Comment by JacobSeated | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JacobSeated | Hacker News Reader

I think we should be skeptical when it comes to Facebook coverage in the media, as quite a few stories have been pushing these false and speculative narratives, often including hearsay and personal subjective opinions to support claims rather than facts.

I mean, if you really believe Facebook is so bad, then do your job as a journalist and dig though the material yourself. Find the facts, and show us the exact facts that support your idea. Do not just speculate and make assumptions. However, you should really understand to leave out irrelevant off-hand comments made in "the heat" of a discussion. What is important is what a company is saying publicly, and that it matches up to what they are doing to a reasonable degree.

I am generally in favor of transparency, but it is not good to blindly and uncritically leak internal documents and discussions, just look at the whole pizzagate falseness. But, this is especially true when you know about the current media sentiment and same said material has just conspicuously been held by a company in conflict with Facebook.

Personally, I think the bikini app was deprived of decency, and it is amazing this app is not getting more criticism for what it did in the media. I think we can all agree the decision to remove access was necessary and a victory for users, as it is a step towards more privacy focused social media. The fact that the media will even touch the bikini story is ridiculous.

Those of us who grew up on the internet should be more objective.

Facebook is doing a much better job than their competitors (YouTube, Twitter. Etc.). The privacy controls are actually really good already, and I am sure we will only see them improve. We should give credit where credit is due!

I think, ultimately, this is about privacy and the information companies collect. People are in their right to be worried, but the media should still be more objective. For example, I wonder why no one cares about anonymization and increased transparency as solutions, something that rarely seems mentioned by the media. Companies do not invest in this for fun and giggles. More info here: https://policies.google.com/technologies/anonymization?hl=en

Making more technology open source, including anonymization technology, would probably help to increase trust.

> just look at the whole pizzagate falseness

Pizzagate is largely responsible for Epstein's crimes entering the public zeitgeist. Some of the allegations were bizarre and unfounded, but I credit Pizzagate for taking down one of the most rampant child sexual abusers in our nation's history (that we know of). Bill Clinton's rides on the "lolita express" were brought to light by Pizzagate, which then kept investigating Epsteins connections to Trump, Acosta, and Epstein's numerous associates.

To put my tinfoil hat on, I suspect that once the internet started releasing some seeds of truth, the pedo cabal engaged in topic sliding superlative accusations to muddy the waters about which revelations had a basis in fact.

Does Hillary Clinton really drink the blood of children? Of course not. But, Epstein was certainly a creep and I'm glad he was taken down. I'd hope the FBI has done an impartial investigation of the allegations against Podesta and Alefantis: public found some creepy-but-ambiguous skelletons in their closets as well.

Pizzagate's main propagandist was a Trump supporter who is in court with Jeffery Epstein's ex-lawyer Alan Dershowitz siding against Epstein's victims.

That supporter, Mike Cernovich, rallied gullible MAGA fanatics around this conspiracy leading to a gunman storming a pizza place looking for a non-existent child sex dungeon.

For whatever reason you are hear trying to give it credit when really it was a deflection campaign. Cernovich didn't detail his work with Alan Dershowitz in court as much as he promoted outright conspiracy theories to followers known to be violent.

These people want you to believe Epstein's accusers but not when it comes to their claims about Trump or Dershowitz. If the accusers are to be believed then their claims exonerate Clinton while rope Dershowitz and Trump in being involved with the child sex trafficking centered around Mar-a-Lago.

Pizzagate was an online popular movement that raised suspicion against numerous political figures on both sides of the aisle.

I think you're giving Cernovich way too much credit here. Many right-wing personalities latched onto pizzagate because Bill Clinton flew on the "Lolita Express" many times, sometimes without secret service, and this made HRC look bad. Cernovich is a publicity troll: he latched on because it was self serving. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a 'topic sliding' agent being used intentionally.

A lack of accusers pointing the finger at Clinton does not exonerate him.

But I agree, from what I've read, it seems that Dershowitz and Trump both had involvement - at minimum they had prior knowledge of Epstein's crimes.

>Pizzagate was an online popular movement that raised suspicion against numerous political figures on both sides of the aisle.

Don't forget shooting firearms in pizza parlors based on the efforts of people explicitly biased towards Trump. Why bother trying to make the conspiracy theory look balanced when it was all about shrieking at Clintons and deep state democrats.

>Cernovich is a publicity troll

He is in court with Dershowitz, his involvement and apparent pro-rape statements along with biases towards Trump has resulted in the victim expressing fear over his propagandist tendencies and his involvement in the court case in general.

That is more than publicity trolling.

>A lack of accusers pointing the finger at Clinton does not exonerate him.

No it just leaves people relentlessly accusing him despite lack of actual victim testimony look like hopeless lost biased assholes that would rather talk about Clintons 24/7 than address named culprits.

Like lets hear about her emails for four more years instead of the current actions of sitting representatives or efforts of people like Alan Dershowitz, running public defense of Trump's inner circle. Including his involvement in writing the foreword for Muller's report published on Amazon well before the actual report was put out.

Skippy's email is worth reading. As is the never mentioned instagram account.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37543

This isn't a situation for partisan tribalism. Everyone with connections to Epstein should be investigated by the FBI.

Also,

>Don't forget shooting firearms in pizza parlors

You mean the guy who fired a single shot to open a locked closet door because he thought children were trapped behind it . That was idiotic, but not an act of terrorism or motivated violence.

If firing a gun at anything, especially a chunk of metal, in a Pizza Parlor with people in it isn't motivated violence then what is? Does the word 'ricochet' mean anything to you?

I think intentionally firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill or injure is definitely morally distinct from irresponsible tool usage.

Using a gun to open a lock is dumb and irresponsible, but it is not violent.

> irresponsible tool usage

Your continued attempts to frame Pizzagate as some bipartisan magnanimous effort by non-violent gunmen is just bizarre.

A firearm is not a tool for unlocking doors, you are attempting to claim he brought it there to unlock doors which is an invention of narrative.

>but it is not violent

Oh yea those classic peaceful gunmen, driven by conspiracy theories propagated by someone directly involved in an Epstein court case. Siding against the accuser, working in conjunction with Epstein's ex-lawyer. Shooting expressly violent weapons in public venues they stormed.

Everyone loves a mob of armed delusional fanatics seeking Hillary Clinton's child sex dungeons in places named by Trump's defenders.

Totally not a deflection away from the testimony of the accusers, one groomed from Trump's Mar-a-Lago.

edit: If you'd like I could transcribe the court documents where the gunman stated his intentions with the firearms. Or the description of how firearms work in the court documents detailing their explosive nature of normal function. But then I'd insist on asking why pursue this particular angle of attack on this topic?

Kind of amazing that you created an account just to misconstrue my replies and try to cast my words as partisan when I've said nothing to that effect.

Yea good luck trying to use my account as a means to deflect away from your characterization of Pizzagate, or your fabrication of the intent of the gunman. Sorry, I mean non-violent locksmith.

Are you seriously trying to argue that he brought the gun because he couldn't bring a pass-key instead? I'm of the opinion that it didn't get worse because there wasn't anything behind that door but god forbid if there had been people there and he could have easily maimed or killed someone just by firing it in the first place.

Gullible violent idiots should not have access to guns.

I'm not saying the shooter was right or justified: what he did was dangerous, irresponsible, and reprehensible.

However, I just think that it is misleading to say "shooting firearms in a pizza parlor" because that makes it sound like he was spraying a crowd of people with bullets with reckless disregard for life when he fired only a single shot at an inanimate object.

It does not appear the shooter attempted to hurt anyone, the whole thing was the misguided attempt of a likely-mentally-ill person to 'protect the children'

Firing a gun is something that you should not do lightly, especially not in public places. These vigilante morons who are whipped up by their media savvy puppetmasters are dangerous. Firing a gun should be enough evidence for that, regardless of what it was fired at. What John Wayne does in the movies could have ended up very badly IRL. So yes, that was with reckless disregards for life, you have no way of knowing where that bullet you fired will end up. Signed, Yours Truly, Deadeye Dick.

Oh, and that's besides the fact that mentally ill people - and most of the general public - should not have access to guns in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com