3 ms·

I did consider using "No Longer Available" rather than "Purged" in the title, but all things considered I think there's overwhelming reason to believe this was

I did consider using "No Longer Available" rather than "Purged" in the title, but all things considered I think there's overwhelming reason to believe this was intentional. Hopefully we'll soon have more information if someone looks further into this.

grzm 10y ago
Some other things I'd like to know, partly from being unfamiliar with the data that would otherwise be here. How far back did the existing data go? Was there anything similar between the Bush and Obama administrations? It sounds like you might be familiar with the data that's usually there. Providing this additional context would be really helpful. but all things considered I think there's overwhelming reason to believe this was intentional. I understand where you're coming from. I also know that this kind of hyperbole plays right into the narrative that's being constructed to discredit anyone who raises concerns about the Trump administration.
mattdeboard 10y ago
You considered using a less inflammatory, more accurate version of your title, but decided to go the other way.
massysett 10y ago
So you recklessly decided to post something inflammatory just because you think there's "overwhelming reason to believe" it--so overwhelming that you haven't cited it? Meanwhile "hopefully" we'll have more information "if someone looks further into" it? When Trump does this the New York Times calls it a lie. He often says we "need to figure out what the hell is going on," just like your "if someone looks further into this."
- runesoerensen 10y ago
  If the Trump administration wanted to control the story they could've just posted information about the change on the webpage and redirect users to the Obama administration archive (which exists, as pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647041). Instead they chose to break all links and API integrations with no warning or information.
  - mattdeboard 10y ago
    The problem is you've just invented a "fake news" story, in practical terms. You took an event, invented a conspiratorial narrative, then presented it as unvarnished truth. The fact you qualified your title as speculation in the comments doesn't matter. I'll tell you what I tell my very conservative family members: Your feelings or beliefs are not the same as facts. They are not equivalent in any way. Representing your emotions or opinions as anything other than your emotions or opinions is dishonest.
  - grzm 10y ago
    What's your goal? What do you want to accomplish? Raise awareness of what's going on in the Trump administration? Who's your audience? Do you want to reach anyone other than people who already share your concerns? Do you want to be written off by people who aren't already predisposed to agree with you? Sure, they could have handled this differently. I also suspect that the people who are running IT at whitehouse.gov may not be used to doing the work that they're currently doing (how often do you change administrations? I know I rarely optimize once-every-four-year processes that aren't critical), or are doing it under time constraints that's preventing them from doing the job the best they can. Except under the most ideal organizations, I think most of us have been in situations where things have been rolled out, on purpose or by accident, that haven't been done the best way possible. There are plenty of things for people who are concerned about the Trump administration to watch closely. To raise the alarm at all of them very much dilutes the power of the alarm for more serious issues. In such a polarized climate, preaching to the choir isn't going to make things better. People need to be focused on reaching some kind of shared understanding, and that takes people paying attention to what they're saying and how they're saying it, as well as people being willing to listen and understand (even if they don't agree) what others are trying to say.

grzm 10y ago

Some other things I'd like to know, partly from being unfamiliar with the data that would otherwise be here. How far back did the existing data go? Was there anything similar between the Bush and Obama administrations? It sounds like you might be familiar with the data that's usually there. Providing this additional context would be really helpful. but all things considered I think there's overwhelming reason to believe this was intentional. I understand where you're coming from. I also know that this kind of hyperbole plays right into the narrative that's being constructed to discredit anyone who raises concerns about the Trump administration.

mattdeboard 10y ago

You considered using a less inflammatory, more accurate version of your title, but decided to go the other way.

massysett 10y ago

So you recklessly decided to post something inflammatory just because you think there's "overwhelming reason to believe" it--so overwhelming that you haven't cited it? Meanwhile "hopefully" we'll have more information "if someone looks further into" it? When Trump does this the New York Times calls it a lie. He often says we "need to figure out what the hell is going on," just like your "if someone looks further into this."

runesoerensen 10y ago
If the Trump administration wanted to control the story they could've just posted information about the change on the webpage and redirect users to the Obama administration archive (which exists, as pointed out here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13647041). Instead they chose to break all links and API integrations with no warning or information.
- mattdeboard 10y ago
  The problem is you've just invented a "fake news" story, in practical terms. You took an event, invented a conspiratorial narrative, then presented it as unvarnished truth. The fact you qualified your title as speculation in the comments doesn't matter. I'll tell you what I tell my very conservative family members: Your feelings or beliefs are not the same as facts. They are not equivalent in any way. Representing your emotions or opinions as anything other than your emotions or opinions is dishonest.
- grzm 10y ago
  What's your goal? What do you want to accomplish? Raise awareness of what's going on in the Trump administration? Who's your audience? Do you want to reach anyone other than people who already share your concerns? Do you want to be written off by people who aren't already predisposed to agree with you? Sure, they could have handled this differently. I also suspect that the people who are running IT at whitehouse.gov may not be used to doing the work that they're currently doing (how often do you change administrations? I know I rarely optimize once-every-four-year processes that aren't critical), or are doing it under time constraints that's preventing them from doing the job the best they can. Except under the most ideal organizations, I think most of us have been in situations where things have been rolled out, on purpose or by accident, that haven't been done the best way possible. There are plenty of things for people who are concerned about the Trump administration to watch closely. To raise the alarm at all of them very much dilutes the power of the alarm for more serious issues. In such a polarized climate, preaching to the choir isn't going to make things better. People need to be focused on reaching some kind of shared understanding, and that takes people paying attention to what they're saying and how they're saying it, as well as people being willing to listen and understand (even if they don't agree) what others are trying to say.