Live data from Hacker News

Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

digitalnewsasia.com

141–150 of 161 posts

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually really love to see this. Could you find the HTML working group thread or does it have to be a competition?

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Many on HN would like to show up tptacek. The lack of response speaks to the lack of evidence.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was just the start: http://vimeo.com/85948693 Now companies and big governments are analyzing network graphs in real time thanks to Facebook. They can test people's reaction on real time to anything. I don't believe that Apple's success is just about Advertisement, I use their products a lot because they are very good products. When I was a kid I did not have money so I bought all computer gear myself looking fo…

I hate Apple. I too used to use Gentoo, though it was far from my first Linux OS, and Linux was not my first Unix-like OS. I'll spare you the recounting of my entire computer-use history, except to say that I've used a wide variety of operating system over a period of decades, both as a user, sysadmin, and a developer. I've hated Windows since it was invented, and hated Microsoft before even then, back in the DOS day…

> I'm forced to use OS X at work.

I'm using Linux at work (or school -- PhD student here) and having only a non-root user account is a big pain for me. Package managers are unavailable, direct hardware access as well (I can't update my keyboard's programming, for instance), the software is old (debian stable) and you have to clash either with the administrators or have a shadow copy of each application you want to have up to date (emacs, Mono, and others).

Having root on my computer would solve a lot of those things (but the administrators are strongly against that). Still, I write this to stress that no OS is perfectly ready for power users (without root).

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#143
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often think your elequonce with the keyboard and Spock like logical argumentation sets people off by dropping 'cite bombs like debate star.

Especially when having no citations of his own. It's mainly used as a tool to deflect the debate into a meta-debate about citation qualities.

I like the attempt at innuendo that says I'll have a hard time finding unproductive HTML working group discussions.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would actually really love to see this. Could you find the HTML working group thread or does it have to be a competition?

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Actually, Tptacek is one of the regular users here whom I most strongly suspect is acting as a sockpuppet for NSA interests, or perhaps his own company's interests dovetail with the US intelligence community's so well he is acting out of self-interest.

It seems he makes an appearance in just about every thread where criticism of the US intelligence community is presented, and he seems to be staunchly in favor of everything the NSA has been doing.

I don't want to make wanton accusations, as it is very possible he truly believes in that for which he argues. But since the Snowden revelations, Tptacek is the one user in whom the NSA has a staunch, unwavering defender.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#145
post #119

This is more insidious than I think even most HN readers realize. In the intelligence community, the big black sheep people don't really talk about is psychological operations, or psyops, units. They are the same breed that used research from MK ULTRA style programs to learn how to deprogram humans (some claims on how to reprogram them), and part of that is a scientific analysis of mass social community discourse. Pr…

"Wonder why the fourth estate, aka journalism is in such a sad state of affairs? It's because the state has reached (quietly) so far into it that even the handful of real journalist are having a hard time." I'm sorry to tell you but it's the very nature of capitalism to consume everything in it's path. Corporations are authoritarian institutions. The idea that there ever existed some balanced press or balanced capita…

First of all, I would like to point out that when you say capitalism, it is a much more nuanced term than you seem to be inferring. Which kind of capitalism? Crony capitalism? What about Workers capitalism? A much different thing than the generic stereotypical capitalism you seem to be talking about. Why yes, of course, unbridled capitalism tends to swallow up more and more, sometimes exponentially and in a way that threatens the Constitution... which is exactly why, though the balance does not exist (and nor did it ever in the past, as you say, fully exist), but I see no logical reason to give up on the idea that we the people, under the power of just law, with a properly elected and sufficiently representative legislative of the people, could implement a balance heretofore unseen, prosperous for the American economy and it's people.

You seem to argue against points I never made. Yes, they have been "crushing the public", for quite some time. though, first of all, you need to define what you mean when you accuse someone of being some label. What exactly do you mean by "moderates" and "balancers". Do you mean to say there should be no balance with the accumulation of capital and the private hands that prosper because of it, with the number affected of such and the degree to which they hold uneven power over the surrounding less fortunate populace? Would you toss away all private profit and push a purely socialistic system? For that is what you seem to be advocating here.

As an aside, it is of note that there have been ebbs in flows in this power dynamic, and I would argue that the American System and FDR were the closest thing we have come to so far as a proper, pragmatically implemented and physically verifiable program that does not only exist in theory as you seem to argue such prosperity and balance does.

I am a USMC combat veteran of the Iraq war, of a long line of military men. I am very aware of Smedley Butler and admire him as one of the best Marines to have ever lived, and his writings are considered essential reading. I'm sure you are also aware of the Business Plot he helped thwart?

Perhaps I think I may have misunderstood you earlier. We both agree that unbridled capitalism is bad, due to it's destructive nature, yes? Ok then, it must be brought under a degree of control then. (The degree of which would be debatable.) How does one do that? Through the use of the state. It's the 3 branches of government that need to be involved in the righting of these wrongs, but the problem is that we have allowed the same entities behind the supposedly failed Business Plot to just go dark and perform the coup more silently and in particular through the very business of capitalism and finance itself! When these items are properly governed for the good of the people they can be used as a force for good, and in unknown shadowy hands they can be used for bad.

I see no proposals of your own, though I eagerly await them. Mine would be based upon the Constitution. I'm not sure I fully comprehend your stance due to your ambiguity, but just be aware that anything unconstitutional should a priori be discarded.

P.S. Just because something is broken doesn't mean it should be tossed in the trash. Many things can stand repair, and I think our Constitutional Democratic Republic is one of them.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#146
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fascinating thing is, you can't stop the ads on HN from the big big players, because it's effectively accounted as being real news. Zuckerberg held the second public Q&A session the other day, that promised him some news. Then there was that article about a woman engineer at Facebook, the story appeals very appropriately to current events and the emotional zeitgeist of the tech industry, and there was that whole…

Here's a fun article about facebook's postmodern propaganda: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html Part 2: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/03/who_can_know_how_much... Note: one may well disagree with some of the things he says. Try not to freak out.

Can you provide some quantitative studies to support these "blog" articles?

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#147
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good influence won't simply be support for/against, but deflecting each viewpoint into a framework that upholds the status quo (making it impotent) and causing infighting between people who would otherwise find common ground. The NSA doesn't influence standards by sockpuppeting "no crypto". They concern troll to add endless complexity, making implementations buggier and rarer. In the HN NSA threads, the easiest examp…

So, you should be able to provide an example of an NSA thread on HN where a sockpuppet diverted the conversation to infighting between people otherwise sharing common ground. I don't think standards groups need a lot of help concern-trolling complexity into standards. The exact same force is exerted on more benign standards; watch HTML for example. Here's a rebuttal framework: select a NIST crypto standard and show a…

I'm certainly not saying these behaviors are only due to conspiracy, as your response seems to be addressing. What I am saying is that the most effective and stealthy way of steering and disrupting conversation is to encourage these natural behaviors, and simultaneously calling out the organic infighting. Your previous assertion that discourse control would manifest as simple for/against is itself a straw man.

I'll own that my comment is a handywavy journey of rough assumptions, not an open and shut logical course. This is the case with any heuristic, and it's necessary navigate the unknowable (without waiting decades to get lucky for a leak to reveal specifics, at which point the method is ancient history anyway).

The way I see it, in 2014 the onus of proof is on someone who wishes to assert that discussions aren't being manipulated - if not by USG "itself", then by private companies looking out for their own interests. The only mechanism that would prevent corporate self-interest from evolving to this is individuals' morals, and given what we know about moral plasticity I don't see how that's any more than wishful thinking.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Actually, Tptacek is one of the regular users here whom I most strongly suspect is acting as a sockpuppet for NSA interests, or perhaps his own company's interests dovetail with the US intelligence community's so well he is acting out of self-interest. It seems he makes an appearance in just about every thread where criticism of the US intelligence community is presented, and he seems to be staunchly in favor of ever…

IIRC, tptacek just has a more nuanced position wrt NSA spying. It just often comes across as towing the Party line.

But that's certainly no reason to call him a sockpuppet. Frankly, if you think HN is pwned so hard that the highest-karma account is a sock puppet, why would you even bother? Maybe this whole board is just one giant programmatic timesink meant to waste your time and discourage you from doing something.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8745912

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt he will respond to you. It's a pretty classic tactic to request citation from someone you know isn't prepared to offer it in order to defuse an argument. He doesn't have to offer citation, he only has to stop his opponent from appearing knowledgeable. he doesn't need to be right, he only needs to make the other guy look wrong.

Actually, Tptacek is one of the regular users here whom I most strongly suspect is acting as a sockpuppet for NSA interests, or perhaps his own company's interests dovetail with the US intelligence community's so well he is acting out of self-interest. It seems he makes an appearance in just about every thread where criticism of the US intelligence community is presented, and he seems to be staunchly in favor of ever…

Yeah, but that's fine. Tptacek is not a sock-puppet, exactly because he's one guy with strong views. Yes, he has a lot of power here, and uses it to shape the discussion, but that's what we want! If we decide we don't like what he's doing, we can down-vote him to oblivion, or just ignore him.

The problem is when one person has 1500 accounts, and just uses them to direct the discussion, without actually contributing to it.

Re: Censorship 2.0: Shadowy forces controlling online conversations

#150
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

+1; there are also lots of other marginalized groups of people who stand to lose something if aliases cannot be used. Edit: for example: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/faceboo...

Larger and more concise list: Who is harmed by a "Real Names" policy? http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22Rea...

Yes but this comes from Geek Feminism wiki, so you have to read it as such:

Someone I like is forced to not be anonymous: oppression. Someone I dislike is forced to not be anonymous: justice.

Post reply on HN