3 ms·

Because it frames the situation in a certain, coerced way.

int_handler 10y ago
How is it coerced? The author reports the facts exactly as they are. If the author had instead attempted to tie this to, say, past security breaches caused by hackers operating out of China, then that would be framing the situation in a coerced way.
- mmanfrin 10y ago
  Consider the following: Man kills man. Man kills black man. White man kills black man. Assuming the facts are all the same, do you understand how the selective informing of facts frames the readers understanding or impression of the issue? Thanks for the downvote though.
  - jsjohnst 10y ago
    Consider the following: Human kills human. Life form kills life form. At what point does it end? You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.
    - mmanfrin 10y ago
      You are splitting hairs and I think you know it. No, not really. I'm explaining how a fact can impart bias. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.
int_handler 10y ago
I am replying to your other comment here since it is not possible to reply to that comment for some reason. I do not think that is a valid comparison. The author did not go out of her way to point out that the server was located in China. There is no mention of China in the title, and the only place where the author mentions China is several paragraphs in explaining how and where the data is transmitted. There are more mentions of China in this comment than in the entire article. Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote.
- DanBC 10y ago
  > I am replying to your other comment here since it is not possible to reply to that comment for some reason. I think HN applies a rate limiter to comment threads, to help reduce flame wars. > Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote. Accounts get the downvote when they reach a karma threshold. I think that's currently 500, or maybe 750.
  - int_handler 10y ago
    That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
- mmanfrin 10y ago
  It's still a fact used to frame the issue in a certain way and does affect a reader's understanding of the issue. If someone with a preexisting bias against Chinese security read this, they would form a more negative opinion of the product than if the fact of where the server was physically was omitted.

How is it coerced? The author reports the facts exactly as they are. If the author had instead attempted to tie this to, say, past security breaches caused by hackers operating out of China, then that would be framing the situation in a coerced way.

mmanfrin 10y ago
Consider the following: Man kills man. Man kills black man. White man kills black man. Assuming the facts are all the same, do you understand how the selective informing of facts frames the readers understanding or impression of the issue? Thanks for the downvote though.
- jsjohnst 10y ago
  Consider the following: Human kills human. Life form kills life form. At what point does it end? You are splitting hairs and I think you know it.
  - mmanfrin 10y ago
    You are splitting hairs and I think you know it. No, not really. I'm explaining how a fact can impart bias. Not sure why this is such a difficult concept to understand.

int_handler 10y ago

I am replying to your other comment here since it is not possible to reply to that comment for some reason. I do not think that is a valid comparison. The author did not go out of her way to point out that the server was located in China. There is no mention of China in the title, and the only place where the author mentions China is several paragraphs in explaining how and where the data is transmitted. There are more mentions of China in this comment than in the entire article. Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote.

DanBC 10y ago
> I am replying to your other comment here since it is not possible to reply to that comment for some reason. I think HN applies a rate limiter to comment threads, to help reduce flame wars. > Finally, for the record, I do not have a verified email associated with this account and thus do not have the ability to downvote. Accounts get the downvote when they reach a karma threshold. I think that's currently 500, or maybe 750.
- int_handler 10y ago
  That makes sense. Thanks for the explanation.
mmanfrin 10y ago
It's still a fact used to frame the issue in a certain way and does affect a reader's understanding of the issue. If someone with a preexisting bias against Chinese security read this, they would form a more negative opinion of the product than if the fact of where the server was physically was omitted.