Hacker News Reader

Comment by christophilus | Hacker News Reader

I have an idea, but it's pure speculation. Fear. Going up against Monstanto and the like is a good way to get into trouble. [0][1]

There are many other examples. Often, they are mixed with sentimentalism or sensationalism (and these examples might be, too-- they're the result of 5 seconds of Googling). But beneath the ones I've read/watched, there's clearly some truth.

[0] https://modernfarmer.com/2015/09/seeding-fear-the-story-of-a... [1] https://www.rt.com/news/206787-monsanto-india-farmers-suicid...

View on HN

I remember seeing a documentary film about this. I think it was called, "The Future of Food" and it documented pretty well Monsanto's MO to go after farmers who aren't using their seeds. Farmer's who don't use their seeds are sued for patent infringement if a neighbors seeds blow onto their land and they find out about it.

Monsanto is a modern day Mafia cartel, it's insane.

> Farmer's who don't use their seeds are sued for patent infringement if a neighbors seeds blow onto their land and they find out about it.

This is not true. This NPR article, written by the same author as top link, was already linked above: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...

No, they don't sue for that. Myth #2 as listed here:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...

Please don't cite rt.com. That is pure Russian propaganda. Not saying your general point is wrong, but the minute you cite rt.com you're basically repeating politcally generated fake news straight from the Kremlin.

Your point is perfectly valid, and shouldn't have been downvoted.

But as a footnote, the sibling comment here happens to also be correct: like any truly effective propaganda outlet, RT leverages a mix of largely legitimate / mundane news along with a certain proportion of fake or distorted news. But for the sake of simplicity it's best to stop citing RT or feeding it attention of any other form, altogether.

I know why you were downvoted, unfortunately you are more or less right but at the same time chances are they do publish or republish legitimate news soem of the time. I think its fine to ask for another source to verify a questionable source like RT.

RT is a particular case, because they publish things straight from a national state. Legitimate news sources do not. You'll never see them publish something that challenges their national sponsor.

Agreed. Also, don't cite BBC because it is fake news straight from Buckingham. Also, don't quote WSJ or NYT because it is fake news straight from the 1%. And don't quote CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News because they are all just fake news buzzfeed wannabes.

So what totally unfiltered source do you get your information from?

4chan

Buckingham? The British monarchy is only a figurehead.

Right, they probably meant Downing Street.

It's cute you believe that. Ever read the Black Spider memos?

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos#Reception: "The Black Spider Memos met with little criticism, and public support for the Prince of Wales."

Most people in the UK will support the monarchy regardless of what they do. Including meddling in political affairs and not being figure heads.

I took that as silly humor. Buckingham is a funny word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com