3 ms·

Stasi-like citizen-surveillance. And there's nothing ironic about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070

Stasi-like citizen-surveillance. And there's nothing ironic about it. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26069728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26069728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070040 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26070040

jakelazaroff 6y ago
The irony is that this piece is, to use Glenn’s words, “penny-ante, trivial bullshit”. Again, it’s a 3,000 word polemic rant in response to… a mistaken allegation in a tweet. It’s not speaking truth to power. It’s not shedding light on corruption. It’s just Glenn up on his high horse, spewing the same boring right-wing outragebait that he’s peddled for years.
- alentist 6y ago
  Your description of this (now failed) attempt at character assassination as simply "a mistaken allegation" is very disingenuous. Why are you so angry that it was foiled? An NYT reporter trying to ruin people's lives and reputations for petty ideological reasons is anything but "trivial bullshit".
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    I’m not being disingenuous, I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this. Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. Glenn is coming to defend a powerful person against an allegation that would have had literally no impact on his life or work.
    - alentist 6y ago
      > I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I suggest you read how she reacted to being exposed. > I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this. Again, what "shit" are you referring to? Why are you so angry that he's reporting on this issue? > Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. So you give the perpetrator a free pass because their victim in this case happens to be a high-profile person who might be able to defend themselves against the slander and all its consequences? What hope is left for the little guy?

jakelazaroff 6y ago

The irony is that this piece is, to use Glenn’s words, “penny-ante, trivial bullshit”. Again, it’s a 3,000 word polemic rant in response to… a mistaken allegation in a tweet. It’s not speaking truth to power. It’s not shedding light on corruption. It’s just Glenn up on his high horse, spewing the same boring right-wing outragebait that he’s peddled for years.

alentist 6y ago
Your description of this (now failed) attempt at character assassination as simply "a mistaken allegation" is very disingenuous. Why are you so angry that it was foiled? An NYT reporter trying to ruin people's lives and reputations for petty ideological reasons is anything but "trivial bullshit".
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  I’m not being disingenuous, I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this. Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. Glenn is coming to defend a powerful person against an allegation that would have had literally no impact on his life or work.
  - alentist 6y ago
    > I’m simply giving Taylor Lorenz the benefit of the doubt. I suggest you read how she reacted to being exposed. > I would extend that courtesy to Glenn Greenwald too, had he not exhausted it writing shit like this. Again, what "shit" are you referring to? Why are you so angry that he's reporting on this issue? > Anyway, here’s the larger point: it’s absolutely ludicrous to claim that Marc Andreeson’s life and reputation would be ruined even if the allegation were true. That’s why this is such trivial bullshit to write about. So you give the perpetrator a free pass because their victim in this case happens to be a high-profile person who might be able to defend themselves against the slander and all its consequences? What hope is left for the little guy?