7 ms·

I don't fall for your both-sides-do-it framing. Fact is that the other side had power and didn't do it. Now we have insane cheetoh in office and we're getting i

I don't fall for your both-sides-do-it framing. Fact is that the other side had power and didn't do it. Now we have insane cheetoh in office and we're getting insane cheetoh policy ideas. This is not a matter of equivalence.

okreallywtf 10y ago
Agreed, I came up with analogy that I intend to use whenever false equivalencies are used to try to scuttle an argument: there is a massive difference between going 65 (mph) in a 60 and 110 in a 60. While both are illegal, you can not use one to justify the other. We can have high standards and expect them to be met but if we cannot tell the difference in scale between two actions we are doomed.
- Inconel 10y ago
  I'm not really sure I agree with that analogy. My primary problem with it stems from the fact that current policies don't exist independently of previous policies. I agree that on a scale of badness, Trump certainly seems worse to me than Obama. But in your analogy it isn't so much that Trump took a car from zero to 110 in a 60 zone. The car he got in was already speeding thanks to the policies of the Obama administration, and prior administrations. I don't think pointing this out is necessarily excusing it through false equivalence. So while I agree that it's important to tell the difference in scale, I think it's equally important to realize that in most cases these policies don't come about out of thin air, they are built and extended from prior policies.
  - okreallywtf 10y ago
    Granted, its a very simple analogy but it needs to be simple because it can be used to counter an equal simple false equivalency in conversation. My honest opinion is that we've unfortunately divided ourselves down the middle and we've picked causes and policies like we were picking players in dodgeball and you can only be on one team. I think it so happens either by chance or by some kind of underlying tendency that one side tends to be more correct or at least more progressive (which tends to be more correct in the long run) than the other. I know plenty of people who correctly (I think and I think the data supports) acknowledge climate change is real and largely man-made but could no more discuss the actual causes or ramification than your average climate denier. I want to be able to have honest, nuanced conversations with people but they typically end defensively and quickly (which is often the result of someone I agree with who can't help but be snarky and counterproductive) and I want to find quick and effective counters to some of these argument killers.
icebraining 10y ago
Actually, this idea comes from the time of the previous administration: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/homeland-security-social-media-border-protection.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/homeland-security-soci...
- conistonwater 10y ago
  From your own link, this was the previous proposal: > Visitors entering the country under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of some countries to visit up to 90 days without a visa, would not be required to list their social media accounts, and the forms would not ask for passwords. > The department said that while it does not consistently examine social media accounts of applicants for visas or immigration, it has a list of nearly three dozen situations in which social media can be examined to screen applicants. They say they didn't ask for passwords, which is the main objection, and also said it was optional (see also the same thing in this very article). How does it make sense to call it the same idea?
  - icebraining 10y ago
    That wasn't the same idea; the bill in Congress, which also came from the time of the previous administration, was.
    - conistonwater 10y ago
      So the emphasis is specifically on the word time, rather than administration?
      - icebraining 10y ago
        On both, actually - to show that it isn't an idea emanating for the aforementioned insane cheetoh.
        conistonwater 10y ago
salesguy222 10y ago
While I am not a defender of insane cheetoh, the article itself says the Obama administration (but more importantly, the officials that work for the admin in every agency) crafted these initial ideas around social media affecting immigration Regardless of party, I would invite you to google the following governmental overreaches and then see which parties were in office: The Pirate Bay raid, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, NSA surveillance revelations, Superpredators, War on Drugs, War on Crime...
- kobayashi 10y ago
  >NATO bombing of Yugoslavia One of these things is not like the others
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    Watch Boris Malagurski's film "The Weight of Chains" and see if you change your opinion The West (mostly USA) bombed everyone regardless of ethnicity in Yugoslavia and then took their largest assets. If they really cared about democracy and freedom, and if the Serbs really were genocidal maniacs as many believe, then the evidence in this film that shows the contrary wouldn't exist
    - gruez 10y ago
      >Watch Boris Malagurski's film "The Weight of Chains" and see if you change your opinion Off topic, but I cringe every time someone responds like that. It's essentially shows you can't (bother) to write a coherent response and instead want the other guy to waste 2 hours watching your video.
      - salesguy222 10y ago
        Ok, I can prepare a more detailed textual response for anyone who is interested, but for a very deep and thorough exposition of the topic, I really do think the _video evidence_ within the film will do more justice than I ever could Upon Tito's death in 1980, Western European and US political and business interests _systemically destroyed_ Yugoslavia, undeniably. They did so to "fight communism", "promote democracy", and more importantly, bomb Yugoslav mines, factories, etc that were competing with Western ones both in Yugoslavia and abroad. Everyone from the IMF, UN, World Bank, Reagan Admin, Bush Admin, Clinton Admin (and all of their supporters like Biden and Albright), Germany, etc etc, all of these participants were DEEPLY and PUBLICLY involved. The end result was the bombing of all ethnicities of people, including the ones that were supposed to be being "liberated", such as the Bosnians and Albanians. So, lastly, to tie it back into my original point. In my opinion, if you view all of this video evidence, and still say "ONLY THE (democrats, republicans) DID THIS), then you are denying the vast evidence that it was a cross party, multi decade plan. I hope you can take the time to reply on the quality of my analysis!
devwastaken 10y ago
The NSA and mass data collection and the overall technology was massively developed by the previous administration. Both sides do it, its the same evil done in different ways.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  Thank you for stating this. It is important to realize IMO that some very deeply moneyed interests in the US beleive in massive surveillance. If they didn't, then it wouldn't be happening from both parties
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    It is even more disheartening when you consider that this isn't even due to "moneyed interests", but rather is just fairly popular politics. It is more politically mainstream to be worried about terrorism than privacy protections. Arguably, (some of) the founders knew this would be the case, which is why they put the protections directly in the Bill of Rights. (In general, I think you can read the Bill of Rights as protecting important, but unpopular, rights.)
UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
Everything about this came under Obama. I actually wrote in protesting this policy over a year ago when they proposed it. It has nothing at all to do with Trump.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  besides the fact that his administration will enforce it? haha both parties are guilty. if trump doesn't want to enforce it, he wouldn't. if obama admin didn't want to brainstorm it, they wouldn't have
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    The last administration didn't "brainstorm" it, they proposed, asked for feedback, and enacted it. They're fully responsible for why we have it today. All of this is trivially verifiable, just look at when the proposal was submitted, accepted, and then enacted. All of them were before election day. All of it within the executive branch's umbrella (i.e. there was no act of congress).
    - salesguy222 10y ago
      Ok, I agree with you. and now Trump may or may not enforce it. If he does, do you agree that he too is at fault? or are you of the opinion that he will enforce something he doesn't agree with, just because Obama made it? the evidence still shows both sides at fault
belorn 10y ago
4 years ago the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruled over a court case regarding DHS searching phone and laptops at the border, including demanding passwords to unlock said devices. The concept is so old that not only did both side do it, but the previous administration has a court case judged against them. What we should say to the current administration is what the court said to the previous, which is that the 4th amendment applies at the border (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/13380622263/9th-circuit-appeals-court-4th-amendment-applies-border-also-password-protected-files-shouldnt-arouse-suspicion.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/13380622263/9th-c...). Password for social media, as with password to unlock the address book of a phone, cannot be demanded without reasonable suspicion.
zouhair 10y ago
That's the thing. the other side didn't have power. If you think Obama was "the other" side you are quite naive.
kristopolous 10y ago
There's a deeper industrial surveillance state at work. I thought that was the core insight of Snowden's work - was that it's not all tinfoil crazy talk.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  You are exactly right. Some people here might be employed in this line of work, and that's why the engage in fingerpointing and "we're different" :)
dang 10y ago
Please don't post inflammatory political rhetoric to HN. It lowers signal, raises noise, and triggers flamewars. You probably have a good point in there, but the Molotov cocktail is not an acceptable delivery mechanism. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13626479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13626479 and marked it off-topic.
marklyon 10y ago
They did get it kicked off, though, by adding the questions to the form.

okreallywtf 10y ago

Agreed, I came up with analogy that I intend to use whenever false equivalencies are used to try to scuttle an argument: there is a massive difference between going 65 (mph) in a 60 and 110 in a 60. While both are illegal, you can not use one to justify the other. We can have high standards and expect them to be met but if we cannot tell the difference in scale between two actions we are doomed.

Inconel 10y ago
I'm not really sure I agree with that analogy. My primary problem with it stems from the fact that current policies don't exist independently of previous policies. I agree that on a scale of badness, Trump certainly seems worse to me than Obama. But in your analogy it isn't so much that Trump took a car from zero to 110 in a 60 zone. The car he got in was already speeding thanks to the policies of the Obama administration, and prior administrations. I don't think pointing this out is necessarily excusing it through false equivalence. So while I agree that it's important to tell the difference in scale, I think it's equally important to realize that in most cases these policies don't come about out of thin air, they are built and extended from prior policies.
- okreallywtf 10y ago
  Granted, its a very simple analogy but it needs to be simple because it can be used to counter an equal simple false equivalency in conversation. My honest opinion is that we've unfortunately divided ourselves down the middle and we've picked causes and policies like we were picking players in dodgeball and you can only be on one team. I think it so happens either by chance or by some kind of underlying tendency that one side tends to be more correct or at least more progressive (which tends to be more correct in the long run) than the other. I know plenty of people who correctly (I think and I think the data supports) acknowledge climate change is real and largely man-made but could no more discuss the actual causes or ramification than your average climate denier. I want to be able to have honest, nuanced conversations with people but they typically end defensively and quickly (which is often the result of someone I agree with who can't help but be snarky and counterproductive) and I want to find quick and effective counters to some of these argument killers.

icebraining 10y ago

Actually, this idea comes from the time of the previous administration: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/homeland-security-social-media-border-protection.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/homeland-security-soci...

conistonwater 10y ago
From your own link, this was the previous proposal: > Visitors entering the country under the Visa Waiver Program, which allows citizens of some countries to visit up to 90 days without a visa, would not be required to list their social media accounts, and the forms would not ask for passwords. > The department said that while it does not consistently examine social media accounts of applicants for visas or immigration, it has a list of nearly three dozen situations in which social media can be examined to screen applicants. They say they didn't ask for passwords, which is the main objection, and also said it was optional (see also the same thing in this very article). How does it make sense to call it the same idea?
- icebraining 10y ago
  That wasn't the same idea; the bill in Congress, which also came from the time of the previous administration, was.
  - conistonwater 10y ago
    So the emphasis is specifically on the word time, rather than administration?
    - icebraining 10y ago
      On both, actually - to show that it isn't an idea emanating for the aforementioned insane cheetoh.
      - conistonwater 10y ago

salesguy222 10y ago

While I am not a defender of insane cheetoh, the article itself says the Obama administration (but more importantly, the officials that work for the admin in every agency) crafted these initial ideas around social media affecting immigration Regardless of party, I would invite you to google the following governmental overreaches and then see which parties were in office: The Pirate Bay raid, NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, NSA surveillance revelations, Superpredators, War on Drugs, War on Crime...

kobayashi 10y ago
>NATO bombing of Yugoslavia One of these things is not like the others
- salesguy222 10y ago
  Watch Boris Malagurski's film "The Weight of Chains" and see if you change your opinion The West (mostly USA) bombed everyone regardless of ethnicity in Yugoslavia and then took their largest assets. If they really cared about democracy and freedom, and if the Serbs really were genocidal maniacs as many believe, then the evidence in this film that shows the contrary wouldn't exist
  - gruez 10y ago
    >Watch Boris Malagurski's film "The Weight of Chains" and see if you change your opinion Off topic, but I cringe every time someone responds like that. It's essentially shows you can't (bother) to write a coherent response and instead want the other guy to waste 2 hours watching your video.
    - salesguy222 10y ago
      Ok, I can prepare a more detailed textual response for anyone who is interested, but for a very deep and thorough exposition of the topic, I really do think the _video evidence_ within the film will do more justice than I ever could Upon Tito's death in 1980, Western European and US political and business interests _systemically destroyed_ Yugoslavia, undeniably. They did so to "fight communism", "promote democracy", and more importantly, bomb Yugoslav mines, factories, etc that were competing with Western ones both in Yugoslavia and abroad. Everyone from the IMF, UN, World Bank, Reagan Admin, Bush Admin, Clinton Admin (and all of their supporters like Biden and Albright), Germany, etc etc, all of these participants were DEEPLY and PUBLICLY involved. The end result was the bombing of all ethnicities of people, including the ones that were supposed to be being "liberated", such as the Bosnians and Albanians. So, lastly, to tie it back into my original point. In my opinion, if you view all of this video evidence, and still say "ONLY THE (democrats, republicans) DID THIS), then you are denying the vast evidence that it was a cross party, multi decade plan. I hope you can take the time to reply on the quality of my analysis!

devwastaken 10y ago

The NSA and mass data collection and the overall technology was massively developed by the previous administration. Both sides do it, its the same evil done in different ways.

salesguy222 10y ago
Thank you for stating this. It is important to realize IMO that some very deeply moneyed interests in the US beleive in massive surveillance. If they didn't, then it wouldn't be happening from both parties
- sanderjd 10y ago
  It is even more disheartening when you consider that this isn't even due to "moneyed interests", but rather is just fairly popular politics. It is more politically mainstream to be worried about terrorism than privacy protections. Arguably, (some of) the founders knew this would be the case, which is why they put the protections directly in the Bill of Rights. (In general, I think you can read the Bill of Rights as protecting important, but unpopular, rights.)

UnoriginalGuy 10y ago

Everything about this came under Obama. I actually wrote in protesting this policy over a year ago when they proposed it. It has nothing at all to do with Trump.

salesguy222 10y ago
besides the fact that his administration will enforce it? haha both parties are guilty. if trump doesn't want to enforce it, he wouldn't. if obama admin didn't want to brainstorm it, they wouldn't have
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  The last administration didn't "brainstorm" it, they proposed, asked for feedback, and enacted it. They're fully responsible for why we have it today. All of this is trivially verifiable, just look at when the proposal was submitted, accepted, and then enacted. All of them were before election day. All of it within the executive branch's umbrella (i.e. there was no act of congress).
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    Ok, I agree with you. and now Trump may or may not enforce it. If he does, do you agree that he too is at fault? or are you of the opinion that he will enforce something he doesn't agree with, just because Obama made it? the evidence still shows both sides at fault

belorn 10y ago

4 years ago the 9th Circuit Appeals Court ruled over a court case regarding DHS searching phone and laptops at the border, including demanding passwords to unlock said devices. The concept is so old that not only did both side do it, but the previous administration has a court case judged against them. What we should say to the current administration is what the court said to the previous, which is that the 4th amendment applies at the border (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/13380622263/9th-circuit-appeals-court-4th-amendment-applies-border-also-password-protected-files-shouldnt-arouse-suspicion.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130308/13380622263/9th-c...). Password for social media, as with password to unlock the address book of a phone, cannot be demanded without reasonable suspicion.

zouhair 10y ago

That's the thing. the other side didn't have power. If you think Obama was "the other" side you are quite naive.

kristopolous 10y ago

There's a deeper industrial surveillance state at work. I thought that was the core insight of Snowden's work - was that it's not all tinfoil crazy talk.

salesguy222 10y ago
You are exactly right. Some people here might be employed in this line of work, and that's why the engage in fingerpointing and "we're different" :)

dang 10y ago

Please don't post inflammatory political rhetoric to HN. It lowers signal, raises noise, and triggers flamewars. You probably have a good point in there, but the Molotov cocktail is not an acceptable delivery mechanism. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13626479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13626479 and marked it off-topic.

marklyon 10y ago

They did get it kicked off, though, by adding the questions to the form.