4 ms·

I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The fact his work has such an uncritical fo

I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. The fact his work has such an uncritical following on HN doesn't say much could about HN's pretensions to offer high quality discussion.

iaw 6y ago
It may have to do with Greenwald's staunch defense of Julian Assange and the HN community having vocal support for him.
- MrMan 6y ago
  I used to just be creeped out by the greed on HN but now I feel like it is a sinister place
  - rodgerd 6y ago
    The fact that there's relentless pro-parler, pro-insurrectionist takes hitting the front page, but Amazon's detailed rebuttal to Parler's legal claims or technically quite interesting citizen investiations of the attack on the US Capitol tells you a lot about HN's worldview.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
krspykrm 6y ago
> I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.
- ihumanable 6y ago
  While this differs in form, it doesn't seem to differ in substance. "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection. 13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.
Inu 6y ago
>I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. He did not make this assertion in the article. Quote: >Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler. The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.”
dqv 6y ago
>I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection Oh? Where did he say that? I'd like to read what he said with context.
- BryantD 6y ago
  https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1348619731734028293 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1348619731734028293 Edit: on reading the article, his source for the assertion seems to be Parler employees: "Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." He reported that on Twitter as "Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler? Zero." I think that's bad journalism even if you agree with his conclusions. It's single-sourced and the source has every reason to downplay their involvement in the events of January 6th. I think that at the very least, Greenwald should have checked those 13 users to see if they had active Parler accounts, rather than just taking Parler's word for it. Further, the number is inaccurate. The DoJ press release (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/thirteen-charged-federal-court-following-riot-united-states-capitol https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/thirteen-charged-federal-cour...) says 13 people were charged in federal court, and 40 were charged in superior court. That was as of Friday; I can't quickly find info on whether or not more people were charged over the weekend, but then again, I'm not a professional journalist.

iaw 6y ago

It may have to do with Greenwald's staunch defense of Julian Assange and the HN community having vocal support for him.

MrMan 6y ago
I used to just be creeped out by the greed on HN but now I feel like it is a sinister place
- rodgerd 6y ago
  The fact that there's relentless pro-parler, pro-insurrectionist takes hitting the front page, but Amazon's detailed rebuttal to Parler's legal claims or technically quite interesting citizen investiations of the attack on the US Capitol tells you a lot about HN's worldview.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

krspykrm 6y ago

> I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. Actually, what is written is, and I quote, "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." But I'm sure that was an innocent mistake on your part, not a straight-up lie like you accuse Greenwald of.

ihumanable 6y ago
While this differs in form, it doesn't seem to differ in substance. "a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." So Greenwald reports that there were 13 people, a number small enough to stretch credulity, and they all happen to be inactive. The thrust of this statement, that it was a handful of inactive accounts is functionally the same as saying that there weren't any Parler users involved in the insurrection. 13 inactive accounts vs no accounts has little meaningful difference in meaning.

Inu 6y ago

>I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection, which is a straight-up lie. He did not make this assertion in the article. Quote: >Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler. The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube. As Recode reported, while some protesters participated in both Parler and Gab, many of the calls to attend the Capitol were from YouTube videos, while many of the key planners “have continued to use mainstream platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube.”

dqv 6y ago

>I mean Greenwald has also asserted that no Parler user was involved in the insurrection Oh? Where did he say that? I'd like to read what he said with context.

BryantD 6y ago
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1348619731734028293 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1348619731734028293 Edit: on reading the article, his source for the assertion seems to be Parler employees: "Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler." He reported that on Twitter as "Do you know how many of the people arrested in connection with the Capitol invasion were active users of Parler? Zero." I think that's bad journalism even if you agree with his conclusions. It's single-sourced and the source has every reason to downplay their involvement in the events of January 6th. I think that at the very least, Greenwald should have checked those 13 users to see if they had active Parler accounts, rather than just taking Parler's word for it. Further, the number is inaccurate. The DoJ press release (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/thirteen-charged-federal-court-following-riot-united-states-capitol https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/thirteen-charged-federal-cour...) says 13 people were charged in federal court, and 40 were charged in superior court. That was as of Friday; I can't quickly find info on whether or not more people were charged over the weekend, but then again, I'm not a professional journalist.