3 ms·
Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators (submit
by qrendel 11y ago
Why not? Judging from the number of submissions and comments per day, and assuming the 1%/10%/89% approximation for how many people are content creators (submitters) vs contributors (commenters) vs lurkers, I'd estimate the site has tens of thousands of daily visitors. The demographic would also tend to be better educated, politically informed, career tech industry people, rather than your typical "low-information voter" who has no influence or authority in the world whatsoever. That plus the smaller number of users who are actually influential people in infosec or other relevant industries.
I assumed the government spying apparatus must be keeping at least some amount of eyes on this and similar places, even if it's just an intern or two.
- kafkaesq 11y agoThey're almost certainly monitoring HN (at least algorithmically) to sniff for leaks (inadvertent disclosures from people who might know the various leakers or journalists of interest, or their supporters). And yes, high-signal threads (like this one) might get passed off to a human analyst somewhere. As to whether they're trying to poison (or otherwise influence) this community in some way? It's certainly possible. But there's also the famous advice from a former government agent (who was once involved with infiltrating domestic radical communities) -- which goes about like this (someone out there might have a better quote): "My advice? Stop worrying about infiltrators. That is, just assume you're being infiltrated and monitored, and that there's nothing you can do about it. You'll waste an infinite amount of time and energy speculating who the source might be, who to point fingers at -- to the point where you end up poisoning your own community form within. Which is precisely what these monitoring agencies want you to do." My own view is basically existentialist: if I were ever to get deeply involved in resistance politics -- or even if I'm not, and just casually hanging out with people who are -- sure, almost inevitably I'm going to end up monitored, perhaps even "cased" (i.e. someone might slither up to me at a bar or meeting somewhere, to find out what I know or what I'm about). But at the end of the day... really, just fuck all those people. If they're playing that game, as far as I'm concerned, they've already given up, and are already dead inside, on some level. And I'm not going to let that stop me for a minute from speaking freely, calling things as I see them, or hanging out with people I consider to be to be basically ethical and well-meaning (though I may sometimes question their approaches), just because of what some agency flack somewhere might be doing with me to pad his quota and make himself look good for his bosses. But that's just me. You can make your own choices.
- progressive_dad 11y agoWell there's an argument to be made that a mistaken analysis as to your "threat level" curtails your personal freedom and has a detrimental impact on your ability to accomplish your goals. Just as the existence of your credit score doesn't impinge upon your fundamental rights as a human, its existence means it can be used to discriminate and that by bringing it into existence you've created opportunities for abuse. Once it exists and you assume it exists you have to change your behavior in a way that maximizes outcomes for yourself. Its subtle psychological coercion. At the very least decisions made by non-elected officials in the name of national security need oversight. So even if you yourself are not political, just by surveilling you they have forced you to become political in the sense that now you MUST participate in an issue and debate regarding the value of national security vs. your personal security.
- kafkaesq 11y agoSure, it's nasty and unfair. And we're all being involuntarily politicized. But we don't have to let it get to us, and upset our inner equilibrium.