5 ms·

Can anyone tell me why this is wrong, exactly? Or, for that matter, why this news? Edit: to be more clear, I don't expect the same level of objectivity from Re

Can anyone tell me why this is wrong, exactly? Or, for that matter, why this news? Edit: to be more clear, I don't expect the same level of objectivity from Reddit or Hacker News comments that I do from an actual news story, so I don't have the same ethical issues with the Hillary campaign paying people to post comments on her behalf.

mattmanser 11y ago
Related to your edit, I do. I don't feel it unreasonable to either. It's a form of lying, a form of corruption. Also, it's in the interests of places like Reddit and HN to keep them out. It's distorts the comments in an unpleasant way. I'm fine with corps and stuff posting here, as long as they identify themselves as such.
CobrastanJorji 11y ago
Well, the story is probably popular here and on Reddit because it makes people suspicious of each other and also makes us, as commentators, feel important. Somebody is being paid a lot of money to get at us! But the real reason that this is a news story is because SuperPACs have one defining trait: they don't coordinate with the candidates at all. However, in this particular instance, due to "loopholes", this SuperPAC is able to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. In essence, Clinton gets direct control over SuperPAC money for this specific purpose, which is newsworthy if fairly dry.
gshulegaard 11y ago
Hmmm...well I can only speak for myself, but I see a number of problems with this. To spare time though, I will focus on the two things I perceive to be the biggest problem: "Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs." PACs which raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and other private business groups have always been questionably legal. However, they have been allowed to exist under strict regulation so long as they remained completely separate from candidates' campaigns. It would appear, however, that a PAC is now coordinating with the Hilary campaign while not being under the same fundraising restrictions. To me, PACs have always been subversions of the American governmental process and now one operating more or less as the "long-arm" of an individual candidate's campaign just makes them even more troubling. The second thing is this type of brigade behavior, especially with funding behind it, is particularly dangerous since it has a disproportionate ability to influence general public perception. It may not influence you or I much individually, but I am not sure Hacker News readers/commentators are a representative sample of the "average American".

mattmanser 11y ago

Related to your edit, I do. I don't feel it unreasonable to either. It's a form of lying, a form of corruption. Also, it's in the interests of places like Reddit and HN to keep them out. It's distorts the comments in an unpleasant way. I'm fine with corps and stuff posting here, as long as they identify themselves as such.

CobrastanJorji 11y ago

Well, the story is probably popular here and on Reddit because it makes people suspicious of each other and also makes us, as commentators, feel important. Somebody is being paid a lot of money to get at us! But the real reason that this is a news story is because SuperPACs have one defining trait: they don't coordinate with the candidates at all. However, in this particular instance, due to "loopholes", this SuperPAC is able to coordinate directly with the Clinton campaign. In essence, Clinton gets direct control over SuperPAC money for this specific purpose, which is newsworthy if fairly dry.

gshulegaard 11y ago

Hmmm...well I can only speak for myself, but I see a number of problems with this. To spare time though, I will focus on the two things I perceive to be the biggest problem: "Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs." PACs which raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and other private business groups have always been questionably legal. However, they have been allowed to exist under strict regulation so long as they remained completely separate from candidates' campaigns. It would appear, however, that a PAC is now coordinating with the Hilary campaign while not being under the same fundraising restrictions. To me, PACs have always been subversions of the American governmental process and now one operating more or less as the "long-arm" of an individual candidate's campaign just makes them even more troubling. The second thing is this type of brigade behavior, especially with funding behind it, is particularly dangerous since it has a disproportionate ability to influence general public perception. It may not influence you or I much individually, but I am not sure Hacker News readers/commentators are a representative sample of the "average American".