3 ms·

Welcome to Hacker News, SocioTech. I see you joined when the Swartz case news broke and all of your posts so far have been to defend the actions of the prosecut

Welcome to Hacker News, SocioTech. I see you joined when the Swartz case news broke and all of your posts so far have been to defend the actions of the prosecution while demonizing Swartz and his advocates. That's fine, but why not take a look at the front page of Hacker News? As a tech guy and hacker, I'm sure there are lots of other topics that you as a new member would enjoy discussing and not just this single topic.

lancewiggs 14y ago
Yes - it has me wondering who SocioTech is, who he or she works for and what their role is there. Arguably the behavior reflects someone who is PR, political party or DA office, which in itself would be fairly big news.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  I think you're wasting time trying to discredit someone based on who they are.
- sociotech 14y ago
  Reading about this case, I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. You probably won't (and maybe shouldn't) take my word for it, but that's just not how these organizations work. It isn't even close. People in small communities often overimagine their own importance. That's not an insult, just a psychological truth. The DOJ doesn't care what people here write, and if you talked to people there, from political appointees down to staffers, most of them would fall somewhere between (a) pleasure that the democratic process is proceeding through random or organized discussion online and (b) snide dismissal of hackers they don't understand. They don't hire PR people to infiltrate discussion boards on general issues. (Of course, the FBI does hire people to infiltrate criminal communities.) Think of any cases of astroturfing that have come to light. It happens by hotels that want to post undeserved reviews on TripAdvisor, startups (and even charities, as Aaron once pointed out) that want to get attention, etc., etc. The DOJ and US Attys aren't in the astroturfing business. Another thing that should give people some perspective: It's laughable for people to have suggested, as I think a dozen did, that the new limit for White House petitions (100,000 instead of 25,000) had anything remotely to do this this case. Most people in the administration haven't heard of it and never will. There's a lot going on in the world. ;)
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    > I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. I don't think you were just called a shill for either of those organizations, but rather a shill for one or more of the individuals involved.
    - sociotech 14y ago
      Well, it's not true either way. But that too is very rare. There's just too much risk with it, and it's not how most nontechies think. Look what actually happened in this case: Ortiz's husband issued an ill-thought-out, insensitive statement in frustration on Twitter, and then eventually there was a calm, rational press release from the office. Then they'll move on. They've got thousands of other cases, many of which have made other communities similarly angry. That we get 35,000 signatures for an online petition mostly speaks to the fact that we're online.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Jesus. Believe it or not there are people who don't think like you. Some of them are lurkers, and a controversial subject like this one can draw lurkers out of hiding. People can disagree with you and not be a paid shill.
sociotech 14y ago
I'm a reformed programmer who's now a lawyer (with a pretty high profile, but no connection to the US Atty's office), and I have another account that is more easily tied to my real-life identity. I'm not on HN a lot, but I know the community pretty well. This whole case is too politically touchy for me, which is why I'm on this different account. The last thing I want to do is get the attention of Anonymous, or anyone else. I am connecting through Tor when I write this. Maybe that underlies my fear of the mob mentality and the idea of witchhunts. ;)
9oliYQjP 14y ago
Interesting. We should all beware. There are Reputation Management firms hired by people like Ortiz specifically to help "correct" what they believe are knocks against their reputation after a controversial incident. It usually starts off with carefully crafted and prepared statements followed by in-depth newspaper interviews in Sunday editions several weeks after the controversial incident. It ends when they write a book which presents their side of the story, uncontested, and provides an opportunity for them to have a newspaper article written against this one-sided story. In between they do have folks who would sandbag online forums like this one.

lancewiggs 14y ago

Yes - it has me wondering who SocioTech is, who he or she works for and what their role is there. Arguably the behavior reflects someone who is PR, political party or DA office, which in itself would be fairly big news.

ewillbefull 14y ago
I think you're wasting time trying to discredit someone based on who they are.
sociotech 14y ago
Reading about this case, I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. You probably won't (and maybe shouldn't) take my word for it, but that's just not how these organizations work. It isn't even close. People in small communities often overimagine their own importance. That's not an insult, just a psychological truth. The DOJ doesn't care what people here write, and if you talked to people there, from political appointees down to staffers, most of them would fall somewhere between (a) pleasure that the democratic process is proceeding through random or organized discussion online and (b) snide dismissal of hackers they don't understand. They don't hire PR people to infiltrate discussion boards on general issues. (Of course, the FBI does hire people to infiltrate criminal communities.) Think of any cases of astroturfing that have come to light. It happens by hotels that want to post undeserved reviews on TripAdvisor, startups (and even charities, as Aaron once pointed out) that want to get attention, etc., etc. The DOJ and US Attys aren't in the astroturfing business. Another thing that should give people some perspective: It's laughable for people to have suggested, as I think a dozen did, that the new limit for White House petitions (100,000 instead of 25,000) had anything remotely to do this this case. Most people in the administration haven't heard of it and never will. There's a lot going on in the world. ;)
- jlgreco 14y ago
  > I've seen lots of people called "shills" for the US Atty's office or the DOJ. I don't think you were just called a shill for either of those organizations, but rather a shill for one or more of the individuals involved.
  - sociotech 14y ago
    Well, it's not true either way. But that too is very rare. There's just too much risk with it, and it's not how most nontechies think. Look what actually happened in this case: Ortiz's husband issued an ill-thought-out, insensitive statement in frustration on Twitter, and then eventually there was a calm, rational press release from the office. Then they'll move on. They've got thousands of other cases, many of which have made other communities similarly angry. That we get 35,000 signatures for an online petition mostly speaks to the fact that we're online.
rayiner 14y ago
Jesus. Believe it or not there are people who don't think like you. Some of them are lurkers, and a controversial subject like this one can draw lurkers out of hiding. People can disagree with you and not be a paid shill.

sociotech 14y ago

I'm a reformed programmer who's now a lawyer (with a pretty high profile, but no connection to the US Atty's office), and I have another account that is more easily tied to my real-life identity. I'm not on HN a lot, but I know the community pretty well. This whole case is too politically touchy for me, which is why I'm on this different account. The last thing I want to do is get the attention of Anonymous, or anyone else. I am connecting through Tor when I write this. Maybe that underlies my fear of the mob mentality and the idea of witchhunts. ;)

9oliYQjP 14y ago

Interesting. We should all beware. There are Reputation Management firms hired by people like Ortiz specifically to help "correct" what they believe are knocks against their reputation after a controversial incident. It usually starts off with carefully crafted and prepared statements followed by in-depth newspaper interviews in Sunday editions several weeks after the controversial incident. It ends when they write a book which presents their side of the story, uncontested, and provides an opportunity for them to have a newspaper article written against this one-sided story. In between they do have folks who would sandbag online forums like this one.