10 ms·

BigTech Fraud

142 points by noxer 5y ago

cosmophany 5y ago
Not obvious from the title, but in this article Greenwald takes the opportunity to air some of the dirty laundry about why he left the Intercept. Worth reading.
h2odragon 5y ago
Recall that some of the people who got copies of this laptop's drive image felt they had a legal obligation to report the contents to (iirc) Delaware State Police almost immediately thereafter. Remember: A "footjob" is different than a pedicure.
skinkestek 5y ago
Hidden for some reason deapite 10 submissions/upvotes in 51 minutes. I've sent a mail and asked mods nicely if they can override the flags on this one.
- noxer 5y ago
  NH doesn't like Greenwald. I only posted this because HN also does not like BigTech so it at least had a chance to get seen by some people who are interested.
  - b9be520d93286 5y ago
    The cognitive dissonance is staggering
  - dang 5y ago
    The community is divided on that, as it is on every other divisive topic. You can't expect HN to differ significantly from the population at large—the community is too large for that.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    Greenwald may be right but he seems rather angry in this article, which diminishes his credibility a bit. He sounds angry at the media who doesn't agree with him, so they must be in cahoots with CIA and the big tech. Does that sound a bit like a "conspiracy theory"? It sounds that way to me, of course he may be right. And curiously it seems he laments the fact that this information was not covered more widely before the election, which could have helped Trump win so it seems he laments the fact that Trump didn't win, because he is angry at Biden and the mainstream media. Every act of opinion writing is political, what you write about and what you don't write about. Do you criticize Biden or do you criticize Putin? Either way you (try to) move the public needle to one direction or other. OK, so I read an interview of Greenwald at https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/now-we-re-talking/en/glenn-greenwald/ https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/now-we-re-talking/en/gle... and, now I think I know where he goes wrong, at least in my view. He seems to blame "USA" a lot for its past misbehaviors. What's wrong with this view, in my view, is that there is no single "USA". There is the US government. But the current government is totally different from the government of last 4 years. There are two political parties one of which doesn't seem to like democracy much at all. Doesn't seem to care about people dying of Covid because of vaccine misinformation. Whereas in the case of Russia there really is singular entity "Russia" meaning its current government because that government seems to be in power permanently. That is not the case with USA. US government this year is totally different from last year. Why? Because there are two political parties. Greenwald doesn't seem to see this difference, he thinks (or wants us to think) that Russia and USA are a pair of evil twins.
- dang 5y ago
  Users flagged it. I've turned that off now. If there's significant new information here, we can roll back the clock on the submission—we'd need a more neutral title and I don't see any easy candidate. Both the main title and the subtitle are certain to produce an instant flamewar. What is the significant new information?
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    It's a bit buried but there's significant information about Greenwald's own interaction with The Intercept re: the Biden laptop story. Given Greenwald's history with that outlet, this seems worthwhile enough.
    - dang 5y ago
      I doubt that that's significant or interesting enough to support a substantial discussion. I haven't read the article yet though.
      - skinkestek 5y ago
        If everyone knows it and it has been discussed extensively by everyone except me I'm just slow. If this is news to everyone like me that CIA and Facebook and the fact checkers got caught lying then it is a big story and it probably should affect how fact checkers work and how much we trust them.
  - skinkestek 5y ago
    > What is the significant new information? For me who doesn't follow it to closely the fact that significant more proofs - including from officials in Sweden - have been coming out since the case was dismissed as cased closed by fact checkers was the big one. For someone who follows it closely this is yesteryears news. For me this was the first time I read that. (edit: it -> that) Edit: as for the title if we don't have to honor the original in this case, could something like "Summary of developments in the Hunter Biden case previously dismissed as false news" work?
  - h2odragon 5y ago
0xy 5y ago
This is why social media censorship is so dangerous, even despite the blatant partisanship from a DNC operative working as a senior manager at Facebook. Stories that damage the established world order are suppressed and "fact-checked" (by biased partisan organizations, or worse, literal operatives working at these companies). These organizations are looking a lot more like political machines as every day passes. They have their fingers on the scales in a multitude of respects. Google by boosting and deboosting certain political content, Facebook through algorithm manipulation, shadowbans and banning and Twitter through hashtag suppression, "trending" manipulation, "fact checks" and banning.
- angelzen 5y ago
  What do people expect? The centralization of power in DC made it susceptible to lobbying, with well documented deleterious effects. The centralization of information reins in the hands of a handful mega-corporations makes them targets of the same kind of corruption, if not worse since there are no FOIA requests. US needs at least 50 Googles/Facebooks if not multiple that number to even begin address the problem. Which will never happen short of some miraculous reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt because network effects and economies of scale are impossible to fight against.
phonon 5y ago
I think he's missing the point. The issue was never if some of the info on the laptop was correct/validated. It was: 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered" through the repair shop. 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the intelligence efforts of Russia or the like.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  But surely he knows all that, so why is he pretending not to? I've never really followed his work, but has he always been like this or was this a recent development?
- mint2 5y ago
  This is what makes me tear my hair out. why is it that despite serious flaws that are nearly impossible to attribute to ignorance, do people trust and treat his opinions as quality reasoning? My only answer is they seek confirmation bias.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- stickyricky 5y ago
  With respect, I think you're missing the point. What is the author's main critique? The author is stating that the CIA, the "liberal-wing of the corporate media", and Big Tech companies conspired to suppress and censor information that was politically damaging to their preferred candidate. Even if that information was verified to be correct. According to the article, the authenticity of the laptop's information was verifiable. > "From the start, the evidence of authenticity was overwhelming. The Post published obviously genuine photos of Hunter that were taken from the laptop. Investigations from media outlets found people who had received the emails in real-time and they compared the emails in their possession to the ones in the Post's archive, and they matched word-for-word." The counter point would be that the "intelligence community" declared it a Russian disinformation campaign. But, as the author notes, they did so without evidence. > "in their words — “we do not know if the emails are genuine or not,” and also admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”" You don't have to take the author's word for it. You can read the statement issued by former intelligence officials which is linked in the source. > "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case." The assertion or "concern" that the laptop is Russian disinformation has never had any evidence to support it. And yet that was sufficient to completely censor the story on facebook and twitter. So with all the said, let's recap your points. > 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered" through the repair shop. There is no evidence for this. > 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. There is no evidence for this. > 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the intelligence efforts of Russia or the like. Again, no evidence. So why was it censored?
cnst 5y ago
What I don't understand is how all of that MSM and Big Tech aid is not considered to be an in-kind donation to the campaign of a single party. Don't we have campaign finance laws?
- tomohawk 5y ago
  We do, but Biden liquidated everyone from the campaign finance committee in an unprecedented move, and guess which party controls the white house and congress?
  - cnst 5y ago
    But this all started over a year ago when he wasn't supposed to have been in power yet, why was nothing done in that time? Why always blame a specific party if neither one does any action to effect change?
  - fsagx 5y ago
    I don't know what this refers to, and didn't find anything with a quick google. Would you share a link?
    - jedmeyers 5y ago
      > didn't find anything with a quick google Didn't you read the main article? Why are you still trying to find things that is damaging to the political establishment through google?
      - fsagx 5y ago
        I did, actually.
Tehchops 5y ago
I see GG is really enjoying being free of anything resembling editorial control/restraint. > Definitive account Yea..... This was flagged for a reason
- dang 5y ago
  "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - itronitron 5y ago
    "Please don't encourage the posting of conspiracy theories on HN."
  - Tehchops 5y ago
    So hyper-partisan conspiracy rants from a guy who utterly bristles at editorial restraint deserves thought-out critical prose?
    - dang 5y ago
      Maybe not, but this community does. Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? It's the opposite of what this site is supposed to be for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - Tehchops 5y ago
        Fair enough, I will try to improve. The last thing I will say, in light of guidelines like "Assume Good Faith" and "avoid Political/flamebait"... submissions like this do not seem to be in that spirit. Guidelines also ask not to make comments, and instead flag content... except the flag button was removed... so it seems like a rock and a hard place?
        5y ago
theshadowknows 5y ago
We’re mad that the Bidens profited from coverups but assume the Trumps haven’t ever benefited from the same type of coverup? Do people really think Trump became a billionaire by just being a sweet person? Do people really think that Trump hasn’t ever used his influence to squash a story or report that he didn’t like?
- redis_mlc 5y ago
  > We’re mad that the Bidens profited from coverups In the area of $1 billion from the CCP and Ukraine, with Hunter flying with Joe Biden on official business to those countries. The US was literally for sale. Also, the Clinton Foundation took over $2 billion from Saudi Arabia, which stopped when Hillary lost the Presidential run. > the Trumps haven’t ever benefited from the same type of coverup? No financial benefit when in office. > Do people really think Trump became a billionaire by just being a sweet person? He inherited around $1 billion from his father, a major NY real estate developer. > Do people really think that Trump hasn’t ever used his influence to squash a story or report that he didn’t like? Not for monetary benefit. The major incentive for Trump to run as President was patriotism. The major incentive for his Dem. opponents was wokeism and Marxism.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  I dislike Trump intensely. That doesn't mean we give others a free pass though.
- coffeemig 5y ago
  I don’t see that as the central issue here. On gut, I generally think Trump is at least five times more guilty than Biden, per the reasoning you gave. The issue is that we’re verifiably living under a pervasive propaganda machine that has most well-meaning people, intelligent ones, fooled. That it’s supporting the lesser of two evils, is beside the point that the truth is being deliberately concealed.
cheesetable 5y ago
I have no interest in US politics, but I do have an interest in avoiding censorship/bias for topics that I do care about. The recent events that Glenn Greenwald has reported on has accelerated my move off platforms that have censored, or that can censor. I won't be able to avoid all of them all of the time, but I can make the alternatives my default. Federated over centralised. Open over closed. Public domain over ToS.
nullc 5y ago
FWIW, I made a post on HN pointing out that at least some of the claimed hunter emails were cryptographically verifiable using DKIM (e.g. that at least google had attested to them being faithful) and the post was immediately flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24950026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24950026 I don't have any real opinions about the hunter biden emails, rather I think that DKIM is an interesting and relevant danger to your privacy because it creates a non-repudiation vector that few expect to exist. Unfortunately, it seems that too often political partisans are unwilling to tolerate the distribution of facts that might support their opponents narratives.
- rubatuga 5y ago
  You know, hacker news is an important enough site that your post may have been flagged by Biden’s campaign team
  - nullc 5y ago
    A simpler explanation is that it was just flagged by a mixture of highly partisan readers and readers who are just tired of any politics-involved drama. Conspiracies make for great narratives, and they do sometimes happen but far more often bad calls are made for really boring reasons.
  - the_only_law 5y ago
    You flatter yourself too much.
- rootsudo 5y ago
  The same can be said about using SSL/HTTPS to access websites. People say it's secure because no one can intercept, but at the same time it verifies you are the one who did that at that time. Also, heartbleed.
  - 3np 5y ago
    How? I see with DKIM there is a clear tie to the owner embedded in the signature, but what identifying info can you get from an HTTPS request?
danbmil99 5y ago
Sorry, Glenn Greenwald is not a definitive source of useful information anymore
- coffeemig 5y ago
  How so?
jasonvorhe 5y ago
Greenwald kind of reminds me of Anakin taking a knee in front of the emperor in Revenge if the Sith. It's not really convincing but he's doing what's expected of him. It's sad what happened to my "heroes" of the early 2010s. To get a general idea about his motivations and his shift in allegiance, this piece is a good start: https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-glenn-greenwald-the-new-master-of-right-wing-media https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-glenn-greenwald-the-new-mas... Quote: > Intercept editor Roger Hodge theorizes that money is probably behind at least some of Greenwald’s adventures in right-wing media. > > “He needs subscribers and he’s giving people what they want, which is hatred and rage,” Hodge told The Daily Beast. “He’s tapped into the rage machine. He understands that there’s no engagement like rage engagement.”
- refurb 5y ago
  This kind of hyper-partisanship is what is destroying the media. The left turned on Glenn because he was no longer willing to just throw punches at the other side - he was willing to call out his own side as well, and if that mean talking to (gasp!) folks on the other side, well, that's what he'd do. It's not that Glenn changed what he always did, it's just that you didn't like who was in his spotlight.
  - dredmorbius 5y ago
    Greenwald's increasingly taken to saying plain stupid stuff without substantiation, and doubling down on it. It's one thing to be poking in areas with little available evidence and doing the best that can be done, another simply to make stuff up and play for drama and views.
RickJWagner 5y ago
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed" -- Denzel Washington
starkd 5y ago
It seems we're learning a lot about media lies over past four years. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/biden_security_adviser_sullivan_tied_to_16_clinton_plan_to_co-opt_cia_and_fbi_to_tar_trump_795498.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/... It's not the indictment of Sussman by itself that is interesting as much as the surrounding story the indictment reveals.

142 points by noxer 5y ago

Not obvious from the title, but in this article Greenwald takes the opportunity to air some of the dirty laundry about why he left the Intercept. Worth reading.

h2odragon 5y ago

Recall that some of the people who got copies of this laptop's drive image felt they had a legal obligation to report the contents to (iirc) Delaware State Police almost immediately thereafter. Remember: A "footjob" is different than a pedicure.

skinkestek 5y ago

Hidden for some reason deapite 10 submissions/upvotes in 51 minutes. I've sent a mail and asked mods nicely if they can override the flags on this one.

noxer 5y ago
NH doesn't like Greenwald. I only posted this because HN also does not like BigTech so it at least had a chance to get seen by some people who are interested.
- b9be520d93286 5y ago
  The cognitive dissonance is staggering
- dang 5y ago
  The community is divided on that, as it is on every other divisive topic. You can't expect HN to differ significantly from the population at large—the community is too large for that.
- galaxyLogic 5y ago
  Greenwald may be right but he seems rather angry in this article, which diminishes his credibility a bit. He sounds angry at the media who doesn't agree with him, so they must be in cahoots with CIA and the big tech. Does that sound a bit like a "conspiracy theory"? It sounds that way to me, of course he may be right. And curiously it seems he laments the fact that this information was not covered more widely before the election, which could have helped Trump win so it seems he laments the fact that Trump didn't win, because he is angry at Biden and the mainstream media. Every act of opinion writing is political, what you write about and what you don't write about. Do you criticize Biden or do you criticize Putin? Either way you (try to) move the public needle to one direction or other. OK, so I read an interview of Greenwald at https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/now-we-re-talking/en/glenn-greenwald/ https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/now-we-re-talking/en/gle... and, now I think I know where he goes wrong, at least in my view. He seems to blame "USA" a lot for its past misbehaviors. What's wrong with this view, in my view, is that there is no single "USA". There is the US government. But the current government is totally different from the government of last 4 years. There are two political parties one of which doesn't seem to like democracy much at all. Doesn't seem to care about people dying of Covid because of vaccine misinformation. Whereas in the case of Russia there really is singular entity "Russia" meaning its current government because that government seems to be in power permanently. That is not the case with USA. US government this year is totally different from last year. Why? Because there are two political parties. Greenwald doesn't seem to see this difference, he thinks (or wants us to think) that Russia and USA are a pair of evil twins.
dang 5y ago
Users flagged it. I've turned that off now. If there's significant new information here, we can roll back the clock on the submission—we'd need a more neutral title and I don't see any easy candidate. Both the main title and the subtitle are certain to produce an instant flamewar. What is the significant new information?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  It's a bit buried but there's significant information about Greenwald's own interaction with The Intercept re: the Biden laptop story. Given Greenwald's history with that outlet, this seems worthwhile enough.
  - dang 5y ago
    I doubt that that's significant or interesting enough to support a substantial discussion. I haven't read the article yet though.
    - skinkestek 5y ago
      If everyone knows it and it has been discussed extensively by everyone except me I'm just slow. If this is news to everyone like me that CIA and Facebook and the fact checkers got caught lying then it is a big story and it probably should affect how fact checkers work and how much we trust them.
- skinkestek 5y ago
  > What is the significant new information? For me who doesn't follow it to closely the fact that significant more proofs - including from officials in Sweden - have been coming out since the case was dismissed as cased closed by fact checkers was the big one. For someone who follows it closely this is yesteryears news. For me this was the first time I read that. (edit: it -> that) Edit: as for the title if we don't have to honor the original in this case, could something like "Summary of developments in the Hunter Biden case previously dismissed as false news" work?
- h2odragon 5y ago

0xy 5y ago

This is why social media censorship is so dangerous, even despite the blatant partisanship from a DNC operative working as a senior manager at Facebook. Stories that damage the established world order are suppressed and "fact-checked" (by biased partisan organizations, or worse, literal operatives working at these companies). These organizations are looking a lot more like political machines as every day passes. They have their fingers on the scales in a multitude of respects. Google by boosting and deboosting certain political content, Facebook through algorithm manipulation, shadowbans and banning and Twitter through hashtag suppression, "trending" manipulation, "fact checks" and banning.

angelzen 5y ago
What do people expect? The centralization of power in DC made it susceptible to lobbying, with well documented deleterious effects. The centralization of information reins in the hands of a handful mega-corporations makes them targets of the same kind of corruption, if not worse since there are no FOIA requests. US needs at least 50 Googles/Facebooks if not multiple that number to even begin address the problem. Which will never happen short of some miraculous reincarnation of Teddy Roosevelt because network effects and economies of scale are impossible to fight against.

phonon 5y ago

I think he's missing the point. The issue was never if some of the info on the laptop was correct/validated. It was: 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered" through the repair shop. 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the intelligence efforts of Russia or the like.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
But surely he knows all that, so why is he pretending not to? I've never really followed his work, but has he always been like this or was this a recent development?
mint2 5y ago
This is what makes me tear my hair out. why is it that despite serious flaws that are nearly impossible to attribute to ignorance, do people trust and treat his opinions as quality reasoning? My only answer is they seek confirmation bias.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
stickyricky 5y ago
With respect, I think you're missing the point. What is the author's main critique? The author is stating that the CIA, the "liberal-wing of the corporate media", and Big Tech companies conspired to suppress and censor information that was politically damaging to their preferred candidate. Even if that information was verified to be correct. According to the article, the authenticity of the laptop's information was verifiable. > "From the start, the evidence of authenticity was overwhelming. The Post published obviously genuine photos of Hunter that were taken from the laptop. Investigations from media outlets found people who had received the emails in real-time and they compared the emails in their possession to the ones in the Post's archive, and they matched word-for-word." The counter point would be that the "intelligence community" declared it a Russian disinformation campaign. But, as the author notes, they did so without evidence. > "in their words — “we do not know if the emails are genuine or not,” and also admitted that “we do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”" You don't have to take the author's word for it. You can read the statement issued by former intelligence officials which is linked in the source. > "We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case." The assertion or "concern" that the laptop is Russian disinformation has never had any evidence to support it. And yet that was sufficient to completely censor the story on facebook and twitter. So with all the said, let's recap your points. > 1. Was the laptop/information stolen, and then "laundered" through the repair shop. There is no evidence for this. > 2. Was true information mixed with false--a classic misinformation technique. There is no evidence for this. > 3. If either 1. or 2. was true, was it through the intelligence efforts of Russia or the like. Again, no evidence. So why was it censored?

cnst 5y ago

What I don't understand is how all of that MSM and Big Tech aid is not considered to be an in-kind donation to the campaign of a single party. Don't we have campaign finance laws?

tomohawk 5y ago
We do, but Biden liquidated everyone from the campaign finance committee in an unprecedented move, and guess which party controls the white house and congress?
- cnst 5y ago
  But this all started over a year ago when he wasn't supposed to have been in power yet, why was nothing done in that time? Why always blame a specific party if neither one does any action to effect change?
- fsagx 5y ago
  I don't know what this refers to, and didn't find anything with a quick google. Would you share a link?
  - jedmeyers 5y ago
    > didn't find anything with a quick google Didn't you read the main article? Why are you still trying to find things that is damaging to the political establishment through google?
    - fsagx 5y ago
      I did, actually.

Tehchops 5y ago

I see GG is really enjoying being free of anything resembling editorial control/restraint. > Definitive account Yea..... This was flagged for a reason

dang 5y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- itronitron 5y ago
  "Please don't encourage the posting of conspiracy theories on HN."
- Tehchops 5y ago
  So hyper-partisan conspiracy rants from a guy who utterly bristles at editorial restraint deserves thought-out critical prose?
  - dang 5y ago
    Maybe not, but this community does. Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? It's the opposite of what this site is supposed to be for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - Tehchops 5y ago
      Fair enough, I will try to improve. The last thing I will say, in light of guidelines like "Assume Good Faith" and "avoid Political/flamebait"... submissions like this do not seem to be in that spirit. Guidelines also ask not to make comments, and instead flag content... except the flag button was removed... so it seems like a rock and a hard place?
      - 5y ago

theshadowknows 5y ago

We’re mad that the Bidens profited from coverups but assume the Trumps haven’t ever benefited from the same type of coverup? Do people really think Trump became a billionaire by just being a sweet person? Do people really think that Trump hasn’t ever used his influence to squash a story or report that he didn’t like?

redis_mlc 5y ago
> We’re mad that the Bidens profited from coverups In the area of $1 billion from the CCP and Ukraine, with Hunter flying with Joe Biden on official business to those countries. The US was literally for sale. Also, the Clinton Foundation took over $2 billion from Saudi Arabia, which stopped when Hillary lost the Presidential run. > the Trumps haven’t ever benefited from the same type of coverup? No financial benefit when in office. > Do people really think Trump became a billionaire by just being a sweet person? He inherited around $1 billion from his father, a major NY real estate developer. > Do people really think that Trump hasn’t ever used his influence to squash a story or report that he didn’t like? Not for monetary benefit. The major incentive for Trump to run as President was patriotism. The major incentive for his Dem. opponents was wokeism and Marxism.
skinkestek 5y ago
I dislike Trump intensely. That doesn't mean we give others a free pass though.
coffeemig 5y ago
I don’t see that as the central issue here. On gut, I generally think Trump is at least five times more guilty than Biden, per the reasoning you gave. The issue is that we’re verifiably living under a pervasive propaganda machine that has most well-meaning people, intelligent ones, fooled. That it’s supporting the lesser of two evils, is beside the point that the truth is being deliberately concealed.

cheesetable 5y ago

I have no interest in US politics, but I do have an interest in avoiding censorship/bias for topics that I do care about. The recent events that Glenn Greenwald has reported on has accelerated my move off platforms that have censored, or that can censor. I won't be able to avoid all of them all of the time, but I can make the alternatives my default. Federated over centralised. Open over closed. Public domain over ToS.

nullc 5y ago

FWIW, I made a post on HN pointing out that at least some of the claimed hunter emails were cryptographically verifiable using DKIM (e.g. that at least google had attested to them being faithful) and the post was immediately flagged. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24950026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24950026 I don't have any real opinions about the hunter biden emails, rather I think that DKIM is an interesting and relevant danger to your privacy because it creates a non-repudiation vector that few expect to exist. Unfortunately, it seems that too often political partisans are unwilling to tolerate the distribution of facts that might support their opponents narratives.

rubatuga 5y ago
You know, hacker news is an important enough site that your post may have been flagged by Biden’s campaign team
- nullc 5y ago
  A simpler explanation is that it was just flagged by a mixture of highly partisan readers and readers who are just tired of any politics-involved drama. Conspiracies make for great narratives, and they do sometimes happen but far more often bad calls are made for really boring reasons.
- the_only_law 5y ago
  You flatter yourself too much.
rootsudo 5y ago
The same can be said about using SSL/HTTPS to access websites. People say it's secure because no one can intercept, but at the same time it verifies you are the one who did that at that time. Also, heartbleed.
- 3np 5y ago
  How? I see with DKIM there is a clear tie to the owner embedded in the signature, but what identifying info can you get from an HTTPS request?

danbmil99 5y ago

Sorry, Glenn Greenwald is not a definitive source of useful information anymore

coffeemig 5y ago
How so?

jasonvorhe 5y ago

Greenwald kind of reminds me of Anakin taking a knee in front of the emperor in Revenge if the Sith. It's not really convincing but he's doing what's expected of him. It's sad what happened to my "heroes" of the early 2010s. To get a general idea about his motivations and his shift in allegiance, this piece is a good start: https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-glenn-greenwald-the-new-master-of-right-wing-media https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-glenn-greenwald-the-new-mas... Quote: > Intercept editor Roger Hodge theorizes that money is probably behind at least some of Greenwald’s adventures in right-wing media. > > “He needs subscribers and he’s giving people what they want, which is hatred and rage,” Hodge told The Daily Beast. “He’s tapped into the rage machine. He understands that there’s no engagement like rage engagement.”

refurb 5y ago
This kind of hyper-partisanship is what is destroying the media. The left turned on Glenn because he was no longer willing to just throw punches at the other side - he was willing to call out his own side as well, and if that mean talking to (gasp!) folks on the other side, well, that's what he'd do. It's not that Glenn changed what he always did, it's just that you didn't like who was in his spotlight.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Greenwald's increasingly taken to saying plain stupid stuff without substantiation, and doubling down on it. It's one thing to be poking in areas with little available evidence and doing the best that can be done, another simply to make stuff up and play for drama and views.

RickJWagner 5y ago

"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read it, you're misinformed" -- Denzel Washington

starkd 5y ago

It seems we're learning a lot about media lies over past four years. https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/biden_security_adviser_sullivan_tied_to_16_clinton_plan_to_co-opt_cia_and_fbi_to_tar_trump_795498.html https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/09/23/... It's not the indictment of Sussman by itself that is interesting as much as the surrounding story the indictment reveals.