10 ms·

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start wit

At the same time, this convergence of equivocation on First Amendment protections provides the perfect opportunity for a simple yet effect filter. 1. Start with the set of all potentially serious journalists. 2. Filter out the ones who put forth arguments which downplay the dangers to the press of prosecuting Assange. 3. Filter out the ones who don't explicitly argue against prosecuting Assange on 1st Amendment grounds. Follow the small group that survives #3 to get a variety of (probably) high-quality perspectives from serious journalists. Use set from #2 as a casual guide for when to prick your ears up and listen to the news.

TrainedMonkey 8y ago
Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Filtering out everyone who happens to disagree with your opinion is a good way to get stuck in an echo chamber.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  This goes some way toward explaining the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria...
  - belltaco 8y ago
    Also Pizzagate. Spread by Mr. Assange himself for political purposes. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod...
    - Ceegen 8y ago
      Pizzagate is real. Pedophiles will lie even when caught in the act. What happened to Johnny Gosch? Who was involved in the Boystown scandal? How many cases of missing children are not solved or not reported? How many "priests" get moved around instead of prosecuted? I find that most people don't even bother to analyze things like pedogate in-depth, because either this is too disgusting to even touch, or the person is just apathetic. That being said, analyze this problem like a programmer (as you would any other sort of problem), and you begin to see things you hadn't before. Also, Julian Assange didn't spread the rumors, only provided the information. If you think "playing dominoes on cheese pizza" is a phrase normal people use, or that posting pictures of half-naked children and making sexual comments about them is normal, then f* you. (Disclaimer: Also, f* you). Even if you just go by the "~10% rule" for population demographics, that at least 10% of the population belongs to any given demographic group, it makes for a large enough population group of pedophiles to be concerned about. So let's just say (for this example) that 1% of the population of the United States (population of ~350 million) are pedophiles of varying degrees ranging from Jared at Subway, to people like Albert Fish. That's still 3,500,000 pedophiles. Using the Pareto Distribution, a hyper-minority of 1% of the 1% are dedicated to their "cause", would be a group of about 35,000 pedophiles. Given that people congregate based on similar interests and ideals, you can almost bet that about half of "the 1% of the 1%" (in this example, 17,500) are in some sort of group that works together for the mutual benefit of the overall group. 17,500 is a lot of people. What kind of things can you get done with a group of very intelligent predators whose targets are children? And that's just the core group, who knows how many underlings they have working for them with similar interests, given these demographics... I mean, Goldman-Sachs has about 36k employees, and they're worth how much? The US Army reported 1,281,900 service members in 2017, and not all of them are in the "core group" 1% of 1%" that account for high-ranking power brokers, but the armed forces all work together as a well-oiled machine to accomplish a goal. Is it such a far-fetched idea that pedophiles don't have their own goal-oriented group? How many of them work in the entertainment and news industry? (Dan Harmon made a video about raping babies, and he thought it was funny...). Was Corey Feldman lying? FFS people back in the early 1900's thought that "organized crime" was an oxymoron, what is so hard to believe about this? I think it comes down to either you don't know or you don't want to know.
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      Did you read the pizzagate emails? I won't speculate on their meaning but they are weird as hell and I would like a plausible explanation as to what they were talking about.
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      Yes I agree that random crazy people should be held to the same standard as the war media.
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  I don't get purchasing recommendations from paid ads in my instagram feed.
- jancsika 8y ago
  > Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Since I'm forced to interpret your comment in the most generous way, I'll reply with yes. Step 4 is living in a bubble where obviously incorrect interpretations of the world don't waste much of my time and concentration. But even if I were wrong on the facts of this particular case I wouldn't end up in an echo chamber. I simply end up reading a variety of op-eds and articles written by people who vociferously defend freedom of the press. AFAICT those writers cross ideological lines.
wybiral 8y ago
Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to leak to the public? "It's just journalism, you can't arrest me..."
- techntoke 8y ago
  Exactly. They want special protections. I'm not advocating for the justice department not to take into consideration their motivation for transparency, but just because they may have had good intentions doesn't mean they can act with careless disregard in their actions. There are a lot of opportunities for improvement here on both sides.
- alasdair_ 8y ago
  Was the database already in their possession, or was it remote? Remote is hacking. If it’s something that was handed to them from a source then that seems like legitimate journalism. Also “wikileaks” and Assange are very distinct entities. Are there jabber records of (provably) Assange stating that he was trying to hack a remote server belonging to the DoD or was it some hanger-on doing the typing?
  - wybiral 8y ago
    For the sake of not confusing things here, forget about the data they leaked, they already had access to it. They were trying to crack the password of DoD accounts to cover up where they got the data and possibly access more data. But that's not important, from a legal perspective. Cracking those passwords with the intent to use them for unauthorized access seems like conspiracy, and that's what WikiLeaks was offering Manning in the Jabber records (to crack the passwords for her). I don't know the details about how they know Assange was involved but it was compelling enough for a grand jury indictment. It's up to the UK now to decide whether a request for extradition is valid, so the US needs to make a case for this indictment. We'll see where that goes and what evidence is presented. Edit: And I'm pretty sure the charge of conspiring to hack defense systems is also a crime in the UK so the grounds for extradition aren't so shaky. It's also really important to note that they can't just extradite for this hacking charge and then do a trial for the leaks or whatever the 1st Amendment concerns are. The extradition will have to be specific to whatever charge the US is bringing (which so far is only the conspiracy to hack). Also, if found guilty he can't be charged again for leaking or anything without ANOTHER extradition claim and that would be very unlikely. So whatever they decide to extradite him for in the next 60 days will be the kind of charges he faces.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ddingus 8y ago
Bingo. A lot of "journalists" are actually just parrots, depending on access to have "exclusive" things to say.
no-s 8y ago
I am also applying a similar discrimination to HN forum participants. Too many of whom seem absurdly credulous of the govt claims...

TrainedMonkey 8y ago

Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Filtering out everyone who happens to disagree with your opinion is a good way to get stuck in an echo chamber.

jessaustin 8y ago
This goes some way toward explaining the RussiaRussiaRussia hysteria...
- belltaco 8y ago
  Also Pizzagate. Spread by Mr. Assange himself for political purposes. https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate https://our.wikileaks.org/Pizzagate Leading to https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-podesta-pizzagate-766489/ https://rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/john-pod...
  - Ceegen 8y ago
    Pizzagate is real. Pedophiles will lie even when caught in the act. What happened to Johnny Gosch? Who was involved in the Boystown scandal? How many cases of missing children are not solved or not reported? How many "priests" get moved around instead of prosecuted? I find that most people don't even bother to analyze things like pedogate in-depth, because either this is too disgusting to even touch, or the person is just apathetic. That being said, analyze this problem like a programmer (as you would any other sort of problem), and you begin to see things you hadn't before. Also, Julian Assange didn't spread the rumors, only provided the information. If you think "playing dominoes on cheese pizza" is a phrase normal people use, or that posting pictures of half-naked children and making sexual comments about them is normal, then f* you. (Disclaimer: Also, f* you). Even if you just go by the "~10% rule" for population demographics, that at least 10% of the population belongs to any given demographic group, it makes for a large enough population group of pedophiles to be concerned about. So let's just say (for this example) that 1% of the population of the United States (population of ~350 million) are pedophiles of varying degrees ranging from Jared at Subway, to people like Albert Fish. That's still 3,500,000 pedophiles. Using the Pareto Distribution, a hyper-minority of 1% of the 1% are dedicated to their "cause", would be a group of about 35,000 pedophiles. Given that people congregate based on similar interests and ideals, you can almost bet that about half of "the 1% of the 1%" (in this example, 17,500) are in some sort of group that works together for the mutual benefit of the overall group. 17,500 is a lot of people. What kind of things can you get done with a group of very intelligent predators whose targets are children? And that's just the core group, who knows how many underlings they have working for them with similar interests, given these demographics... I mean, Goldman-Sachs has about 36k employees, and they're worth how much? The US Army reported 1,281,900 service members in 2017, and not all of them are in the "core group" 1% of 1%" that account for high-ranking power brokers, but the armed forces all work together as a well-oiled machine to accomplish a goal. Is it such a far-fetched idea that pedophiles don't have their own goal-oriented group? How many of them work in the entertainment and news industry? (Dan Harmon made a video about raping babies, and he thought it was funny...). Was Corey Feldman lying? FFS people back in the early 1900's thought that "organized crime" was an oxymoron, what is so hard to believe about this? I think it comes down to either you don't know or you don't want to know.
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    Did you read the pizzagate emails? I won't speculate on their meaning but they are weird as hell and I would like a plausible explanation as to what they were talking about.
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    Yes I agree that random crazy people should be held to the same standard as the war media.
rorykoehler 8y ago
I don't get purchasing recommendations from paid ads in my instagram feed.
jancsika 8y ago
> Step 4 - live in a bubble where you are always correct forever. Since I'm forced to interpret your comment in the most generous way, I'll reply with yes. Step 4 is living in a bubble where obviously incorrect interpretations of the world don't waste much of my time and concentration. But even if I were wrong on the facts of this particular case I wouldn't end up in an echo chamber. I simply end up reading a variety of op-eds and articles written by people who vociferously defend freedom of the press. AFAICT those writers cross ideological lines.

wybiral 8y ago

Most of the cries about 1st Amendment ignore the fact that the grand jury proceeded with the indictment because they have Jabber records of WikiLeaks discussing cracking the password of a Department of Defense database. The next time I get caught trying to hack the government I'm going to try the "but it was for journalism" defense. In fact, why can't I hack companies and claim I was just trying to get information to leak to the public? "It's just journalism, you can't arrest me..."

techntoke 8y ago
Exactly. They want special protections. I'm not advocating for the justice department not to take into consideration their motivation for transparency, but just because they may have had good intentions doesn't mean they can act with careless disregard in their actions. There are a lot of opportunities for improvement here on both sides.
alasdair_ 8y ago
Was the database already in their possession, or was it remote? Remote is hacking. If it’s something that was handed to them from a source then that seems like legitimate journalism. Also “wikileaks” and Assange are very distinct entities. Are there jabber records of (provably) Assange stating that he was trying to hack a remote server belonging to the DoD or was it some hanger-on doing the typing?
- wybiral 8y ago
  For the sake of not confusing things here, forget about the data they leaked, they already had access to it. They were trying to crack the password of DoD accounts to cover up where they got the data and possibly access more data. But that's not important, from a legal perspective. Cracking those passwords with the intent to use them for unauthorized access seems like conspiracy, and that's what WikiLeaks was offering Manning in the Jabber records (to crack the passwords for her). I don't know the details about how they know Assange was involved but it was compelling enough for a grand jury indictment. It's up to the UK now to decide whether a request for extradition is valid, so the US needs to make a case for this indictment. We'll see where that goes and what evidence is presented. Edit: And I'm pretty sure the charge of conspiring to hack defense systems is also a crime in the UK so the grounds for extradition aren't so shaky. It's also really important to note that they can't just extradite for this hacking charge and then do a trial for the leaks or whatever the 1st Amendment concerns are. The extradition will have to be specific to whatever charge the US is bringing (which so far is only the conspiracy to hack). Also, if found guilty he can't be charged again for leaking or anything without ANOTHER extradition claim and that would be very unlikely. So whatever they decide to extradite him for in the next 60 days will be the kind of charges he faces.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ddingus 8y ago

Bingo. A lot of "journalists" are actually just parrots, depending on access to have "exclusive" things to say.

no-s 8y ago

I am also applying a similar discrimination to HN forum participants. Too many of whom seem absurdly credulous of the govt claims...