Hacker News Reader

Comment by talmand | Hacker News Reader

I see nothing wrong here. It appears it was an informal request that a private company could have nicely said "no" in response. YouTube is taking down videos all the time due to informal requests that have no authority of law behind them, no one complains that much about those.

View on HN

Being complicit in state-ordered censorship is different than removing someone's embarrassing video when they ask nicely.

And the fact that it was an informal request, not legal arm-twisting, and that they complied anyway just makes it more evident that there was some form of tit-for-tat expected.

You could be 100% correct in your suggestion there. But nothing can come of it unless you can show the tit-for-tat happened and that it broke the law in some way.

I'm not asking for arrests, I'm asking for resignations or internal protest. This was an blatant ethical violation, even if perhaps not a legal one.

The Secretary of State calls up and asks you to take down a video and that's an "informal request"?

^ this.

Yes. Period, paragraph. An important person can make informal requests, too.

A formal request would cite legal authority.

Interesting, btw, that you assume that Clinton did this directly, despite zero evidence. Seems just as possible to me that a staff member would have made the request.

The President of the United States of America can personally call you and request that you take the Trump sign off your lawn. That is an informal request unless he can specify what law he is enforcing that you must be in compliance. You can politely or impolitely respond in any way you wish regardless of the fact of the position the man currently holds.

If there is a threat to you for non-compliance of his request, then he has likely broken the law.

"The President of the United States of America can personally call" I think Barrack Obama can make a personal call but The President of the US can't.

When an email comes from @state.gov with the description of "U.S. Department of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS." I don't think it can be considered Hillary making a personal request.

Ironically this might have been a very appropriate use of Clinton mail.

It is Monday so my recollection could be incorrect, but last I checked Barrack Obama is indeed the President of the United States of America and he can make a personal call whenever he feels like it. I was referring to the man that currently holds that title, not the office. But, a personal call and an informal request can be two different things completed at the same time.

I didn't claim Hillary made a personal request. I stated that an informal request was made, whether it be from Hillary herself or a staffer on her behalf. It is still an informal request that a private company can politely or impolitely decline.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com