state governments were cooperating with Trump's media org directly, all while using a service that not only failed to put adequate controls on how partners used data but also provided services which are illegal when used for elections under the letter of the law.

But no, she implies, this mass panic is unjustified. After all, something something Hilary Clinton. Something something information society. There is nothing we can do because we can and should be powerless to regulate companies.

What an awful opinion piece.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#109

Post by KirinDave »

jonny_eh wrote: post #67
jerf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not an accurate summation: https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975565844632821760 "The entire social graph" did not agree to be used by the Obama campaign. What the Obama campaign did was worse that what CA could have done because by the time CA rolled around the API holes had been closed. (As I said yesterday, CA was deceptive and the Obama campaign wasn't, sure, because the Obama campaign didn't have to ask at all .…

CA used data that was collected for research purposes only. OfA didn't violate any rules.

Facebook suggests that CA did in fact "violate rules."

But then CA got caught in a video sting talking about illegal and frankly horrifying tactics to compromise elections globally by attacking and comprimising politicians.

Re: Facebook is America’s scapegoat du jour

#110

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jessaustin wrote: post #106
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't "not keeping campaign promises" in a different league from "not using email correctly", which in turn is in a different league from colluding with Russia and using government office for personal gain?

Certainly. The first scandal was easy for voters to see: closing Gitmo was kind of Obama's thing, from the very beginning of the primaries. The second scandal required a fair amount of investigation, but that investigation was fairly legible to voters. The third requires voters to believe what they're told by unnamed sources: thus far no one will go on the record with any proof of anything. The fourth should be easy…

> The first scandal was easy for voters to see: closing Gitmo was kind of Obama's thing, from the very beginning of the primaries.

Campaign promises are usually seen as best effort. Are we still waiting for Mexico to pay for that wall?

> The second scandal required a fair amount of investigation, but that investigation was fairly legible to voters.

Yes, it is very straight forward and the FBI went over it multiple times, to the point that Comey had to be extra diligent in reporting the investigation's progress to avoid a tinge of bias in the FBI.

> The third requires voters to believe what they're told by unnamed sources:

There has been plenty of "coincidences" thus presented so far. I for one would apply Hanlon's razor: Trump and his advisers were just being very stupid and don't think any malice was involved, though breaking the law is breaking the law regardless (see their opinion on stupidity and Hillary's emails). Besides, thou dost protest too much, so maybe there is more to this than we can see right now.

I don't think any of this leads to impeachment, which really isn't in anyone's interests anyways (Pence?). Instead, Trump will be a two year lame duck after the midterms with little public support left.

Post reply on HN