4 ms·

Well, this is about allegations of toxic waste dumping done on behalf of Trafigura, which has poisoned hundreds and possibly killed some people. I'm sorry if y

Well, this is about allegations of toxic waste dumping done on behalf of Trafigura, which has poisoned hundreds and possibly killed some people. I'm sorry if you feel that corporate murder is a boring topic.

axod 17y ago
I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN. You're right though, reading about corporate murder doesn't interest me :/ Just like reading about serial killers doesn't interest me all that much. You seem to be implying somehow that I think corporate murder is ok or not a serious issue :/ An odd leap you're making there.
- Zarkonnen 17y ago
  TBH, I just found this sufficiently frightening that I wanted to spread the news, and HN came to mind.
  - axod 17y ago
    What's frightening about it? :/ Meh
    - batasrki 17y ago
      Are you kidding? Some corp poisons a whole lot of people, a law firm tries to gag a news organization and thereby rights to free speech and all you can muster is "Meh"? Come on, now.
      - axod 17y ago
        Yes, it sounds like some bad stuff. But not frightening IMHO. I'm not worried :/
- tarkin2 17y ago
  "I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN." To be fair, this does involve the use of twitter, and other social news sites, and technology in general, to challenge existing legal/PR practices i.e. trying to gag news sites. Furthermore, it may be possible that the twitter-storm made Carter Ruck decide that by sticking to their guns the storm would increase, thereby working against their aim of minimising Trafigura's publicity. It's a good example of how the internet changes society, providing the internet did play a role in Carter Ruck's decision to cave in, which I would guess is likely.
  - axod 17y ago
    I really really doubt twitter had anything to do with anything here.
    - tarkin2 17y ago
      Carter Ruck were trying to suppress anyone knowing about the report, to such an extent that they tried to stop the Guardian reporting on a parliamentary question that spoke about it. Twitter, fueled from the outrage in regard to gagging the Guardian, started to link to that report extensively. The longer Carter Ruck decided to persue this course of action, the more Twitter would link to the report. Therefore, it was wise for Carter Ruck to remove Twitter's fuel. It was wise to stop attempting to gag the Guardian. (Attempting to sue all those on Twitter would be unfeasible, and suing Twitter itself would add even more fuel to the fire) I have no proof this is what Carter Ruck thought. But it's certainly a logical and sensible course of action for Carter Ruck, which makes it likely.
      - axod 17y ago
        Interesting theory, but come on. I doubt they know what twitter is.
        tarkin2 17y ago
        Carter Ruck are a leading British law firm. Their lawyers probably read newspapers. Social media sites are very hot news in the UK, and Twitter is probably the second most famous after Facebook, which is ridiculously famous. Twitter isn't the domain of those who have protracted conversations on social news sites anymore.
llimllib 17y ago
> I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN. plus what's with the holier-than-thou act? yeesh.
anigbrowl 17y ago
I don't think the Trafigura part is especially relevant to HN - corporate misdeeds are covered extensively in other news outlets, and are more Business News or Environment News or Legal News. Don't get me wrong, they seem like an unpleasant corporation, but we could fill the front page many times over each day if we posted every such story. However, the (mis)use to law to attempt a gagging of the press is a censorship issue, and matters of censorship ad information freedom do seem relevant to HN, so I'm glad you posted it even though I've seen this story elsewhere.

axod 17y ago

I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN. You're right though, reading about corporate murder doesn't interest me :/ Just like reading about serial killers doesn't interest me all that much. You seem to be implying somehow that I think corporate murder is ok or not a serious issue :/ An odd leap you're making there.

Zarkonnen 17y ago
TBH, I just found this sufficiently frightening that I wanted to spread the news, and HN came to mind.
- axod 17y ago
  What's frightening about it? :/ Meh
  - batasrki 17y ago
    Are you kidding? Some corp poisons a whole lot of people, a law firm tries to gag a news organization and thereby rights to free speech and all you can muster is "Meh"? Come on, now.
    - axod 17y ago
      Yes, it sounds like some bad stuff. But not frightening IMHO. I'm not worried :/
tarkin2 17y ago
"I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN." To be fair, this does involve the use of twitter, and other social news sites, and technology in general, to challenge existing legal/PR practices i.e. trying to gag news sites. Furthermore, it may be possible that the twitter-storm made Carter Ruck decide that by sticking to their guns the storm would increase, thereby working against their aim of minimising Trafigura's publicity. It's a good example of how the internet changes society, providing the internet did play a role in Carter Ruck's decision to cave in, which I would guess is likely.
- axod 17y ago
  I really really doubt twitter had anything to do with anything here.
  - tarkin2 17y ago
    Carter Ruck were trying to suppress anyone knowing about the report, to such an extent that they tried to stop the Guardian reporting on a parliamentary question that spoke about it. Twitter, fueled from the outrage in regard to gagging the Guardian, started to link to that report extensively. The longer Carter Ruck decided to persue this course of action, the more Twitter would link to the report. Therefore, it was wise for Carter Ruck to remove Twitter's fuel. It was wise to stop attempting to gag the Guardian. (Attempting to sue all those on Twitter would be unfeasible, and suing Twitter itself would add even more fuel to the fire) I have no proof this is what Carter Ruck thought. But it's certainly a logical and sensible course of action for Carter Ruck, which makes it likely.
    - axod 17y ago
      Interesting theory, but come on. I doubt they know what twitter is.
      - tarkin2 17y ago
        Carter Ruck are a leading British law firm. Their lawyers probably read newspapers. Social media sites are very hot news in the UK, and Twitter is probably the second most famous after Facebook, which is ridiculously famous. Twitter isn't the domain of those who have protracted conversations on social news sites anymore.

llimllib 17y ago

> I just prefer reading about this sort of thing other places. Not on HN. plus what's with the holier-than-thou act? yeesh.

anigbrowl 17y ago

I don't think the Trafigura part is especially relevant to HN - corporate misdeeds are covered extensively in other news outlets, and are more Business News or Environment News or Legal News. Don't get me wrong, they seem like an unpleasant corporation, but we could fill the front page many times over each day if we posted every such story. However, the (mis)use to law to attempt a gagging of the press is a censorship issue, and matters of censorship ad information freedom do seem relevant to HN, so I'm glad you posted it even though I've seen this story elsewhere.