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

“How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

seymourhersh.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#811

Post by nullc »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #220
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that makes this distinct from much of said kindling is that it hasn't been reported on before. This isn't someone coming into an unrelated comment thread and commenting "9/11 was an inside job!" I would encourage any who disagree to consider truly why this reporting upsets them.

> it hasn't been reported on before Wasn't the U.S. being behind the bombing a leading alternative hypothesis when the news broke?

I was extremely mystified by a BBC world report on it a day after making no mention of the US but instead theorizing about russian sabotage.

It just seemed inexplicable to me at the time because of Biden's prior remarks. In that light I can't see how anyone wouldn't immediately assume the US didn't do it-- the US hadn't even denied it at the time!

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#812

Post by dang »

judahmeek wrote: post #739
htrgh wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If there's a lot of facts that discredit a narrative, then people simply stating those facts are not a part of a "concentrated effort". Your contrarian logic is going to take you down a very sorrowful & dimly lit path in life.

Please don't cross into personal attack, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#813

Post by dang »

boplicity wrote: post #694

I think I would be very skeptical that this was actually written by Seymour Hersh. This Substack was created today. There's no previous history on it. I can't find any credible evidence that this is actually Seymour Hersh. If it's not Seymour, it sure is very effective propoganda. Does anyone see any proof that this is indeed written by the claimed author?

If it weren't written by Hersh we'd have found out very quickly. By now it's surely clear that it was.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#814

Post by dang »

threeseed wrote: post #759
dang wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the first half and looked over the second half. Do you think I missed something that would change the moderation call here? If so, what?

a) You didn't read the article. b) You chose to override the will of this community who largely did read the article.

You didn't answer my question, so I will: there isn't anything in the second half of the article that would change the moderation call here.

You guys seem to be seizing on my saying I didn't read the whole article as if it were a horrifying gotcha. Let me try to disabuse you of that: it isn't necessary to read all of every article to make reasonable moderation calls, and that's lucky, because it would be physically impossible to do so. I can barely keep up with the titles.

I haven't overridden the will of the community because the community has no single will on this. It's divided along obvious political/tribal lines. It's not my job to align with any political or tribal view, including my own. The moderation principle on HN is simple and clear: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... Literally anyone with strong political views can expect to occasionally encounter something on HN that outrages them; if not, then we're doing a lousy job, because one thing's clear: intellectual curiosity ranges across political and tribal fences.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#815

Post by dang »

mzs wrote: post #664
dang wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read the first half and looked over the second half. Do you think I missed something that would change the moderation call here? If so, what?

factual errors: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34714741 But also just look at what happened here in the comments. It's totally predictable. Those of us that read the article and flagged the post had prevented this. In this case flagging had worked and was not abused.

Whatever factual errors that comment claims to have found, they're not material to the moderation call here, which is the question I was asking.

I don't think the comments were as disastrous as you suggest. It's true that the majority were negative, but not all—and in any case, it's important that HN's front page not just be a product of majoritarian sentiment. If it were, then we would clearly be failing the core principle of HN (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...).

Did I pick the right hill to die on at the hands of the majority? Maybe not, but (a) the sentiments would be the same if I had; and (b) we have to take some chances; if we don't, we fail for sure.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#816

Post by Haga »

marianatom wrote: post #711
boplicity wrote: post #694

I think I would be very skeptical that this was actually written by Seymour Hersh. This Substack was created today. There's no previous history on it. I can't find any credible evidence that this is actually Seymour Hersh. If it's not Seymour, it sure is very effective propoganda. Does anyone see any proof that this is indeed written by the claimed author?

The substack was created today, then Russian outlet Sputnik ran the story hours later. Then a hacker news account with pro CCP content submitted this substack. Why is this rubbish on top of hacker news?

[dead]

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#817

Post by dang »

davesque wrote: post #596

The fact that this story has been allowed to live on HN's front page for so long has really knocked my confidence in the forum and its moderators. I thought HN had taken an enlightened stance on avoiding juicy topics like this since they clearly lead to lots of useless speculation and uncritical thinking. They are a net drain on community health. This story does not belong on HN. I think I can say that even if it tur…

I agree with you a lot—let's say 80%—but there's a big difference between 80% and 100%, and experience has shown that it's impossible to operate the forum 100% this way.

In terms of how we handle the issue of political/divisive topics on HN, there are some pretty complete explanations here, if you (or anyone) are interested: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so.... If you read those and still have a question that isn't answered there, I'd like to know what it is and would be happy to take a crack at it. Here are a couple of good places to start:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22902490 (April 2020)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21607844 (Nov 2019)

People have a love/hate relationship with their favorite internet forums. If you (again, I don't mean you personally, I mean anyone here) aren't occasionally running into something you hate, then we're probably doing a bad job—we're either too predictable, or too narrow, or both. I think that follows from the core idea of this place, which is intellectual curiosity: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor.... It's quite amazing how many unexpected and interesting things follow from that principle, but maybe this isn't the moment to make that case.

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#818

Post by sampo »

sclarisse wrote: post #771
RajT88 wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one you'd never guess: Vanuatu It's the perfect crime

I lived next door to Tuvalu once, in New York City. Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River. We hung out with Vanatu once or twice. Doesn’t quite seem the type.

> Quiet little apartment building in Manhattan, west-facing views of the East River.

How can you view the East River if you're facing West?

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#819

Post by hanspeter »

xg15 wrote: post #576
0xDEF wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I find it extremely jarring how many reputable western media outlets immediately jumped to the conclusion that Russia did it Do you have proof to back up this claim? A more correct observation is that Western media didn't blame any single entity but has the attention span of a goldfish and forgot about this incident after a week or two.

I live in Germany and my proof is that a few days after the explosions, I could read/watch Spiegel, Tagesschau and other outlets quoting speculations about Russia as "expert opinions", while discussing speculations about the US only in context of "russian accusations". A Spiegel article from september 28, two days after the incident: https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nord-stream-spekulationen-ueb... It links to a Times…

All mainstream media in Denmark has been reporting "No proof of Russian sabotage on Nordstream" this week.

They're simply going for views and readers. The exciting story back in September was that Russia had sabotaged the pipeline. It was then more or less established that they probably did, so now the exciting story is that they might not have!

Re: “How America took out the Nord Stream pipeline”

#820

Post by hanspeter »

dmatech wrote: post #775
SergeAx wrote: post #762

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate how exactly it was obvious (that anyone in the West could be behind the attack)? What is a motivation for the West?

The most straightforward reasons would be: 1. Russia would get income from the pipeline, empowering their economy. 2. This sort of infrastructure would represent increased German dependence on Russia for their energy needs. 3. This would also tend to increase economic and diplomatic ties between Germany and Russia. Destroying the pipeline (even if it's not being used) could theoretically send the message that these i…

Invading Ukraine sent the message that relying on Russia for energy is unwise as well as unethical.

No country in the EU thinks it's a good idea to buy gas from Russia and it's going to end broken pipes or not.

There's really nothing to gain for the US from blowing up the pipe that couldn't easily be accomplished via conversations.

Post reply on HN