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

The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

thedissenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 89 posts

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#61

Post by stephen_g »

notavalleyman wrote: post #17
_dain_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.

Maybe, but I am not including it in any of my articles, so it's not really on me to know everything about it. Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real , but only indicative and not necessarily factual. https://archive.ph/2fHH5

The dossier was real (as in it was written by who it said it was written by), it’s just that most of the content in it was sourced from people who were either lying or fed false information.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#62

Post by aww_dang »

notavalleyman wrote: post #29
aww_dang wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications. The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer. From this premise the sources become almost irrelev…

Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.

That is certainly one way of looking at it. The government confers reputability onto the press. If that is an appropriate role for the state in your view, you need not examine further.

Another perspective might observe that Pravda was similarly considered "legitimate enough" by the USSR.

Which of these best describes the information bubble you found yourself in at the top of the thread?

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#63

Post by sofixa »

dijit wrote: post #43
sofixa wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding 1, The Guardian, a UK based publication, was one of the main ones behind the Snowden interviews and reporting, so it seems to be a bogus claim.

I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threate…

The claim is

> It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice

The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#64

Post by pasabagi »

vkou wrote: post #52
pasabagi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. This is kind of interesting. To me, it seems convenient to the point of being totally unbelievable that the person who leaked evidence of US war crimes, who the US has been hounding for a decade now, is also dead-to-rights guilty of a charge that justifies the extradition they've been gunning for the whole time. Not being particularly e…

I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are. Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.

You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends.

What's wild to me is that so many people are OK with this. Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#65

Post by DeWilde »

sofixa wrote: post #63
dijit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threate…

The claim is > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.

Police raids are usually enough to dissuade most people. That might be the reason why they were ignored.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#67

Post by dijit »

sofixa wrote: post #63
dijit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do sincerely hope you're joking; the guardian got absolutely crucified by the british government at that time. Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information: https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden... That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threate…

The claim is > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.

> > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice

> The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.

a few things;

1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks.

2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage.

3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets.

4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#68

Post by dijit »

pasabagi wrote: post #64
vkou wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are. Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.

You don't believe, and in fact nobody believes, that the exclusive reason for charging Assange with the hacking charges is that he's a hacker. It's obvious to everybody that he is being charged because of legitimate political speech, and this was just what they felt they could 'get him for'. Whether or not he is guilty, that means that the legal system is being used for political ends. What's wild to me is that so ma…

> Politically motivated prosecution is not normal in a democracy.

Yeah, but he helped trump get elected so he doesn't deserve human rights.

(/s; but people are genuinely making this argument)

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#69

Post by me_me_me »

vkou wrote: post #52
pasabagi wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've read the allegations. If the allegations are true, he's guilty of hacking. This is kind of interesting. To me, it seems convenient to the point of being totally unbelievable that the person who leaked evidence of US war crimes, who the US has been hounding for a decade now, is also dead-to-rights guilty of a charge that justifies the extradition they've been gunning for the whole time. Not being particularly e…

I don't know if the allegations are true. I just think that they are very serious, if they are. Fortunately, we have a process, called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.

> called a trial, that can determine whether or not they are.

Oh sweet summer child, enjoy the bliss till it lasts. Once you open your eyes it will never come back.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#70

Post by bena »

xienze wrote: post #46
bena wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's real, it exists. But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out." It's a lot like the VAERS database. It doesn't prove anything on its own, but it can indicate things we should look into more closely. And that's how a lot of people treated it: These are things we should probably check out.

> But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out." “Hey, I heard a few things about Biden raping babies, you should check it out.” See how it might be important to use more than “raw intelligence” about “stuff you should probably check out” as the basis for an investigation and media witch hunt?

You check into things in accordance to the credibility of the person making the claims.

It would not take long to see that Biden doesn't rape babies. Hell, a lot of what was in the Dossier was not looked into because they just dismissed it out of hand.

This kind of casual dismissal and reductio ad absurdum you're engaging in is an attempt to distract from the very real crimes very real people were very really arrested for doing regarding things described in the document.

Post reply on HN