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

No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

abc7news.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 42 posts

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#31

Post by sneak »

sfilargi wrote: post #22
sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake bomb threats, regardless of how you feel about them, are not violence unless they are accompanied by a demand or seek to compel in some way. TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.

Under law or according to your opinion?

Neither; by definition. Violence must involve physical force or action, or threat. Sometimes it can be extended to the realm of coercion without use of actual force, through threat of same.

A fake bomb threat where there is no real physical danger, and that threat is not being used to coerce or compel someone, simply isn’t a violent act.

You could make the argument that they are being coerced into leaving the building/stopping work, which would be a valid criticism of my viewpoint, but that is a stretch itself, on top of the already stretched definition of the term.

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#32

Post by sneak »

dymk wrote: post #29
sneak wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. Perhaps you could explain t…

Hey @dang / mod team, I can't flag this post for some reason. Could you take a look at this post, which advocates for bomb threats against companies he doesn't like?

There is a difference between expressing a positive opinion in a discussion forum for an action already taken by someone and advocating for others to undertake new actions in the future.

I encourage you to re-read what I wrote, because you have conflated the former with the latter, and made a false statement as a result of your confusion. I have advocated for nothing.

(Additionally, your call to the mods to hinder others from reading my words that you “don’t like” has some parallels to the very thing you condemn, if you choose to see them.)

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#33

Post by dang »

sneak wrote: post #20
King-Aaron wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, that's pretty scary to see someone go to that extent of planning. This is our peers that are being targeted for violence over the general state of the technology industry.

Fake bomb threats, regardless of how you feel about them, are not violence unless they are accompanied by a demand or seek to compel in some way. TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.

Would you please stop posting trollish comments to HN? It just leads to boring flamewars.

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

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#34

Post by sneak »

Puer wrote: post #28
sneak wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. Perhaps you could explain t…

> Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. > I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. This is one of the most…

Consider the case in which an employee sees what they think is an explosive device and alerts authorities and the building is evacuated, but it turns out that they are mistaken. Is that a violent act?

The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa.

I did not call it a protest or a form of protest.

I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of course (enabling racial discrimination, connecting hate groups, simplifying election interference, easing human trafficking, et c), which make the entire human society worse, are no more or less violent than someone making a fake bomb threat, which makes the facebook campus worse.

In both cases the action can be reduced to “sending some IP packets out of the building”.

If one is violent, then the other is as well.

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#35

Post by sneak »

dang wrote: post #33
sneak wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake bomb threats, regardless of how you feel about them, are not violence unless they are accompanied by a demand or seek to compel in some way. TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.

Would you please stop posting trollish comments to HN? It just leads to boring flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I did not intend to troll anyone; my comment was sincere.

I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that.

I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is another person’s “trollish”.)

(Note that I think moderating such on-topic discussion harms the overall range of thought on HN, but it’s your site and your rules and I endeavor to obey them. I am sorry for taking up your time.)

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#37

Post by latchkey »

joe_the_user wrote: post #24
anaccountwow wrote: post #7

At the same time, somebody blocked off the main road with a truck. https://i.imgur.com/IvmuPl3.jpg

Google tells me that truck is associated with an existing campaign against Facebook by vpn.com. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/04/09/1466758/0/... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22deletefacebook%22+%22truc...

Seems like they would be the first people to contact about a bomb threat then.

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#38

Post by Puer »

sneak wrote: post #34
Puer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described. > I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner. This is one of the most…

Consider the case in which an employee sees what they think is an explosive device and alerts authorities and the building is evacuated, but it turns out that they are mistaken. Is that a violent act? The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa. I did not call it a protest or a form of protest. I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of c…

We can't know the full details of this particular case because nothing seems to have been independently verified yet, but there's a distinction between

1) Someone finding a suspicious package and falsely thinking it's a bomb, and

2) Someone calling the police and saying, "I'm going to bomb Facebook" (when they actually aren't)

All of your arguments thus far have pertained to 2. You have repeatedly cited the definition of "threat" underneath that context, and scenario 2 perfectly satisfies that definition. Furthermore, so does "terrorism", because a bomb threat, real or not, causes terror and has high potential for real physical harm.

Under your definition, someone threatening to shoot you in the street wouldn't be a threat unless they actually shot you. In reality, intent is almost always impossible to discern and doesn't excuse reckless behavior. Should you not be charged if you didn't happen to kill anyone while driving home drunk?

You may disagree with Facebook's influence on this world, but advocating for methods that only cause chaos, potential harm, and disinformation is not acting in the world's best interest.

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#39

Post by joe_the_user »

latchkey wrote: post #37
joe_the_user wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google tells me that truck is associated with an existing campaign against Facebook by vpn.com. https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/04/09/1466758/0/... https://www.google.com/search?q=%22deletefacebook%22+%22truc...

Seems like they would be the first people to contact about a bomb threat then.

Maybe, at the same time, given these trucks are everywhere, I have no idea whether the photo in the parent is a truck blocking the highway out or a random picture of truck somewhere.

Re: No suspicious package or device found after scare at Facebook in Menlo Park

#40

Post by dang »

sneak wrote: post #35
dang wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you please stop posting trollish comments to HN? It just leads to boring flamewars. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I did not intend to troll anyone; my comment was sincere. I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that. I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is an…

I appreciate the comment and believe you about your intent. I use the word "trollish" in a context like this because the effects are unfortunately much the same even if you didn't intend them, and thus weren't strictly trolling.
Post reply on HN