3 ms·

Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal

Not really clear what this article is about. If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught. If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment. If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror.

vvpan 2y ago
Who invented cancel culture?
- galaxyLogic 2y ago
  What is "cancel culture"?
  - vvpan 2y ago
    Better question, I agree.
Boltgolt 2y ago
Increadible that "but what about her emails" is still the only defense for sending military secrets over a non secure line to a journalist
- kopirgan 2y ago
  That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason. As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    Your best argument is that journalists should look the other way when serious problems land in their lap? > As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers. This analogy would make sense if the messages went to an employee of the federal government, but they didn’t. It’s mind-bending that someone could be so bought into a bad situation that they try to shift blame to outside parties like this.
    - kopirgan 2y ago
      Journalist has all rights to write about it and perhaps mention enough to prove he's not without proof but not reveal as much as he did. That's reckless. Repeat - revealing sensitive info even if you come across by accident or someone's mistake is a crime. Esp national ones not just corporate secrets.
      - DangitBobby 2y ago
        What information did they reveal that was sensitive? The strikes had already taken place and so nothing they shared had any strategic value after the fact, other than to confirm the validity. To be clear it is utterly fucking insane (borderline "Russian bot" talking point) that you are entertaining this line of reasoning and I feel dirty for even engaging you.
        kopirgan 2y ago
        Ha the "Russian talking point" weapon! Never failed. Anyone that doesnt repeat what the ecosystem wants is Russian agent. Kind of defeats the argument that content of messages will set back relations, affect future intelligence collection etc we kept hearing endlessly?! Make up your mind. It's either important or not.
        DangitBobby 2y ago
        It's more like anyone who wants to dismantle the free press is a Russian agent in this case. Not really moved by your protest.
Aurornis 2y ago
> Not really clear what this article is about. The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda. > If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught. This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal? > If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment. If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense. > If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism. And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”). Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant. > I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror. I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.
- kopirgan 2y ago
  I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be. It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies. By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.

vvpan 2y ago

Who invented cancel culture?

galaxyLogic 2y ago
What is "cancel culture"?
- vvpan 2y ago
  Better question, I agree.

Boltgolt 2y ago

Increadible that "but what about her emails" is still the only defense for sending military secrets over a non secure line to a journalist

kopirgan 2y ago
That was, as I mentioned a mistake not intentional. If anything was intentional it was the so called journalist giving it publicity instead of doing his duty as a citizen to report it, delete it. Doing anything else is in my books treason. As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  Your best argument is that journalists should look the other way when serious problems land in their lap? > As a company employee that's what you're supposed to do if copied wrongly on an email. In fact that's the usual disclaimer that appears in many email footers. This analogy would make sense if the messages went to an employee of the federal government, but they didn’t. It’s mind-bending that someone could be so bought into a bad situation that they try to shift blame to outside parties like this.
  - kopirgan 2y ago
    Journalist has all rights to write about it and perhaps mention enough to prove he's not without proof but not reveal as much as he did. That's reckless. Repeat - revealing sensitive info even if you come across by accident or someone's mistake is a crime. Esp national ones not just corporate secrets.
    - DangitBobby 2y ago
      What information did they reveal that was sensitive? The strikes had already taken place and so nothing they shared had any strategic value after the fact, other than to confirm the validity. To be clear it is utterly fucking insane (borderline "Russian bot" talking point) that you are entertaining this line of reasoning and I feel dirty for even engaging you.
      - kopirgan 2y ago
        Ha the "Russian talking point" weapon! Never failed. Anyone that doesnt repeat what the ecosystem wants is Russian agent. Kind of defeats the argument that content of messages will set back relations, affect future intelligence collection etc we kept hearing endlessly?! Make up your mind. It's either important or not.
        DangitBobby 2y ago
        It's more like anyone who wants to dismantle the free press is a Russian agent in this case. Not really moved by your protest.

Aurornis 2y ago

> Not really clear what this article is about. The article is quite clear: It’s about exactly what the title explains. I’m not sure how you would find it unclear unless you were skimming too fast to read it or you went in trying to find an angle to push a different agenda. > If it's about using Signal app to escape FoIA it's odd not to discuss who actually started that or use of personal servers in basements & shredding mails when caught. This is just “whataboutism”. If you want to play the whataboutism game, then what about all of the theatrics and threats that came with the email server story? Why have the rules suddenly changed so that something far worse is suddenly no big deal? > If it's about the leak which was inadvertent even if a sack-able offence then that's nothing to do with 1st or any amendment. If the best complaint you can muster is that it’s a different issue than the headline issue, that’s hardly a defense. > If it's about free speech in general, to have any trace of integrity, objectivity & not sound like propaganda it must discuss the censorship and cancel culture and its inventors Again, a weak attempt at whataboutism. And again, it doesn’t make sense for you to try to defend one thing by comparing it to another perceived thing you don’t like (“cancel culture”). Is your biggest concern with your article that it focused on current events instead of dwelling on these past issues? It’s an article about the current administration. Trying to drudge up past grievances is irrelevant. > I know this comment will be unpopular given the general trend in this forum but it needs to be said. In fact how's it's received itself will itself be a good mirror. I suspect your comment will be poorly received because it’s a weak attempt at whataboutism. It’s also logically inconsistent, given that you’re trying to downplay the current administration’s actions by comparing them to prior administration’s actions or vague culture war material. If you’re determined to dismiss any criticisms as a mirror of something, maybe pause and take some time to first think about how your own arguments could be made without reaching for whataboutism or past grievances. Try focusing on the matter at hand and who’s currently in charge, because it’s not Hilary Clinton or your “cancel culture” bogeymen making any of these decisions or lawsuits, but that’s all you want us to look at.

kopirgan 2y ago
I'm open to reasonable criticism like yours appears to be. It's not wrong to mention past given that past has great chances of returning as future. Not just in US context, but in most electoral democracies. By not discussing issues objectively the article just reads like another NYT, MSNBC rant. Sure be my guest and go ahead but we know what the credibility of that approach is.