5 ms·

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public deb

1. The National Park Service hosted the event. Seems like it would make sense to post public information about the crowd size when there was a lot of public debate and misinformation about it. I understand your frustration thinking they would always look out for the president's best interest, but this was a pretty clear fact they were posting, not some kind of political opinion. 2. December 3, 2008. That's when that article was published about giving notice and starting to find replacements. Same as every other president does. 3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? I have a really hard time understanding why you would post that link which is specifically framed to spread misinformation as it is about a completely different point in the presidency. Seriously, this is your country. Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens? EDIT: I expect a response. You said Obama did the "exact same thing". Which is an outright falsehood and posted an link that is from a different period to intentionally misinform people. In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime.

caseysoftware 10y ago
Except that they stopped giving estimates over 20 years ago: "For decades, the National Park Service provided official crowd estimates for gatherings on the National Mall but no longer does. The policy changed after the Million Man March in 1995, a gathering of black men meant to show renewed commitment to family and solidarity. The park service estimated 400,000 people attended the march, making it one of the largest demonstrations in history in Washington. But organizers believed they reached their goal of 1 million participants and threatened legal action. No lawsuit was filed, but the dispute was enough to get the park service out of the head-counting business." Ref: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-tweeting-again-after-suspension/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-t...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 13of40 10y ago
  I wonder if we've had mobile phone saturation long enough that they could measure attendance just by looking at cellular data.
  - will_walker 10y ago
    At the Boston march, networks couldn't handle load - it was the first time I haven't had network access for hours in years. Maybe this wouldn't preclude the network registering my phone's requests (and our phones were reporting signal bars) but it's to be considered that our cellular infrastructure isn't built to handle massive protests at this scale.
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      > At the Boston march, networks couldn't handle load Sounds like the Boston police department needs to order more Stingrays! :(
- dlp211 10y ago
  Except they didn't give an estimate. They posted a comparison photo.
jquery 10y ago
You're right, Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." He literally auctioned off the posts, giving the ambassadorships to campaign contributors and bundlers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nominees-prompt-an-uproar-with-bungled-answers-lack-of-ties/2014/02/14/20fb0fe4-94b2-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html?utm_term=.1aeb225ea43d https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nom... ). It's easy to find replacements if you don't care about qualifications and just reward your donor list, I guess. One of the ambassadors was so bad, staffers working for her requested transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan - http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/report-rips-us-envoy-who-resigned-048843 http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/report-rips-us-envoy-w... So, yes, some posts may be left without an immediate replacement, but it's not cause for panic if the alternative is immediately filling the posts with unqualified campaign donors. EDIT: These are undisputed facts in response to a hostile question accusing me of being a paid actor (ridiculous, my account is 8 years old) posting things that would be a "crime" in other countries. People down-voting this should check the irony considering they're upset at the President for censorship.
- whyileft 10y ago
  You did not answer my question. I expect an answer. Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens?
  - garrettgrimsley 10y ago
    Making negative assumptions about the intentions of the poster is not conducive to civil discourse.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Your expectations aren't compelling on anyone else.
  - beaner 10y ago
garrettgrimsley 10y ago
>3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? Can we please not do this here?
- timthelion 10y ago
  It is absolutely reasonable to question good faith on the internet. SPAM, bots, and paid shills have been here almost from day 1. The entirety of web2.0 was jumpstarted by services creating fake accounts to create the illusion of an already existing community. It is a very interesting question how to fight this fact, and we need to discuss it, not silence any discussion of it.
TD-Linux 10y ago
>In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime. I, for one, am happy that I live in a country where I don't have to worry about being prosecuted for making HN comments.
- Gigablah 10y ago
  I bet those EPA employees are feeling very differently right now.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
linkregister 10y ago
Unless you have evidence of jquery's having been paid to post this, please don't make the accusation. The number of true believers in various viewpoints, willing to lie in order to sway the audience vastly overwhelms the amount any organization's payroll could handle. jquery, as many conservative and liberal commenters before him, believes that a lie to persuade someone for his noble cause is justified by its outcome. I disagree with this tactic vehemently, but it is used by many earnest believers.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- scrollaway 10y ago
  Parent asked a question; it's not really an accusation. I used to be on board and would have defended the mindset that asking the question is an accusation in and of itself. But now, over in /r/france, we have this stuff going on: https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/5pv83r/inside_the_private_chat_rooms_trump_supporters/ https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/5pv83r/inside_the_p... At this point, I think it's sometimes fair to ask that question. There is no doubt that HN does have paid shills; if you turn showdead on, you'll often see some of the more egregious ones. The question is about the subtle ones. Of course, that's what the current administration wants: For nobody to be certain of anything. Nerdwriter made an excellent video about it a couple of weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geEVwslL-YY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geEVwslL-YY Hm. When was the last time a government wanted its citizens not to be sure of what's true, what's false and each others' affiliations...
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  Your post is in gray. Even though I believe the last two sentences in your post justify a downvote, I gave you an upvote because the first two sentences are absolutely true and provide important perspective in this discussion.
masonic 10y ago
Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? This is beyond the pale. Next comes Godwin?
nl 10y ago
(Non-US citizen. Very Anti-Trump. Unpaid poster. Unhappy I need to state all this.) To my surprise, jquery is pretty much correct about it being the same thing as Obama did. This[1] is the best summary of the situation I can find: 1) Obama (and all new incoming presidents before him) did ask for the resignations of all non-career, politically appointed ambassadors. 2) Obama (and Bush) did grant extensions to some ambassadors. However, this was a (very) small number. Exactly how many it applied to is unclear, but to quote the the article I linked above: in the past two inter-party transitions (Clinton-Bush, Bush-Obama) only about 10 political ambassadors have gotten extensions. Basically, I'd judge that the reporting of The Independent article linked above is misleadingly critical of Trump. I also think that jquery's point below about Obama literally auctioned off the posts is incomplete. Most ambassadorships are given as rewards (by both US parties). Most countries do the same: ambassadorships to friendly countries are political rewards and the countries actually want someone who is close to the leader of the country they represent. I don't think the moral case against that is entirely clear, but I can see arguments both ways. [1] https://diplopundit.net/2017/01/06/foreign-service-tradition-political-ambassadors-have-to-be-out-by-january-20/ https://diplopundit.net/2017/01/06/foreign-service-tradition...

caseysoftware 10y ago

Except that they stopped giving estimates over 20 years ago: "For decades, the National Park Service provided official crowd estimates for gatherings on the National Mall but no longer does. The policy changed after the Million Man March in 1995, a gathering of black men meant to show renewed commitment to family and solidarity. The park service estimated 400,000 people attended the march, making it one of the largest demonstrations in history in Washington. But organizers believed they reached their goal of 1 million participants and threatened legal action. No lawsuit was filed, but the dispute was enough to get the park service out of the head-counting business." Ref: http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-tweeting-again-after-suspension/ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/01/21/national-park-service-t...

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
13of40 10y ago
I wonder if we've had mobile phone saturation long enough that they could measure attendance just by looking at cellular data.
- will_walker 10y ago
  At the Boston march, networks couldn't handle load - it was the first time I haven't had network access for hours in years. Maybe this wouldn't preclude the network registering my phone's requests (and our phones were reporting signal bars) but it's to be considered that our cellular infrastructure isn't built to handle massive protests at this scale.
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    > At the Boston march, networks couldn't handle load Sounds like the Boston police department needs to order more Stingrays! :(
dlp211 10y ago
Except they didn't give an estimate. They posted a comparison photo.

jquery 10y ago

You're right, Obama didn't do the "exact same thing." He literally auctioned off the posts, giving the ambassadorships to campaign contributors and bundlers ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nominees-prompt-an-uproar-with-bungled-answers-lack-of-ties/2014/02/14/20fb0fe4-94b2-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html?utm_term=.1aeb225ea43d https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ambassador-nom... ). It's easy to find replacements if you don't care about qualifications and just reward your donor list, I guess. One of the ambassadors was so bad, staffers working for her requested transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan - http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/report-rips-us-envoy-who-resigned-048843 http://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/report-rips-us-envoy-w... So, yes, some posts may be left without an immediate replacement, but it's not cause for panic if the alternative is immediately filling the posts with unqualified campaign donors. EDIT: These are undisputed facts in response to a hostile question accusing me of being a paid actor (ridiculous, my account is 8 years old) posting things that would be a "crime" in other countries. People down-voting this should check the irony considering they're upset at the President for censorship.

whyileft 10y ago
You did not answer my question. I expect an answer. Why would you intentionally attempt to misinform your fellow citizens?
- garrettgrimsley 10y ago
  Making negative assumptions about the intentions of the poster is not conducive to civil discourse.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- ams6110 10y ago
  Your expectations aren't compelling on anyone else.
- beaner 10y ago

garrettgrimsley 10y ago

>3. Serious question. Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? Can we please not do this here?

timthelion 10y ago
It is absolutely reasonable to question good faith on the internet. SPAM, bots, and paid shills have been here almost from day 1. The entirety of web2.0 was jumpstarted by services creating fake accounts to create the illusion of an already existing community. It is a very interesting question how to fight this fact, and we need to discuss it, not silence any discussion of it.

TD-Linux 10y ago

>In some countries what you just did would be considered a crime. I, for one, am happy that I live in a country where I don't have to worry about being prosecuted for making HN comments.

Gigablah 10y ago
I bet those EPA employees are feeling very differently right now.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

linkregister 10y ago

Unless you have evidence of jquery's having been paid to post this, please don't make the accusation. The number of true believers in various viewpoints, willing to lie in order to sway the audience vastly overwhelms the amount any organization's payroll could handle. jquery, as many conservative and liberal commenters before him, believes that a lie to persuade someone for his noble cause is justified by its outcome. I disagree with this tactic vehemently, but it is used by many earnest believers.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
scrollaway 10y ago
Parent asked a question; it's not really an accusation. I used to be on board and would have defended the mindset that asking the question is an accusation in and of itself. But now, over in /r/france, we have this stuff going on: https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/5pv83r/inside_the_private_chat_rooms_trump_supporters/ https://www.reddit.com/r/france/comments/5pv83r/inside_the_p... At this point, I think it's sometimes fair to ask that question. There is no doubt that HN does have paid shills; if you turn showdead on, you'll often see some of the more egregious ones. The question is about the subtle ones. Of course, that's what the current administration wants: For nobody to be certain of anything. Nerdwriter made an excellent video about it a couple of weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geEVwslL-YY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geEVwslL-YY Hm. When was the last time a government wanted its citizens not to be sure of what's true, what's false and each others' affiliations...
LyndsySimon 10y ago
Your post is in gray. Even though I believe the last two sentences in your post justify a downvote, I gave you an upvote because the first two sentences are absolutely true and provide important perspective in this discussion.

masonic 10y ago

Are you paid to do what you are doing right now? This is beyond the pale. Next comes Godwin?

nl 10y ago

(Non-US citizen. Very Anti-Trump. Unpaid poster. Unhappy I need to state all this.) To my surprise, jquery is pretty much correct about it being the same thing as Obama did. This[1] is the best summary of the situation I can find: 1) Obama (and all new incoming presidents before him) did ask for the resignations of all non-career, politically appointed ambassadors. 2) Obama (and Bush) did grant extensions to some ambassadors. However, this was a (very) small number. Exactly how many it applied to is unclear, but to quote the the article I linked above: in the past two inter-party transitions (Clinton-Bush, Bush-Obama) only about 10 political ambassadors have gotten extensions. Basically, I'd judge that the reporting of The Independent article linked above is misleadingly critical of Trump. I also think that jquery's point below about Obama literally auctioned off the posts is incomplete. Most ambassadorships are given as rewards (by both US parties). Most countries do the same: ambassadorships to friendly countries are political rewards and the countries actually want someone who is close to the leader of the country they represent. I don't think the moral case against that is entirely clear, but I can see arguments both ways. [1] https://diplopundit.net/2017/01/06/foreign-service-tradition-political-ambassadors-have-to-be-out-by-january-20/ https://diplopundit.net/2017/01/06/foreign-service-tradition...