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

Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 269 posts

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#111

Post by throwawayq3423 »

iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #69
throwawayq3423 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Edward Snowden had stolen the most sensitive classified secrets from The United States Intelligence Community and Donald Trump is looking to squash dissent of his attempts to nullify the Constitution and establish a dictatorship. I get what you're saying, but please have some perspective. the two things are not even remotely similar.

Friend, if you followed Snowden's saga at all, you would know that those events don't need to be similar to be relevant to the discussion at hand. In other words, just because you have a problem with Trump, does not mean the two issues are not connected.

Who was imprisoned for their speech against the US president by Obama and how did Snowden stop that?

Because that is exactly what we're talking about here. And if you don't have a like-for-like comparison, then we have nothing to discuss.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#112

Post by mindslight »

GaryBluto wrote: post #70
throwawayq3423 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good faith by the federal government can no longer be assumed. Donald Trump's real legacy is not any single action, but a complete inversion of trust of the US government by its citizens. And the world.

[flagged]

I lost faith that the government would respect my right to privacy with Binney, Klein, and Snowden. I then lost faith that the government wouldn't go out of its way to openly attack and subjugate me with Turmp. A pattern of escalation is still escalation.

But to anybody only just waking up to this unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex now: Welcome! While I wish you had been with us after Snowden, I am glad you are here now.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#113

Post by deaux »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #87
GaryBluto wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Wrong. Stop both sides-ing this. What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans: Nixon, Regan, Bush, and now Trump.

Wrong. Stop being so brainwashed by party politics.

Corporate dems - which are all of them in the last two decades - doing little for the average citizen, protecting megacorps, accelerating wealth concentration, protecting the billionaires, have also played a big role in maling the average citizen distrust their government.

Do you really think not a single one of them knew about the Epstein files? You can't be taken seriously if you do. And if you don't, their participation in keeping it hidden too builds distrust, even if 20 times more reps were involved. The dem candidate of only 10 years ago must have known. The chance she didn't is so small.

Snowden's revelations built distrust. Everything he revealed was absolutely "both sides". You can say "one side has been much worse", and sure, that's fair. But pretending that the other has been squeaky clean and that their own actions haven't played a huge role in the current situation is just sticking your hand in the sand.

People are tired of having to choose between "awful A" and "even worse B". If the dems stopped nominating "awful A" and replaced then with "decent A" then it'd be a landslide. But they won't. They haven't changed one bit. Mamdani, finally an example of "decent A", was hindered. They didn't want to see him win at all, and only started cheering for him when he finally did. By a huge margin, because he's a "decent A".

Until this changes, until the day that decent candidates of Mamdani are universally cheered on and given the full first choice backing by that party, not a single thing will get better, and it will only get worse, because it means the inevitable next rep winner will be even worse.

I'm not sure how you got this mindset, but it's not great, and I'm sure deep down you're smarter than this. These aren't football teams to cheer for.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#114

Post by malcolmgreaves »

GaryBluto wrote: post #36
KnuthIsGod wrote: post #6

How long before they come for Hacker News ? Folks, it is now time to delete anything you posted here that might be construed as remotely critical of ICE or Trump. A court order will not help you if ICE have already shot you dead.

I hope that this is hyperbolic satire and not a genuine viewpoint because it is incredibly unrealistic to the point of being almost fantastical. The US government aren't going to "go after" or interfere with Hacker News at any time in the future unless it suddenly, inexplicably becomes a popular hotbed of political activism (which it shouldn't become anyway).

Wrong. They are kidnapping American citizens and exiling them. They’re imprisoning people that criticize the government.

It’s a totalitarian regime. With enough time, will come after all dissenters.

> popular hotbed of political activism

First, it is unbelievably illegal for the government to do this.

Second, pain is their objective. Republicans have had no principles since they elected Trump in 2016. Their only objective is to hurt whomever they consider the enemy.

And everyone that isn’t screaming “I love the orange dictator!” is an enemy.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#115

Post by charcircuit »

softwaredoug wrote: post #68
giancarlostoro wrote: post #54

I'm old enough to remember that time the Obama administration requested Edward Snowdens private SSL keys from Lavabit, because it would have opened up every email from every single user. So the owner nuked everything and was held in contempt of court. He was forbidden from talking about it for months too. Don't give too much unprecedented power to the government. It doesn't matter who the president is. They've all do…

One difference, this was in response to an actual search warrant granted by a judge. What DHS is doing are administrative warrants, with no judicial overview (unless you sue to stop them).

[flagged]

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#116

Post by zaptheimpaler »

AngryNPC wrote: post #90
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This guy gets it, and isn't falling for the distractions. Also, what is going on with this thread? Everyone here sounds like they're from Reddit, which has one of the most hysterical and heavily-propagandized userbases in existence. One person here even said that Reddit is "free from MAGA influences". Like lol, Reddit is nothing but bot accounts and activist moderators who will insta-ban you for wrong-think. The whol…

HN has taken a very sharp turn over the past 2-3 years. Putting aside politics, they are reflexively cynical, misinformed and confident in their ignorance even about technology. Missing the boat on AI as well for years as its evolved from cool chatbot that hallucinates to can write serious code with few errors and solve unsolved research problems with some assistance.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#117

Post by throwaway173738 »

GaryBluto wrote: post #105
malcolmgreaves wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Stop both sides-ing this. What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans: Nixon, Regan, Bush, and now Trump.

The concept of "both-sidesism" is a thought-terminating cliché that attempts to be a more reasonable sounding way of saying that one side is holy and the other is sinful that was invented on social media platforms for propaganda purposes. > What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the l…

No, it’s an attempt to weigh the actions of either side in aggregate. What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I’ve seen numerous examples of one group acting well-meaning and sincere, and numerous examples of the other group taking advantage and sewing chaos. If you think they’re both the same you’re either not paying attention to everything or you only care about a very few things. Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#118

Post by iugtmkbdfil834 »

throwawayq3423 wrote: post #111
iugtmkbdfil834 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friend, if you followed Snowden's saga at all, you would know that those events don't need to be similar to be relevant to the discussion at hand. In other words, just because you have a problem with Trump, does not mean the two issues are not connected.

Who was imprisoned for their speech against the US president by Obama and how did Snowden stop that? Because that is exactly what we're talking about here. And if you don't have a like-for-like comparison, then we have nothing to discuss.

If you think for a moment of arguing that throwing people in jail is the only way to impede someone's liberty, you are in for a world of a surprise.

Re: Homeland Security Wants Social Media Sites to Expose Anti-ICE Accounts

#120

Post by Gud »

charcircuit wrote: post #115
softwaredoug wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One difference, this was in response to an actual search warrant granted by a judge. What DHS is doing are administrative warrants, with no judicial overview (unless you sue to stop them).

[flagged]

No they aren’t.
Post reply on HN