15 ms·

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver a

by hueving 11y ago

>I would join the hopefully overwhelming protests in favor of his release. All 12 of us would be fired up! More seriously, did you see the bit on John Oliver about Snowden? The majority of the US population have no idea who Snowden is. Be careful not to get caught up in our tech news bubble.

themeek 11y ago
Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.
- derefr 11y ago
  There's a similar bubble in the PRC: if you talk to someone inside it, they know all about Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the recent Hong Kong protests, etc. Whereas if you talk to someone outside of it, they'll tell you the Chinese government is a beloved-to-neutral entity (like the Queen of England, a bit) in the eyes of the populace, and that American terrorism is responsible for most-any Chinese civil unrest. It isn't until you meet people on both sides of such a dividing line that you realize: propaganda is never aimed at "converting" people who know even the slightest thing about an issue, people who already have any stance at all. Instead, it's aimed at the mass of people who care little enough about an issue, people who are far enough away from the issue, that they'll trust the first source of "facts" about it they see, and then lose interest in finding out more.
  - themeek 11y ago
    Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.
    - meatysnapper 11y ago
      Much of America is concerned about only 3 things: 1) Unborn babies being killed 2) Gay people having anal sex 3) A bunch of sand-people having nuclear weapons (news flash, it's pretty obvious Iran has nukes, and has had them for years) :(
      - dfgray 11y ago
        honestly, i'm much more concerned about the jawas than the sand people..
      - astazangasta 11y ago
        Iran does not have nukes. It makes no sense for them to have nukes and keep that fact secret (see Dr. Strangelove).
        themeek 11y ago
        Well, Israel has nukes but on an official level 'doesn't have nukes' - the Dr. Strangelove analysis isn't fully complete. (It is true that everyone knows that Israel has nukes). Iran does not have nuclear weapons but they are extremely close to having nuclear weapons. They have the knowledge, the material, etc such that if the sustained cooperation of other nations to sabotage their nuclear operations were to discontinue they would be nuclear capable very quickly. This is probably what the author intended - though it is dishonest to round it up the way he did.
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        I'm not an expert on this by any means, but are you sure the reason they don't have nukes is that other countries are stopping them? I had gotten the impression that they definitely have the ability, and haven't done it because they know it will cause a serious escalation in tension for not really a lot of benefit. When the recent Iran deals were being announced, I read material that said something along the lines of "Iran is 3 months from having a nuke" (breakout). It seemed to be saying, "Iran is holding steady, but could pull the trigger (so to speak) and begin the final 3 months of preparation at any moment". The goal of the nuclear agreement was to keep them perpetually some certain number of months away (or increase it) from having enough material for a bomb. > The IR-1s installed in the Natanz and Fordow facilities have been performing at an average per unit rate of 0.75 to 1 SWU per year. Using the 1 SWU/year performance of the latest IR-1 model, the breakout time with 9,000 machines using a natural uranium feed would be six to seven months. However, Iran also has substantial stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) that can be used as an alternative feed, shrinking the breakout time to three months. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran... > Mr. Kerry was joined at the talks by Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, who will have to certify to Congress that the deal ensures that Iran will remain at least a year away from being able to produce a weapon’s worth of bomb fuel over the next decade, a complex calculation in which the size of Iran’s stockpile is a major factor. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-stockpile-grows-complicating-negotiations.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuc... Now maybe there's far more sabotage than we know about going on, but it sounds like Iran has the ability to accumulate enough material, and is choosing not to. The way this is phrased implies that Iran is halting work toward a bomb. > The [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors, who have had almost daily access to most of Iran’s nuclear production facilities, reported finding no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, and said Tehran had halted work on facilities that could have given it bomb-making capabilities.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- stephengillie 11y ago
  Por que no los dos?
- jonah 11y ago
  At last count, Last Week Tonight as at least eight investigative reporters on staff. Even though it's couched as "entertainment" it's more in depth than most other "news" programs out there. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/last-week-tonight-does-real-journalism-no-matter-what-john-oliver-says.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/last-week-t...
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
comrh 11y ago
Kind of the hardest bubble to notice you're in though right? Especially in the age of social media.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  It doesn't help that every technology company uses their data on you to determine your interests and then just shows those thus keeping you in a feedback loop never exposed to other ideas or types of information.
- bsbechtel 11y ago
  Like a filter bubble?
electic 11y ago
It is easy to also forget, however sad, that the people that do know of Snowden, and are familiar with what he did, think he is a traitor and should stand trial for his "crimes". [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-should-stand-trial-in-us/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...
- eli 11y ago
  I don't think he's a traitor but I do think he should stand trial. I think a lot of people probably feel that way.
  - themeek 11y ago
    Well, you're in the DC area. There's a colored perception there. My experience (Seattle) is quite different. Also colored.
- foxhedgehog 11y ago
  There isn't any conflict between believing both this and that some of what Snowden did was admirable. The common belief is that the U.S. is supposed to be a nation of laws.
mortehu 11y ago
I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#Nonreligious http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-interview-political-disengagement-american-public/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...
- alfiedotwtf 11y ago
  I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on board.
  - skidoo 11y ago
    Or get Oliver Stone to direct your biopic.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    I used to feel that way until I heard Angelina Jolie speak on the issue. I'm not going to google the quote right now but the heart of it is that when they care about an issue, their celebrity can bring more attention than the righteousness of the cause. We have an abstract understanding of the fact that, in different parts of the world, people are facing hardship but a celebrity can get television cameras to show us what is happening.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > I've always hated how celebrities join up causes Why? I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the fact that people who happen to be famous also advocate for causes they care about?
    - 11y ago
lectrick 11y ago
That episode was pretty amazing.
djloche 11y ago
It is really the issue of large numbers. ~320M people. You could have 2 million person march through DC and demand an immunity EO for Snowden and it wouldn't represent even 1% of the population.

by hueving 11y ago

themeek 11y ago

Yeah I keep getting surprised that people I meet have no idea who Snowden is, haven't heard of mass surveillance or propaganda operations, aren't aware of the huge national security push being made by the United States across essentially every region of the globe, and aren't following national security legislation including the recent Freedom Act and 215 sunset.

derefr 11y ago
There's a similar bubble in the PRC: if you talk to someone inside it, they know all about Tiananmen Square, Tibet, the recent Hong Kong protests, etc. Whereas if you talk to someone outside of it, they'll tell you the Chinese government is a beloved-to-neutral entity (like the Queen of England, a bit) in the eyes of the populace, and that American terrorism is responsible for most-any Chinese civil unrest. It isn't until you meet people on both sides of such a dividing line that you realize: propaganda is never aimed at "converting" people who know even the slightest thing about an issue, people who already have any stance at all. Instead, it's aimed at the mass of people who care little enough about an issue, people who are far enough away from the issue, that they'll trust the first source of "facts" about it they see, and then lose interest in finding out more.
- themeek 11y ago
  Most people I meet seem to be under the persuasion that China is evil, corrupt and dictatorial - a unique wielder of force and propaganda. And they also do not know much about the America's support of Chinese civil unrest or the self-actualized pockets of civil unrest. Maybe there's a Venn Diagram of information bubble in there somewhere.
  - meatysnapper 11y ago
    Much of America is concerned about only 3 things: 1) Unborn babies being killed 2) Gay people having anal sex 3) A bunch of sand-people having nuclear weapons (news flash, it's pretty obvious Iran has nukes, and has had them for years) :(
    - dfgray 11y ago
      honestly, i'm much more concerned about the jawas than the sand people..
    - astazangasta 11y ago
      Iran does not have nukes. It makes no sense for them to have nukes and keep that fact secret (see Dr. Strangelove).
      - themeek 11y ago
        Well, Israel has nukes but on an official level 'doesn't have nukes' - the Dr. Strangelove analysis isn't fully complete. (It is true that everyone knows that Israel has nukes). Iran does not have nuclear weapons but they are extremely close to having nuclear weapons. They have the knowledge, the material, etc such that if the sustained cooperation of other nations to sabotage their nuclear operations were to discontinue they would be nuclear capable very quickly. This is probably what the author intended - though it is dishonest to round it up the way he did.
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        I'm not an expert on this by any means, but are you sure the reason they don't have nukes is that other countries are stopping them? I had gotten the impression that they definitely have the ability, and haven't done it because they know it will cause a serious escalation in tension for not really a lot of benefit. When the recent Iran deals were being announced, I read material that said something along the lines of "Iran is 3 months from having a nuke" (breakout). It seemed to be saying, "Iran is holding steady, but could pull the trigger (so to speak) and begin the final 3 months of preparation at any moment". The goal of the nuclear agreement was to keep them perpetually some certain number of months away (or increase it) from having enough material for a bomb. > The IR-1s installed in the Natanz and Fordow facilities have been performing at an average per unit rate of 0.75 to 1 SWU per year. Using the 1 SWU/year performance of the latest IR-1 model, the breakout time with 9,000 machines using a natural uranium feed would be six to seven months. However, Iran also has substantial stocks of 3.5 percent enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) that can be used as an alternative feed, shrinking the breakout time to three months. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-a-fact-sheet http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iran... > Mr. Kerry was joined at the talks by Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, who will have to certify to Congress that the deal ensures that Iran will remain at least a year away from being able to produce a weapon’s worth of bomb fuel over the next decade, a complex calculation in which the size of Iran’s stockpile is a major factor. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-stockpile-grows-complicating-negotiations.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/world/middleeast/irans-nuc... Now maybe there's far more sabotage than we know about going on, but it sounds like Iran has the ability to accumulate enough material, and is choosing not to. The way this is phrased implies that Iran is halting work toward a bomb. > The [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors, who have had almost daily access to most of Iran’s nuclear production facilities, reported finding no evidence that Iran was racing toward a nuclear weapon, and said Tehran had halted work on facilities that could have given it bomb-making capabilities.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

stephengillie 11y ago
Por que no los dos?
jonah 11y ago
At last count, Last Week Tonight as at least eight investigative reporters on staff. Even though it's couched as "entertainment" it's more in depth than most other "news" programs out there. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/last-week-tonight-does-real-journalism-no-matter-what-john-oliver-says.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/29/last-week-t...
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

comrh 11y ago

Kind of the hardest bubble to notice you're in though right? Especially in the age of social media.

BinaryIdiot 11y ago
It doesn't help that every technology company uses their data on you to determine your interests and then just shows those thus keeping you in a feedback loop never exposed to other ideas or types of information.
bsbechtel 11y ago
Like a filter bubble?

electic 11y ago

It is easy to also forget, however sad, that the people that do know of Snowden, and are familiar with what he did, think he is a traitor and should stand trial for his "crimes". [1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-should-stand-trial-in-us/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-think-edward-snowden-s...

eli 11y ago
I don't think he's a traitor but I do think he should stand trial. I think a lot of people probably feel that way.
- themeek 11y ago
  Well, you're in the DC area. There's a colored perception there. My experience (Seattle) is quite different. Also colored.
foxhedgehog 11y ago
There isn't any conflict between believing both this and that some of what Snowden did was admirable. The common belief is that the U.S. is supposed to be a nation of laws.

mortehu 11y ago

I think the being known to a majority of the US population is a way too high bar. In a 2010 poll[1], only 59% knew the name of the vice president, as mentioned in a Greenwald article[2] about this issue. 1. http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey-who-knows-what-about-religion/#Nonreligious http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-s... 2. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-interview-political-disengagement-american-public/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/06/john-oliver-in...

alfiedotwtf 11y ago
I've always hated how celebrities join up causes, but I'm now beginning to understand why - exposure to the masses. Maybe the biggest way to get Snowden's name out there and make eveyone listen is to get the Kardashians on board.
- skidoo 11y ago
  Or get Oliver Stone to direct your biopic.
- LordKano 11y ago
  I used to feel that way until I heard Angelina Jolie speak on the issue. I'm not going to google the quote right now but the heart of it is that when they care about an issue, their celebrity can bring more attention than the righteousness of the cause. We have an abstract understanding of the fact that, in different parts of the world, people are facing hardship but a celebrity can get television cameras to show us what is happening.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > I've always hated how celebrities join up causes Why? I can understand disliking some of the particular causes, or disliking the disproportionate attention given to celebrities, but why would you hate the fact that people who happen to be famous also advocate for causes they care about?
  - 11y ago

lectrick 11y ago

That episode was pretty amazing.

djloche 11y ago

It is really the issue of large numbers. ~320M people. You could have 2 million person march through DC and demand an immunity EO for Snowden and it wouldn't represent even 1% of the population.