3 ms·
I think this part is crucial and something that is framing this discussion in a possibly wrong light. We're getting "snippets" of the events from this individua
by zo1 6y ago
I think this part is crucial and something that is framing this discussion in a possibly wrong light. We're getting "snippets" of the events from this individual, and it could very well be that they're phrasing their comments and selectively "mentioning" parts of the story in order to amplify and push a certain interpretation.
Everything is marketing, and I would certainly say it's plausible that a developer that was this much in the spotlight would be steering the conversation to at least frame him or herself in a positive light if not outright promote their politics (even if that is just one of transparency/government accountability).
- testbot123 6y ago> We're getting "snippets" of the events from this individual, and it could very well be that they're phrasing their comments and selectively "mentioning" parts of the story in order to amplify and push a certain interpretation No, there's a single email that she sent out to a listserv that she was a part of, which is now being quoted. She's not "selectively 'mentioning' parts of the story." Don't twist this to sound like she has some sort of insidious motive. > Everything is marketing Are you joking? From elsewhere in the comments: "FFS they fired the person whose official job it was to make information available to the public and she reports it was because they wanted to censor it. I mean, does that not strike you as something she should absolutely blow the whistle on?"
- jariel 6y agoI personally would not go far as this very cynical take, but I think it's totally fair. I think the HNer thing to do is 'believe whistleblowers no matter what' but I'm of the inclination everyone is tricky and that we are deluded by our own egos quite a lot. We need more context.