5 ms·

The article itself is actually very generous to Clinton, as it primarily questions Trump's policies, features a ridiculing picture of him, and praises Clinton's

The article itself is actually very generous to Clinton, as it primarily questions Trump's policies, features a ridiculing picture of him, and praises Clinton's policy documents (focusing, actually, on the number of pages rather than their clarity, consistency or purposes). They also snub Trump for questioning whether the hacks of the DNC were supported by the government of Russia. In doing so this article falls prey to much of what plagues the media during the election cycle. Broadly aligned against particular candidates and willing to take widely biased and selective approaches toward writing and editing about them, they fail to say much of anything substantive at all. For instance this article can't come up with what a good policy might look like, any particular appraisal of either candidate's policies (it merely cites pages and makes an issue of known Clinton's backdoor policies). The article mentions that both candidates consider Snowden a traitor, with Trump explicitly using the word and Clinton calling for Snowden to be extradited to the United States under investigation for violating the Espionage Act. Reading between the lines the article emphasizes that Silicon Valley doesn't understand or trust the policies from either candidate, but appears to have a stronger majority support for Clinton due to issues not related to either campaign promises or policy directions. EDIT: People below in the thread take issue with the term "libelous" so I replaced it with "ridiculing".

dogma1138 10y ago
>The article mentions that both candidates consider Snowden a traitor, with Trump explicitly using the word and Clinton calling for Snowden to be extradited to the United States under investigation for violating the Espionage Act. Only 15% of American believe that Snowden is a hero, 30% call him a traitor outright and only 25% of them believe that he should be offered any type of deal/pardon. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/edward-snowden-rasmussen-poll-hero-russia/2016/09/23/id/749866/ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/edward-snowden-rasmussen-po... So both candidates either appeal too or represent to the vox populi.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  I think that's a fair point. Our republic, much like many historical republics including (crossing immediately the Godwin line) the Weimar Republic, are fervently nationalistic and willing - through fear, state disinformation, and through prejudice - to support cases against liberty in support of centralized autonomous power. While the youth population of America either broadly support Snowden or are deadlocked (depending on the poll), the more religious and jingoistic elements of the American public and those whose generations participated in World and Cold wars have been easy to convince that civil liberty is something cheap to trade for consolidated power.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    There is a difference between supporting the position and supporting the act. I would go as far as say that the majority of "young" (18-35) Americans would call for a trial rather than a blanket pardon.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      Pew Studies seem to indicate the opposite of what you've said: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-americans-say-snowden-has-served-the-public-interest/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-a...
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        That doesn't mean the majority will support blanket pardon over a trial, especially a trial like the one Snowden requested where he could mount a defence based on the public's interest which is not possible for espionage charges. In fact by your own poll it looks that the majority of 18-35's would favour criminal persecution since the 18-29 is 42 for 42 against and 30-49 is 56 for 36 against.
        jwtadvice 10y ago
        I see. Yes I think that's right. I think more 'young' people would want to see a fair and open public trial than a blank pardon. It's my impression that more 'young' people would want to see a blanket pardon over a secret trial where a defense can't be mounted.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        Myself personally (not an American) would favour trial (of any kind) over a blanket pardon, however I will support a full pardon or full commute of the sentence in case he is found guilty by a trial in which he could not mount a proper defence due to the espionage act limitations, if it would be a closed trial or if it would be a military tribunal instead of a trial by jury.
- mhays 10y ago
  >Only 15% of American believe that Snowden is a hero, 30% call him a traitor outright and only 25% of them believe that he should be offered any type of deal/pardon. According to that poll. I think it's a reasonable possibility that one of those buckets is shortchanged by the way polls are conducted.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Honestly, I was surprised that 25% of the US public/registered voters are willing to pardon Snowden, I would've thought that that percentage would be far lower. You need to realise that even in the Huff's online polls e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/edward-snowden-poll_n_3542931.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/edward-snowden-poll... Snowden was viewed unfavourably, and if online and the Huff is not pandering to a favourable demographic even tho on paper the poll might match the US demographics then I don't know what is.
slg 10y ago
>For instance this article can't come up with what a good policy might look like I'm not sure I've seen anyone able to do this. The political and law enforcement communities simply don't seem to understand the tech side. While the tech community seems unwilling to acknowledge that widespread and freely available encryption is a world altering proposition for governments who have been able to use warrants to get this same information for literally hundreds of years. If some type of “Encryption Commission” is established to get these sides talking, that is at least progress.
eridius 10y ago
> features a libelous picture of him That's a very strong statement, and AFAICT completely unwarranted. The picture depicts him thinking of a 400 pound weight, which is a reference to his statement that was quoted later in the article: "[Hillary Clinton’s] saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds." And the question marks on the picture are representative of the fact that his tech policy (the main subject of the piece) is incoherent and largely undefined. > For instance this article can't come up with what a good policy might look like Classic deflection technique. A critic does not need to be able to come up with a good answer in order to criticize someone else for not doing so. It's not Ars Technica's job to define this nation's tech policy, but it is the president's job (or at least, the president has a huge influence on it), so presidential candidates really ought to be able to define a clear policy.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  Meh. I get what you're saying. To be very fair I've called out when libelous pictures are posted of Clinton. I consider anything that makes a candidate look confused or stupid or ineffective politically loaded, damaging to reputation (in the context of an election) and therefore libelous. His quote had nothing to do with his policy (which I agree is as vacuuous as Clinton's). He was talking about attribution. Separate topic. Regarding "deflection technique" I don't expect Ars to come up with a uniform policy. I do expect them to have standards (other than number of pages) to evaluate criteria by. The author of the article clearly doesn't. This is what I intended to say and I fully admit that I didn't say it clearly before.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    To be libelous, it must not merely be damaging to reputation, but also concern a matter of fact and be a maliciously false representation on that matter of fact. You could fairly describe the picture in the article as mocking, but not libelous.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago

dogma1138 10y ago

>The article mentions that both candidates consider Snowden a traitor, with Trump explicitly using the word and Clinton calling for Snowden to be extradited to the United States under investigation for violating the Espionage Act. Only 15% of American believe that Snowden is a hero, 30% call him a traitor outright and only 25% of them believe that he should be offered any type of deal/pardon. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/edward-snowden-rasmussen-poll-hero-russia/2016/09/23/id/749866/ http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/edward-snowden-rasmussen-po... So both candidates either appeal too or represent to the vox populi.

jwtadvice 10y ago
I think that's a fair point. Our republic, much like many historical republics including (crossing immediately the Godwin line) the Weimar Republic, are fervently nationalistic and willing - through fear, state disinformation, and through prejudice - to support cases against liberty in support of centralized autonomous power. While the youth population of America either broadly support Snowden or are deadlocked (depending on the poll), the more religious and jingoistic elements of the American public and those whose generations participated in World and Cold wars have been easy to convince that civil liberty is something cheap to trade for consolidated power.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  There is a difference between supporting the position and supporting the act. I would go as far as say that the majority of "young" (18-35) Americans would call for a trial rather than a blanket pardon.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago
    Pew Studies seem to indicate the opposite of what you've said: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-americans-say-snowden-has-served-the-public-interest/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/22/most-young-a...
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      That doesn't mean the majority will support blanket pardon over a trial, especially a trial like the one Snowden requested where he could mount a defence based on the public's interest which is not possible for espionage charges. In fact by your own poll it looks that the majority of 18-35's would favour criminal persecution since the 18-29 is 42 for 42 against and 30-49 is 56 for 36 against.
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        I see. Yes I think that's right. I think more 'young' people would want to see a fair and open public trial than a blank pardon. It's my impression that more 'young' people would want to see a blanket pardon over a secret trial where a defense can't be mounted.
        dogma1138 10y ago
        Myself personally (not an American) would favour trial (of any kind) over a blanket pardon, however I will support a full pardon or full commute of the sentence in case he is found guilty by a trial in which he could not mount a proper defence due to the espionage act limitations, if it would be a closed trial or if it would be a military tribunal instead of a trial by jury.
mhays 10y ago
>Only 15% of American believe that Snowden is a hero, 30% call him a traitor outright and only 25% of them believe that he should be offered any type of deal/pardon. According to that poll. I think it's a reasonable possibility that one of those buckets is shortchanged by the way polls are conducted.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Honestly, I was surprised that 25% of the US public/registered voters are willing to pardon Snowden, I would've thought that that percentage would be far lower. You need to realise that even in the Huff's online polls e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/edward-snowden-poll_n_3542931.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/05/edward-snowden-poll... Snowden was viewed unfavourably, and if online and the Huff is not pandering to a favourable demographic even tho on paper the poll might match the US demographics then I don't know what is.

slg 10y ago

>For instance this article can't come up with what a good policy might look like I'm not sure I've seen anyone able to do this. The political and law enforcement communities simply don't seem to understand the tech side. While the tech community seems unwilling to acknowledge that widespread and freely available encryption is a world altering proposition for governments who have been able to use warrants to get this same information for literally hundreds of years. If some type of “Encryption Commission” is established to get these sides talking, that is at least progress.

eridius 10y ago

> features a libelous picture of him That's a very strong statement, and AFAICT completely unwarranted. The picture depicts him thinking of a 400 pound weight, which is a reference to his statement that was quoted later in the article: "[Hillary Clinton’s] saying Russia, Russia, Russia. Maybe it was. It could also be China, it could be someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds." And the question marks on the picture are representative of the fact that his tech policy (the main subject of the piece) is incoherent and largely undefined. > For instance this article can't come up with what a good policy might look like Classic deflection technique. A critic does not need to be able to come up with a good answer in order to criticize someone else for not doing so. It's not Ars Technica's job to define this nation's tech policy, but it is the president's job (or at least, the president has a huge influence on it), so presidential candidates really ought to be able to define a clear policy.

jwtadvice 10y ago
Meh. I get what you're saying. To be very fair I've called out when libelous pictures are posted of Clinton. I consider anything that makes a candidate look confused or stupid or ineffective politically loaded, damaging to reputation (in the context of an election) and therefore libelous. His quote had nothing to do with his policy (which I agree is as vacuuous as Clinton's). He was talking about attribution. Separate topic. Regarding "deflection technique" I don't expect Ars to come up with a uniform policy. I do expect them to have standards (other than number of pages) to evaluate criteria by. The author of the article clearly doesn't. This is what I intended to say and I fully admit that I didn't say it clearly before.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  To be libelous, it must not merely be damaging to reputation, but also concern a matter of fact and be a maliciously false representation on that matter of fact. You could fairly describe the picture in the article as mocking, but not libelous.
  - jwtadvice 10y ago