Hacker News Reader

Comment by dangerface | Hacker News Reader

Yes, along with the rest of American media is how America is represented to non Americans.

If you think about it, media is also largely how America is represented to Americans themselves.

Think of the typical American's mental model of America (and the rest of the world) - where does the actual content of the model we hold in our brain come from? A mixture of personal experiences, conversations, TV, internet, books, as well as the brain itself - automatically (and without our knowledge) filling gaps, adding color and detail, based on a complex set of heuristic processes that we barely understand.

Take the Russia hacking the election meme for example - next time you read someone making an assertion one way or another, ask them what the source of their information is, the conclusive and specific physical evidence that proves their belief. In my experience, at best, you will get a link to an x00 page report filled with allegations, you won't even be able to get a vague description of any specific details that was conclusively proven, because that isn't stored in their mental model. (edit: or, as seen in this very thread when others have asked such a question, "evidence" that is not even remotely conclusive, but believed without question, as well as examples of historic non-conclusive evidence planting. In my experience, no amount of demonstration of this happening will ever change people's thinking on the matter - most humans will always continue to believe what their brain tells them, without hesitation - it just feels too real to not believe it, and this is why propaganda is so easy and effective.)

In the linked story, it appears the FBI agent is trying to plant this meme into the minds of 8chan users, hoping it will take root and spread organically there as easily as it has in the broad public.

==Take the Russia hacking the election meme for example==

Isn't it possible that you are the one falling victim to the exact type of thinking you describe? You admit yourself that propaganda is easy and effective. Have you explored that possibility?

==most humans will always continue to believe what their brain tells them, without hesitation==

The embedded assumption in this post is that you have risen above the misinformation, bad mental models and propaganda to assess the "real" truth. How have you managed to overcome the weaknesses that others fall victim to?

It most definitely is a possibility, and your type of thinking is exactly what we need more of.

I assure you I have and continue to explore the possibility, which is why I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen. Alas, despite no shortage of such people, I have yet to encounter one who is willing and able to provide anything beyond a link to an x00 page report full of allegations.

> The embedded assumption in this post is that you have risen above the misinformation, bad mental models and propaganda to assess the "real" truth. How have you managed to overcome the weaknesses that others fall victim to?

Apologies if I have given that impression, it was definitely not my intent. I am simply pointing out that there are plenty of people who make strong and specific assertions, but are unable to provide any strong, specific evidence. I have not formed any final conclusions, but the longer this drags on, and the more specific claims I read in the news that are not backed by supporting evidence, it seems fairly reasonable to suspect that the story is not true, if not actually faked (as we now know the Iraq WMD story was faked). I have no particular theory on what the underlying motive might be if this is the case.

If you know of anything I've overlooked, please post here so we can all become more informed.

This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth. Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself. One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying?

Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test.

==I often reach out to people who seem to believe they have witnessed specific, concrete evidence, to share the specific information they have seen.==

Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury? They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence. One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.

> This is the same thought process used to discredit the moon landing, the effectiveness of vaccines and the roundness of the earth.

By thought process I assume you're referring to listening to the various claims and rumors, and attempting to compare them versus factually confirmable evidence, keeping one's eyes open for misleading weasel language that may be intended to cause readers to form incorrect conclusions? If so, then yes, but I'm curious why you've chosen to associate it with 3 well known "conspiracy theories" that didn't do a very good job of this, rather than the far more plentiful and boring examples where it is used successfully in every day life across a wide variety of activities. Any additional clarity you can provide is appreciated as it may help me to better understand the truth.

> Sometimes life doesn't provide you a smoking gun and you have to put the pieces together yourself.

I agree, you do indeed have to work with what life provides. What you don't have to do though, is believe everything you're told without question (especially when we have examples where we have been lied to, in some cases resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people), or form conclusions without concrete supporting evidence. If the evidence is inconclusive, I feel perfectly comfortable with a stance of "I don't know".

> One thing I have found useful is to understand that if a group of people keeps lying about the same thing over-and-over again (like meeting with Russian representatives), they are likely hiding something nefarious (ask any parent). If not, why were they lying?

This is an excellent question, and I have no answer to it. That behavior, if proven and described in a completely factual matter (as opposed to a casual, "story-telling" manner that might result in those who are less vigilant about the truth forming a factually incorrect conclusion - again, see the Iraq WMD story), should be in some way attached to the overall stance of "inconclusive", as it provides additional information that could be used to kind of swing the "what seems more likely based on what we know" needle to one side or the other.

> Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous? Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch? I haven't seen an answer to these questions that passes the smell test.

I have absolutely no idea. Do you believe this proves guilt of the overall story?

> Have you ever been on a Federal Grand Jury?

I have not.

> They show you all types of evidence and ask you to indict people based on that evidence.

Is this what we are being asked to do here, except not in a court room but more so something of a "trial by social media" type of situation (something that's quite common recently)? If so, I believe that should be stated explicitly. I kind of get the feeling a narrative is being spun, and I personally don't care for that sort of behavior from public officials and the media, but this is just a personal preference, it seems to be very popular with a lot of people.

> One thing they don't do is share that evidence with the media or the public. The only concrete evidence the media/public has to go on (until a trial) is the indictment itself.

Oh ok, well this makes more sense then. I have repeatedly read in the media (and told, explicitly or implicitly, in forum discussions) that specific evidence has been provided that demonstrates specific guilt.

Maybe, for the sake of efficiency and clarity of communication (because there seems to be an awful lot of disagreement on what's true), could you restate, in explicit words, whether or not specific, concrete and conclusive evidence has been released on this matter? And whether this is only an opinion, or if it is based on the reading of an official and explicit statement (again, in a "non-story-telling" manner) that this is the current, official state of the publicly released evidence, so that I could read the actual text and judge for myself?

And just so my sentiments are clear, I'd like to explicitly state that I appreciate your taking serious interest in this story. Too many people take democracy for granted these days.

>Why did they lie about the reasoning for the Trump Tower meeting if it was so innocuous?

Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax. Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?

>Why would the campaign manager share internal polling with a Russian oligarch?

Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.

It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available.

==Seems like a failed attempt to avoid adding gas to the burgeoning Russian collusion hoax.==

And this sounds like someone searching for an answer that doesn't challenge their preconceived beliefs.

==Why did the Russian attendees at that meeting meet with the firm hired by the Clinton campaign to find dirt on Trump both immediately before and after that Trump Tower meeting?==

Not sure what meeting you are referencing, but this is textbook whatabout-ism. The discussion is on Donald Trump and his campaign.

==Because the campaign manager owed $20M to a mutually associated oligarch and wanted to show he was in a position to make good on his debts.==

And how does this show he was in a position to make good on his debts? Why does someone $20 million in debt take a campaign manager job without pay? How was he going to magically get $20 million by virtue of Donald Trump winning?

You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable.

==It's not uncommon for people's preconceived beliefs to outstrip their willingness to think critically about rationale for whatever specific, concrete evidence is available. ==

Maybe this is a chance to take your own advice.

> You stopped your logical thought because it took you exactly where you wanted to go, go one step further and you may start to get uncomfortable.

Speaking of which: I responded respectfully to your questions, why didn't you reply to mine?

I am delayed for a flight and only have mobile access right now. Not the best place to respond to such a detailed question, but I’ll try.

The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof. That is your prerogative, but know that an FBI officer swearing in and providing details on a case is treated as actual evidence in any Federal court or grand jury room.

That leads us the the other evidence we have, which is the indictment of 25 different Russians by the Special Council [4] [5]. This means a grand jury saw all the evidence available and believed overwhelmingly that there was probably cause to believe these people committed crimes to further their motives. To me, this is evidence that Russia intended to influence the US election. That they released DNC emails, started pro-Trump social media accounts and kept the RNC emails secret is evidence that they were working in favor of Donald Trump.

If we can agree on that premise, we can discuss the next piece. Is there hard evidence that the Trump campaign was involved/aware of those crimes in favor of their campaign. Here, the facts are murkier and a case could be made either way. I personally believe the combination of the campaign continually lying about Russian contacts, the campaign manager sharing poll data with a Russian oligarch, the candidate literally asking Russia to hack his opponent, the timing of document releases, the server communication between Trump Tower and Alpha Bank, the campaign lying about Trump Tower Moscow plans/details, changing the RNC platform, Papadopoulos bragging about having dirt on Clinton, Kushner trying to set up a secret back-channel, telling Lester Holt why he fired Comey, telling Stepanopoulis that he would take help in 2020, that The Trump Tower email explicitly mentioned Moscow’s ongoing support for Trumps campaign and Don Jr didn’t seem surprised and Roger Stone’s ties to WikiLeaks all speak to some level of collusion between the two parties (Trump and Russia).

Some of that is backed up by hard evidence (Trump Tower emails, court filings, etc.). I think if you apply Occam’s Razor, the most logical conclusion is that Trump and his team welcomed Russian help and worked to amplify it. An example is Trump touting WikiLeaks on the campaign trail while Stone and Trump Jr we’re communicating with them behind the scenes. Obviously, if someone obstructs justice, that often hurts the ability to get the exact type of evidence you are requiring.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/01/26...

[2] https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/12/dmitri-alpero...

[3] https://www.wired.com/2017/01/russia-hacked-older-republican...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russians-indi...

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/rod-r...

Impressive, I shall review.

> The bulk of the evidence we have comes from news reports. This includes the Dutch viewing Cozy Bear hackers [1]. It is also, this guy [2] saying we caught the Russians hacking the DNC. The FBI Director told us that Russians hacked the RNC [3]. It seems like you don’t consider that evidence because you can’t see the hard proof.

I need to see something convincing, that preferably consists of something more than colorful stories based on "confidential" evidence (that I have no idea is faked or misinterpreted, both of which have been done before).

Especially considering:

- All major countries are involved in hacking each other at all times, like this time the US was caught spying on Germany and many others:

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jul/02/wikileaks-us-spied-on-angela-merkels-ministers-too-says-german-newspaper  

    https://www.thelocal.de/20160223/nsa-eavesdropped-on-merkels-intimate-conversations

- The dishonest reporting we've been reading in the Russian Hacker news for several years now (claims that the Twitter accounts are known to be Russian, when Twitter itself said no such thing) - when I catch someone lying, the trustworthiness of their stories based on "confidential" sources and claims decreases. Does this seem unreasonable?

- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7#UMBRAGE "....the CIA can not only increase its total number of attacks, but can also mislead forensic investigators by disguising these attacks as the work of other groups and nations."

- This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War (see any familiar names in there??)

- This: http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/11/transcripts.mu...

The United States Government has a long history of lying.

Major US media outlets have exhibited a pattern of deceit, such as claiming that it is known, rather than suspected, that Twitter accounts were not just Russian, but Russian state sponsored.

Look at some of these pictures:

https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/iraq-war-bodies?mediatype=...

You want me to take the US government and media at their word, on the promise that they have evidence, even though they are known liars?

Is Trump better? Who knows, but anything I've seen suggests the alternative is a never ending line of groomed Neoliberal clones who act as well-spoken PR managers, while behind the scenes the US military and TLA's do as they please.

Sorry, but I will not go along with this, I consider it naive and immoral. If the Democrats run anyone other than Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard (perhaps a few others, I'm no expert), Trump would most likely get my vote.

EDIT: You know the more I think about it, this whole idea that historically, up until Trump, our political leaders were generally honest and made decisions on facts is incredibly simplistic and not supported by evidence. The world's a complicated place, and it's getting more complicated every day. Realistically, a reasonable approach to voting is picking the candidates whose collection of lies will be the least damaging to myself and others. Personally, I think the specific nature and subject matter of the lies, as well as who is telling them, is far more important than the quantity.