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

That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

cybersect.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 656 posts

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#401

Post by GeoAtreides »

chrononaut wrote: post #342
dragonwriter wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The journalists don't think they're writing these stories to amplify the police narrative (they think they're unbiased). They just don't have the judgement (or will?) to look beyond the initial narrative which is police-driven. No, they know what they are doing and you can tell they know what they are doing by the careful way language is used differently for similar facts when the police or other favored entities a…

> No, [journalists] know what they are doing ... Carefully calibrated, highly-selective use of (often, quite awkward) linguistic constructs does not happen unconsciously, it is a deliberate, knowing choice. The incredible vast majority of people in the world are acting in good faith. The way you are framing this is that nearly all journalists are acting in bad faith, which makes me believe the arguments of the parent…

>The incredible vast majority of people in the world are acting in good faith.

this a very westerner perspective on society. Ask an Eastern European (like myself) how the vast majority of people are really acting.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#402

Post by 0xDEAFBEAD »

aedocw wrote: post #240

There is a lawyer (Alec Karakatsanis) who has been writing about police driven propaganda for years. His recent book "Copaganda" is fantastic. He carefully breaks down how major papers (NYT is chief among them) create stories that fit a narrative by using very one-sided sources. Like an article on crime written in bad faith where the only people quotes are police, police consultants, and ex-police. It's a really good…

Who else would you have the journalists talk to, in order to get the other side of the story? Criminals?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#404

Post by istjohn »

pixl97 wrote: post #275
CommieBobDole wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to point out that the student's advice, "of course the news is ridiculous propaganda, just ignore it and go about your life and focus on your friends and family" is the the response desired by the authoritarian Chinese government who has carefully engineered the situation in the first place. The purpose of constantly publishing obvious lies is not for people to believe them (though some always will), it's to…

> it's to devalue the idea of truth in general. You see a common theme in some people talking about science related things, aka "The science was wrong", which is very rarely the case. Most of the time when that is said it's "The conclusion was slightly incorrect because of statistically insignificant findings" (probability based) versus wrong (binary). You end up with a class of people that start thinking all science…

I mostly blame bad journalism for this. Always looking for sensational content to capture attention, outlets publish credulous articles on single journal articles without providing enough context for their unsophisticated audience. It would take much more time and effort to properly contextualized them, and in many cases, it would be apparent that it is too early for the general public to draw any conclusions from the research. It wouldn't be newsworthy.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#405

Post by ceejayoz »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #396
ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel culture won. Conservatives are not being hypocritical for having been against it and now for it. If your opponent is using an effective weapon and you don't also pick up that weapon, you will lose.

Yep. Imagine I punch you. You say: "Don't punch me". I punch you again. Then you punch me back. I say: "Aren't you being hypocritical? I thought you were against punching." The path forward at this point is for the left to admit they made a mistake, apologize, and work to negotiate a new set of ground rules.

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies#Tinky_Winky_contro...

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_comments_on_Georg...

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._national_anthem_kneeling_...

Punch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O%27Connor_on_Satu...

But sure, the left invented it.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#406

Post by oezi »

AdamN wrote: post #320
aedocw wrote: post #240

There is a lawyer (Alec Karakatsanis) who has been writing about police driven propaganda for years. His recent book "Copaganda" is fantastic. He carefully breaks down how major papers (NYT is chief among them) create stories that fit a narrative by using very one-sided sources. Like an article on crime written in bad faith where the only people quotes are police, police consultants, and ex-police. It's a really good…

Didn't read the book but I think it's more insidious than what you wrote. The journalists don't think they're writing these stories to amplify the police narrative (they think they're unbiased). They just don't have the judgement (or will?) to look beyond the initial narrative which is police-driven. In the end if a journalist can get their story out faster by leaning on a few 'trusted sources' and then move onto the…

I thought insidious means sinister/evil, but what you point out just shows that we as a society don't value news enough to pay for anything more than the 1-4 hours of time invested per news article.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#407

Post by fasbiner »

alansammarone wrote: post #103
roody15 wrote: post #98

Once a Chinese grad student explained to me a difference he noted between Chinese and American citizens. He said in China no really reads or watches 24/7 major news outlets in China. They are fully aware that all of it is propaganda and just go about their life. He said Americans seem to get really emotional over content in the press and seem to really struggle with the idea of propaganda / journalism in the news. I…

While I think I agree with most of what you're saying, I think it can be misunderstood and it can be very damaging when taken to an extreme, so I'll just leave a quote from the absolutely fantastic 20 lessons from the 20th century by Timothy Snyder: > Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing…

I can’t think of a worse person to cite that principle; Snyder has lied and evaded historians with basic inquiries about his work.

As we speak, his official position is that Russia and China are both engaged in genocides and another state categorically is not and you should be punished for inquiring. I don’t think that position is going to age well, for him or for you.

The propaganda is so effective because the propagandists can rely on your lack of basic rigor and media bubble to present abstractions as a real moral position. And there’s no way to say this without hurting feelings and causing people to get defensive. Look up what any historian who isn’t on tv has say about Snyder’s work on libgen, it’s not sensationalist or context-free, it’s just someone going through and documenting mendacious claims and poor historiography: https://defendinghistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Omer...

What is telling is not that one reviewer can be authoritative, but more that the response is "Shut up and go away, I'm trying to have a media career." Pretending to be a controversial truth-teller speaking for principles is how Americans like to be propagandized to and how we like to become niche celebrities instead of doing work that requires accuracy and rigor.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#408

Post by ceejayoz »

ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote: post #353
ceejayoz wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except people are often being fired for quoting Charlie Kirk verbatim . The First Amendment doesn't apply to only citizens.

The first amendment should only apply to citizens. I understand that current case law says it applies to everyone, but I think that is a misstep that we can & should correct.

So forced religious conversions for green card holders should be legal?

That's a take, I guess.

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#409

Post by hearsathought »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #192
roody15 wrote: post #98

Once a Chinese grad student explained to me a difference he noted between Chinese and American citizens. He said in China no really reads or watches 24/7 major news outlets in China. They are fully aware that all of it is propaganda and just go about their life. He said Americans seem to get really emotional over content in the press and seem to really struggle with the idea of propaganda / journalism in the news. I…

I'd like to point out that the student's advice, "of course the news is ridiculous propaganda, just ignore it and go about your life and focus on your friends and family" is the the response desired by the authoritarian Chinese government who has carefully engineered the situation in the first place. The purpose of constantly publishing obvious lies is not for people to believe them (though some always will), it's to…

> is the the response desired by the authoritarian Chinese government who has carefully engineered the situation in the first place.

But they are an "authoritarian" government so they don't really care what their citizens believe. Right? Doesn't your logic apply more to "democratic" and "free" countries. No?

> The purpose of constantly publishing obvious lies is not for people to believe them (though some always will), it's to devalue the idea of truth in general.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day." -- Thomas Jefferson

Are you saying the US was "authoritarian" from the very beginning?

> As long as the economy's good, people just don't care about anything that doesn't harm them directly.

Isn't this true for every government? "Democratic", "authoritarian", "monarch", "anarchic", etc?

Re: That Secret Service SIM farm story is bogus

#410

Post by ceejayoz »

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #305
bongodongobob wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet people are getting fired over making comments about Charlie Kirk on social media.

Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. People aren't "making comments," they're celebrating the murder of a man whose opinions they disagreed with. Many Americans are waking up to realize that a large number of people they considered friends and colleagues would revel in their death if they let their political opinions be heard. I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder. Sorry, call me old-fashioned…

> Freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences.

Freedom of speech requires freedom from government consequences. I have freedom of speech still if you say "I don't like your speech"; I don't have it if the cops say "I'm arresting you for your speech".

> I would 100% fire someone for celebrating murder.

And you can. You can also skip their birthday party. But "I'm glad so-and-so is dead" largely can't be a reason to, say, lose your drivers' license, social security benefits, or government employment, because the First Amendment applies to government specifically.

Facebook, Google, the grocery store, etc. have never been subject to the First Amendment.

(People can, and do, get fired for espousing Charlie Kirk's beliefs, too. That's free speech/association for you.)

Post reply on HN