4 ms·

What burden of proof are you talking about? You're saying that a burden of proof needs to be met before what, exactly? I am not saying they have met a burden

by stvswn 6y ago

What burden of proof are you talking about? You're saying that a burden of proof needs to be met before what, exactly? I am not saying they have met a burden of proof, I'm saying that we don't censor news articles (even sensational or thinly sourced ones) because they haven't yet met a burden of proof.

lanstin 6y ago
A group well known for lying is pushing a story with poor provenance and you are engaging it as if it has a decent probability of being true. That is a sign your prior belief of the lying people is off - with the more realistic prior belief that liars keep lying the question is why this made up story now? Or how did they execute this lie? And yes, the key to using the internet effectively is to filter things out that are garbage. I individually try not waste my time on bullshit, truth based organizations filter out a lot of crackpots: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20190201b/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2019020... and Twitter itself is free to try to do this filtering as well. I applaud them for trying to remove BS rather than trying to push addictive content but whatever. This very news site is interesting because they spend a lot of time trying to filter BS in favor of productive and informative conversations.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  So basically exactly the same as the whole Russia influencing Trump theory cooked up by Hillary's campaign that the media ran with hook, line and sinker? It also had poor provenance and an unreliable source yet the media ran with it unrestrained for years.
  - epakai 6y ago
    Huh? The Mueller Report, Deutsche Bank, Trump Tower meetings, Russian influence in the NRA, Paul Manafort's lobbying, Trump Jr's claim of Russian funding, Trump's push for G7 membership. I don't doubt some things have been exaggerated, but I feel were pretty far past a theory right now. The question is just how much their influence affected policy.
    - whateveracct 6y ago
      The average HNer doesn't think those things constitute proof. In fact, the mainstream thought here (always upvoted) is that Trump is unfairly hated by the Left due to their Agenda. SV is full of .. something. idk what to call these people, but reading this forum makes it clear they are all around me in my career domain.
  - generj 6y ago
    On the contrary, the story of Russia contacts with the Trump campaign had excellent journalistic provenance - multiple sources from within intelligence agencies as well as a former MI6 agent willing to vouch for information he had collected. The story received additional sources as it ran, and eventually grew into an investigation that yielded multiple criminal convictions.
    - colordrops 6y ago
      Are there names of people from any of these agencies that said this in public? What was with the "All 17 agencies claimed Russia interference" line? It was clearly not true and used as propaganda.
      - generj 6y ago
        The coordinating body of all 17 agencies did say there was Russian interference in the election, but not all agencies would have been relevant to such a statement. Politifact rates the 17 agencies line as true - they go into some detail as to why. At the worst, the line is a slight exaggeration/misspeak during a live event. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligen... The DNI publicly put out a report. I recall statements by the FBI Director, CIA Director, and NSA Director referring and promoting the conclusions drawn in the report (those 3 agencies were principally involved, in addition to being the three most important and largest intelligence agencies). https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf The Senate Intelligence Committee (which is GOP controlled) has also put out several reports concurring with Russian interference in the 2016 election. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... The initial news cycle would have been from highly valued and proven anonymous sources, which is typical for national security matters. If you are expecting a bunch of CIA analysts doxxing themselves on the front page of the NYT, you will be disappointed. That’s not how national security reporting (or reporting in general) works. To be of excellent provenance doesn’t necessarily require a named source - if the paper and journalist have a good track record with unnamed sources in an area of expertise.

by stvswn 6y ago

lanstin 6y ago

A group well known for lying is pushing a story with poor provenance and you are engaging it as if it has a decent probability of being true. That is a sign your prior belief of the lying people is off - with the more realistic prior belief that liars keep lying the question is why this made up story now? Or how did they execute this lie? And yes, the key to using the internet effectively is to filter things out that are garbage. I individually try not waste my time on bullshit, truth based organizations filter out a lot of crackpots: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20190201b/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.2019020... and Twitter itself is free to try to do this filtering as well. I applaud them for trying to remove BS rather than trying to push addictive content but whatever. This very news site is interesting because they spend a lot of time trying to filter BS in favor of productive and informative conversations.

mrkstu 6y ago
So basically exactly the same as the whole Russia influencing Trump theory cooked up by Hillary's campaign that the media ran with hook, line and sinker? It also had poor provenance and an unreliable source yet the media ran with it unrestrained for years.
- epakai 6y ago
  Huh? The Mueller Report, Deutsche Bank, Trump Tower meetings, Russian influence in the NRA, Paul Manafort's lobbying, Trump Jr's claim of Russian funding, Trump's push for G7 membership. I don't doubt some things have been exaggerated, but I feel were pretty far past a theory right now. The question is just how much their influence affected policy.
  - whateveracct 6y ago
    The average HNer doesn't think those things constitute proof. In fact, the mainstream thought here (always upvoted) is that Trump is unfairly hated by the Left due to their Agenda. SV is full of .. something. idk what to call these people, but reading this forum makes it clear they are all around me in my career domain.
- generj 6y ago
  On the contrary, the story of Russia contacts with the Trump campaign had excellent journalistic provenance - multiple sources from within intelligence agencies as well as a former MI6 agent willing to vouch for information he had collected. The story received additional sources as it ran, and eventually grew into an investigation that yielded multiple criminal convictions.
  - colordrops 6y ago
    Are there names of people from any of these agencies that said this in public? What was with the "All 17 agencies claimed Russia interference" line? It was clearly not true and used as propaganda.
    - generj 6y ago
      The coordinating body of all 17 agencies did say there was Russian interference in the election, but not all agencies would have been relevant to such a statement. Politifact rates the 17 agencies line as true - they go into some detail as to why. At the worst, the line is a slight exaggeration/misspeak during a live event. https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligence-organizations-or-four-either-way-r/ https://www.politifact.com/article/2017/jul/06/17-intelligen... The DNI publicly put out a report. I recall statements by the FBI Director, CIA Director, and NSA Director referring and promoting the conclusions drawn in the report (those 3 agencies were principally involved, in addition to being the three most important and largest intelligence agencies). https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf The Senate Intelligence Committee (which is GOP controlled) has also put out several reports concurring with Russian interference in the 2016 election. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/report_volume5.pdf https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/docu... The initial news cycle would have been from highly valued and proven anonymous sources, which is typical for national security matters. If you are expecting a bunch of CIA analysts doxxing themselves on the front page of the NYT, you will be disappointed. That’s not how national security reporting (or reporting in general) works. To be of excellent provenance doesn’t necessarily require a named source - if the paper and journalist have a good track record with unnamed sources in an area of expertise.