Live data from Hacker News

Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

taibbi.substack.com

221–227 of 227 posts

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#221
post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've broken more than one of the site guidelines in this thread, particularly the ones that ask you not to insinuate astroturfing and not to go further into flamewar. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and abstain from doing these things here, hard though that can be. The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is o…

> Please review... Sure. Will have a look at the guidelines and appreciate the pointer, as well as the job you have to do. > The internet reflex where people assume that only trolls, bots, or shills can explain something they dislike online, is off topic here. It has also become so self-parodically common that one can only hope it will jump the shark soon. But, I don't appreciate the additional editorializing and don…

I have spent many hours looking at this. From the data I've seen, there's zero evidence to back up the accusations of political astroturfing, shilling, and spying that users make against each other on HN, and plenty of evidence against it [1]. The only actual observable pattern is users posting comments that disagree with one another. Anything beyond that is an interpretation. I have not seen any data to support those interpretations [2].

When it comes to users accusing each other of astroturfing, shilling, spying, and so on, the only conclusion that fits the data is that people are imagining things. In reality, the community is simply divided and users have opposing views. Unfortunately, when my view is sufficiently obnoxious to your side or vice versa, the assumption of good faith evaporates and people reach for more sinister explanations. We can speculate about why, but it's clear that users are projecting those sinister explanations onto fellow users. The more divisive the topic, the more opposed people's views become and the more harshly they express them, leading to more projection, accusation, and division. A vicious loop.

This is especially toxic to HN because HN is a single community where everybody sees the same threads. Here you are more likely to run into views that you strongly dislike than you are on sites where communities partition into like-minded factions. Even when discussions on HN are more thoughtful than these other places, the fact that you're part of one big group—everybody, instead of mostly your own tribe—makes them feel less so.

When people post aggressive remarks to HN, they're not just bonding with their own tribe, they're simultaneously broadcasting to the other side, who take the harshness like a punch. All sides do this, so all sides feel punched. This is painful and one can't help but react internally. I believe that the accusatory reactions are self-protective. If you're a spy or a shill, that explains whatever you say and I needn't give it any credence. Unfortunately, these defensive reactions are also offensive ones, so we get an escalatory cycle. If HN is to avoid being ripped apart, we need a rule against such accusations. Therefore we do have such a rule.

1. There are other contexts on HN where we do find manipulation: usually startups or projects trying to promote themselves, but occasionally also more sophisticated astroturfing that appears to involve larger companies.

2. More on this at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19403438. For a specific example, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19404162.

p.s. I'm sorry that felt like I was targeting you specifically. My intention was only to say something about a general phenomenon which I've written about many times already: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because you're literally pulling a conclusion out of thin air to claim there's something of a trump related "Russia problem". It's not a bot conspiracy - that's lazy propaganda that's been spoon fed to people who dislike trump. There are just a lot of people on HN who see through it, and it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots.

> There are just a lot of people on HN who see through it I have seen zero reputable people on HN expressing anything that supports this assertion. > it's telling that rather than discuss the possibility that trump is clean, you just call them trolls and bots. Discuss with whom? The "people" who just downvote anything perceived to be anti-Trump or anti-Russia? That's the point. This isn't the first time that pattern…

There can be Russian bots and they not be connected to trump. The fact that you don't understand that is exactly what I'm referring to.

He's clean. There's literally no evidence he's not. Muellers report is done and after the Intel agencies working for nearly 3 years - they got nothing.

It's probably hard for you to see, but you're literally doing the thing you're frantically and emphatically complaining is happening on the right.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you cite something that verifies your claim, you're just making things up.

I...literally linked the news reports of the indictments which link to the indictments themselves.

An indictment isn't proof of anything you said. Please look up what an indictment means. Also - muellers report is out and trump is clean. So clearly you're wrong. After 3 years its time to man up and accept that.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because to have collusion you need to have multiple parties colluding. They haven't indicted anymore Russians or any other members of the Trump campaign, and no existing indictment has been due to collusion. So even though the President can't be indicted, the indication that no other indictments means that collusion is not a part of the report. There may be other offenses that Trump have committed, but that is even M…

> and no existing indictment has been due to collusion. The Pappadopolous indictment and conviction-by-guilty-plea was for (lying about) Trump-campaign initiated attempted collusion, in which Pappadopolous acted with the knowledge and approval of higher officials in the Trump campaign. The Stone indictment is for (lying about) collusion with WikiLeaks on the release of information that, per other indictments, was bei…

Pappadopolous was the victim of a con. He went to a couple of campaign staff meetings, so he was "on the campaign staff". Then some DS tool whispered something inconsequential in his ear. He got in trouble when he re-whispered that silly rumor in the ear of some other DS tool. That's all that happened. If he had a decent lawyer or any stones at all, he would never have plead guilty nor been convicted of anything.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#226
post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough, I removed the unneeded sentence.

"Lol, you just yelled strawmen over and over and called my comment propaganda without furthering your point at all." is also unneeded.

That's your opinion. I think it was needed, and it wasn't a personal attack.

Re: Russiagate is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media

#227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems ill-fitting to say the Washington Post, NYT, and Huffington Post are 'conservative', perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that they're entrenched in the status quo? You can see that pretty clearly when there newspapers write about companies that compete for attention. I don't think I've seen a favorable report about FAANGs out of the NYT since Tim Cook came out of the closet.

Huffington Post pretends to be very socially liberal, but really it's all about preserving the status quo which is ultimately a conservative position. Also have you read any of those New York Times "editorial" pieces they crank out? "Trump isn't so bad" and "Why I voted Trump and I'd do it again, gosh darn it, and you should too" are typical fare. The term "conservative" has shifted dramatically in the last 50 years.…

The conservative position is probably closer to a call to return old ways, it's not that wed to the status quo.
Post reply on HN