4 ms·

> We have different approaches but we're on the same side in case you haven't picked up on that. I did. I'm just more concerned with giving an accurate picture

> We have different approaches but we're on the same side in case you haven't picked up on that. I did. I'm just more concerned with giving an accurate picture of what happened than trying to pass off some kind of false equivalency. > but until the proper investigations proceed not much will happen. And this administration will attempt to block or obstruct any investigations that they think are part of a "witch hunt" so putting too much emphasis on Trump himself seems risky in the meantime. Let the investigators put those dots together. On the contrary, its necessary that we connect these dots. IMO, it's an insurance policy against the eventuality that Trump decides to fire Mueller or stall/block the FBI investigation. We the people need to democratize this information and disseminate it whenever possible. This is not normal. This is not business as usual. This is a tale of a corrupt political campaign using every dirty trick in the book, the likes of which we've never seen before, and winning because of it. Every party involved deserves to be punished, but the fact of the matter is that while we can't do much to stop people from putting together intel via publicly available data sets, we sure as heck can do something about corrupt politicians using said data sets. In much the same way, we punish the doxxer for using the dox, not the target for putting said information online in the first place, or the social networks for giving them the outlets to publish said information. Obviously Facebook deserves some blame, especially if they were somehow complicit in this (in as far as investment money/advice from Russian sanctioned industries/individuals).

wybiral 9y ago
> IMO, it's an insurance policy against the eventuality that Trump decides to fire Mueller or stall/block the FBI investigation. We really do need to make sure that doesn't happen and make sure they don't grab any more power while they have the upper hand. As far as getting people to see realize this stuff... You can't convince a Trump supporter of the sheer level of corruption as long as they think there's a witch hunt trying to make this stuff up. First the evidence has to be established and legitimized without being attached to Trump at all or the premise of the evidence is compromised in their mind. Does that make sense? Suppose a report came out that shows how drinking soda is actually good for you. But it was published by the sugar industry. Even if they had some good points you'd probably be skeptical. That's how these people will feel as long as the narrative of this being a witch hunt is perpetuated. > This is not normal. This is not business as usual. This is a tale of a corrupt political campaign using every dirty trick in the book I agree. > Obviously Facebook deserves some blame, especially if they were somehow complicit in this I think we need to look into them for their data practices in general. Way beyond this case.
- mike10010100 9y ago
  > First the evidence has to be established and legitimized without being attached to Trump at all It already has been. The bread crumbs have been laid out for years now, and all it takes is looking back at all the legitimate outlets that were at the time slightly mystified by the occurrences. We have outlets like Tech Crunch, The New York Times, Wall St. Journal, etc. all reporting on these things as they happened (as early as in 2009), and we are now able to piece them together thanks in part to the Paradise Papers. > I think we need to look into them for their data practices in general. Way beyond this case. Absolutely agreed.

wybiral 9y ago

> IMO, it's an insurance policy against the eventuality that Trump decides to fire Mueller or stall/block the FBI investigation. We really do need to make sure that doesn't happen and make sure they don't grab any more power while they have the upper hand. As far as getting people to see realize this stuff... You can't convince a Trump supporter of the sheer level of corruption as long as they think there's a witch hunt trying to make this stuff up. First the evidence has to be established and legitimized without being attached to Trump at all or the premise of the evidence is compromised in their mind. Does that make sense? Suppose a report came out that shows how drinking soda is actually good for you. But it was published by the sugar industry. Even if they had some good points you'd probably be skeptical. That's how these people will feel as long as the narrative of this being a witch hunt is perpetuated. > This is not normal. This is not business as usual. This is a tale of a corrupt political campaign using every dirty trick in the book I agree. > Obviously Facebook deserves some blame, especially if they were somehow complicit in this I think we need to look into them for their data practices in general. Way beyond this case.

mike10010100 9y ago
> First the evidence has to be established and legitimized without being attached to Trump at all It already has been. The bread crumbs have been laid out for years now, and all it takes is looking back at all the legitimate outlets that were at the time slightly mystified by the occurrences. We have outlets like Tech Crunch, The New York Times, Wall St. Journal, etc. all reporting on these things as they happened (as early as in 2009), and we are now able to piece them together thanks in part to the Paradise Papers. > I think we need to look into them for their data practices in general. Way beyond this case. Absolutely agreed.