whybroke

5 ms·

1.
by whybroke 9y ago
I left after being hounded by trolls and sock puppets and, a year later, far from being deleted (as requested twice by email) my account was instead shadow banned. Of course, likely as not this post itself is invisible. Likely as not the GD
2.
by whybroke 10y ago
And I think a hostile nation affecting one's internal politics is an act of war, successful or not. This didn't just damage Hillary, although the media you so deprecate made it into just that. The hack also serves to de-legitimati
3.
by whybroke 10y ago
The logical extension of your statement means the Russians should be invited to hack the DNC or any enemies of Trump forever because in your opinion leaks about debate questions and Pizzerias are so very, very critical to democracy. Perhaps
4.
by whybroke 10y ago
Authoritarians will do everything in their power to replace fact based journalism with messages that support their ideology with no concern to accuracy. The very definition of authoritarianism means the public doesn't need to know what
5.
by whybroke 10y ago
No, only about 10% of billionaires are self made, as in not having inherited wealth or come from wealthy families. And even this is a record high up from a more typical 3%. (and remarkably, these are numbers that forbes feels excited about)
6.
by whybroke 10y ago
In the 1800s after even after Napoleon there were sporadic uprisings scattered through Europe and around the world, especially in the 1830s and 40s. The Franco-Prussina war was a prelude to WWI. Brits fought Russians, Turks fought Russians,
7.
by whybroke 10y ago
The period you describe was marked by revolutions, civil wars and world wars not stabilized until after WWII. Things did indeed come out well eventually but that better world most definitely did not emerge serenely and rationally. It took t
8.
by whybroke 10y ago
Much of the apparent quality is the prohibition of topics that will attract controversy _regardless of their importance_ and regardless of the authenticity of the commenters who spam nonsense on it. For example, I imagine this item[1] would
9.
by whybroke 10y ago
Given that the topic is about a German government action, it's safe to say it very much is a concern for free societies and not a product of US media. And therefore I fear you conjectures about google trends, the Times financials and a
10.
by whybroke 10y ago
If accurate information is in fact one sided, it will look like the purveyor is pushing an agenda. And in fact every competent news source including the Atlantic, WaPo, CNN, the Guardian, Forbes, the BBC, NHK and the Economist reported the
11.
by whybroke 10y ago
Casting doubt on what constitutes a fact is core to the maintenance of power in a dictatorship. Those who now believe there is an equivalence between far-right propaganda (some of it originating form a hostile power) and the NYT, are a lost
12.
by whybroke 10y ago
Unfortunately being right is of small consultation if the situation is plunged into economic, diplomatic and military disaster by an ill-informed tweeting leader.
13.
by whybroke 10y ago
This is actually a very serious problem. Not necessarily astroturfing but high quality topics are easily swept from the front page or the replies turn into an endless slop of loony-spam by people who's ideology is threatened.
14.
by whybroke 10y ago
And so hiring managers simply reject older candidates out of hand. No matter what level of training/education the candidate has (and likely his existing skill set far exceeds the value of a ruby boot-camp), the preconception will precl
15.
by whybroke 10y ago
Contrary to international opinion, China believes the South China Sea is in territory owing to an 1940s document containing an '11 dash line' So in the legal opinion of all the world minus China it is theft. In the legal opinion o
16.
by whybroke 10y ago
Direct theft of hardware, however, is distinct escalation. The US's 'freedom of navigation' exercises have going on for quite some time.
17.
by whybroke 10y ago
non-compete clause
18.
by whybroke 10y ago
>Or maybe the job their trying to fill isn't worth that much to them (the employers, that is)? Just imagine the businesses that suddenly become profitable if employers could provide nothing beyond room and board and employees weren&
19.
by whybroke 10y ago
>...combined with McCarthy's wet dream... His dreams really can come true: http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/06/13/fox-s-gingrich-call...
20.
by whybroke 10y ago
What if, regardless of the likelihood of deletion, there were no harm in making backups and one obstacle was funding? Would not a post to a site frequented by members of the scientific community be beneficial? And is not the very belief tha
21.
by whybroke 10y ago
The unstated premises of your one sentence rhetorical is that spam, trolling and elevated emotions do not degrade discourse. This is erroneous. I (if my personal case matters) was hoping to observe a conversation among well informed persons
22.
by whybroke 10y ago
Excessive comments trigger the 'controversial topic' penalty which drives it from the front page. A conversation requires informed participants. There are few participants on topics that aren't seen. Presumably there is a con
23.
by whybroke 10y ago
>...the Marxists would like to use it as an excuse for global domination... Four post (and counting) on this same topic form the same guy. I wish there were a place where sane (let alone well informed) people could discuss serious issues
24.
by whybroke 10y ago
An exact opposite equally excellent article from the same publication calling out the FUD we know as 'Fake News' And this one avoids words like 'shameful' and 'disgusting' https://theintercept.com&#x
25.
by whybroke 10y ago
Really? A cartoon about the Jeane Dixon fallacy is a response? I think you're going to find the next years very surprising indeed. Even now, using tor is de facto grounds for a wiretap[1] And I apologize in advance if my evidence is ac
26.
by whybroke 10y ago
>...tat he sells... It's free. And normally one would associate such vehement and repetitive insistence on counter-factuals with trolling
27.
by whybroke 10y ago
Historically yes. But I suggest bookmarking this comment and coming back to it in a few years to see how prophetic or absurd it turns out.
28.
by whybroke 10y ago
The mere act of using Signal is suspicious. But if usage is universal then that suspicion can not be acted on. The suggestion that the motivation for this article is profit for the NYT or Moxie is quite destructive.
29.
by whybroke 10y ago
Very true, high emotions preclude clear thinking and this week will be a worthwhile experiment. But unfortunately web technologies are at the core of recent political events making this a very hard problem. For example will discussion on th
30.
by whybroke 10y ago
If a union eventually grows out of this, fine. If a lobbyist or voting block emerges, that's fine too. But in the short term, I suggest the focus be on preserving the industry from the large number of threats it now faces via cooperati

More ›