Hacker News Reader

Comment by sky-kedge0749 | Hacker News Reader

I don't know. If a ton of news came out about shady stuff happening at the Coca-Cola company, I'd want to know if it was all coming from corporate espionage paid for by Pepsi.

We assume an impartial news organization will investigate Coke and Pepsi equally, so if the org comes out with a bunch of stuff about Coke acting badly, we figure that Coke really is bad, otherwise the org would have gone after Pepsi too, or both. On the other hand if a less scrupulous news org one day receives a mysterious package with a ton of bad stuff about Coke and just verifies and prints it, then Pepsi could be good or bad or anything, but most people will think they're good because of all the bad stuff only coming out about Coke.

View on HN

I don't follow that line of reasoning. The NSA massively invading the privacy of Americans, often without disclosure, has nothing to do with a Pepsi vs Coke scenario.

This isn't a competition between two corporations, this is about democracy and people's rights. What is this other side you would like to see presented more "impartially"?

PS: [a completely fictional scenario] if a leak disclosed that Coca-Cola was secretly implanting mind-controlling substances via their soft drinks, and that these substances made every consumer broadcast their most intimate thoughts to Coke marketing execs, you should publish this and damn Coke. Who cares about what Pepsi is doing? Their turn will come.

Yes, there are big differences between an NSA leak versus the hypothetical soft drink company example. These differences are fair game to discuss.

But in the context of the thread, the common thread is clear. Negative information, even if true, can be chosen selectively to attack an enemy.

The context of this thread is democracy and the rights of Americans.

I'm not even sure what "selectively attack an enemy" means in this context. What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad, who cares what his motives were? We are not comparing soft drinks.

> The context of this thread is democracy and the rights of Americans.

That is part of the context. It might be one person's entire notion of the context. However, different people, all reasonable, may have different contexts.

Not realizing or recognizing this can contribute to thinking someone else is "off topic". But on what basis can one person claim that someone else is not on topic?

In these comments, myself (and others too) include information (and disinformation) tactics as part of the context here too.

Wow, you seem to be making lots of replies.

I remember the trend on HN back when the Snowden leaks occurred. It wasn't palatable back then to express your views -- shooting the messenger, casting doubts on his motivations -- and most people were rightly appalled by the spying going on on Americans.

Thinking differently is a dangerous trend against whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are a good thing.

Unequivocally good. Yes, I used that word you dislike.

> Unequivocally good. Yes, I used that word you dislike.

Your comments are mean-spirited. This is what you intended, right? To attack me?

> Wow, you seem to be making lots of replies.

Do you intend this as an insult directed at me?

Yes, I separate out different comments intentionally, because I think they warrant separate points.

> -- shooting the messenger, casting doubts on his motivations -- and most people were rightly appalled by the spying going on on Americans.

Yes, shooting the messenger and casting doubts on his motivations were (and are) tactics used when a message reflects poorly on someone or some thing.

For what it is worth, in my comments around here, I'm not using these tactics as a way to deflect criticism away from institutions that Snowden criticizes. There was a huge breach of public trust in the NSA.

At the same time, it is interesting and important to understand Snowden's motivations.

> I'm not even sure what "selectively attack an enemy" means in this context.

It sounds like you are having cognitive dissonance. It seems to me that you have fixated on your definition of the context. In so doing, other perspectives aren't making sense to you. Having more flexibility might help you understand.

> What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad,

I interpret you as saying the act of disclosing this information was "unequivocally bad". Fair?

If so, no.

From the Apple dictionary, unequivocal means "leaving no doubt; unambiguous".

Please don't take this comment as "for" or "against" Snowden. Rather, please interpret this comment as "for" critical thinking and clear writing.

Students of philosophy and ethics, as well as many thoughtful people, know that weighing right and wrong is hardly simple. There are many schools of thought. Whatever one's views might be, it is clear that different people have different views of the ethics of Snowden's leaks.

For example, a utilitarian style philosophy could easily argue that Snowden's leaks resulted in more benefit than harm.

I particularly like that you're quoting the Apple dictionary. That detail was extremely important to me.

> I particularly like that you're quoting the Apple dictionary. That detail was extremely important to me.

Your comment is sarcastic and unhelpful to any meaningful conversation.

> What Snowden disclosed was unequivocally bad, who cares what his motives were?

I can see it doesn't matter to you about Snowden's motives.

However, many informed and reasonable people care about his motives. Perhaps this can be a motivation to think more and dig deeper.

In an ideal world voters would rationally consider leaks, blame would be allocated appropriately, and the importance of the whole situation would be weighed against other concerns.

In the real world voters are at the mercy of cognitive and other biases, tend to blame the current government no matter what, and a leak's importance depends as much on media attention and trivialities like how close the leak is to an election as it depends on actual merit.

So, even true leaks can be effective tools to remove a government you don't like.

Suppose some government opposes the U.S. in some important way. That government then gets voted out at the next election due to a leak. Would you care if that leak came from a CIA mole? I would. I doubt the CIA would investigate and reveal foreign corruption or illegal overreach purely out of the goodness of its heart.

I seem to remember the Snowden leaks generated backlash against the NSA and the "deep state", and blame was not assigned along partisan lines. That is, it was believed this was a common thread that ran across all governments, somewhat but not entirely under their control.

Yes, the military-industrial complex's gravy train benefits both parties.

People across the political spectrum got upset at the government. I remember being swept up at the time in the general nerd rage against the NSA. I particularly remember watching left-wing media about it from creators that were, around that time, partly sponsored by Russia's propaganda arm RT, though whether RT specifically sponsored pro-Snowden content from those creators I don't know.

However the actual political results were mostly favorable to Republicans. Trump himself popularized the term "deep state" and criticizing it was a key part of his administration's PR.

Russia benefited, not only by getting Republicans in power, but also by embarrassing and casting doubt on U.S. intelligence, a year before Russia's invasion of Crimea. Now in the current Ukraine war it's obvious how vital NATO intelligence is to resisting Russian aggression.

I don't think much actually changed at the NSA or any other agency. Trump didn't actually care about the ethics, he just thought it was some huge, personal injustice that he couldn't command everyone in the executive branch the way he could in his businesses. He didn't even pardon Snowden.

So overall the only changes were political and it all worked out great for Russia. Maybe Russia didn't plan it but they sure benefited from it, with the public and the media doing the heavy lifting. Something to keep in mind the next time some theoretically nonpartisan government scandal appears.

> So, even true leaks can be effective tools to remove a government you don't like.

Yes, and it doesn't have to be that dramatic either. Even relatively small shifts in public opinion can matter when it comes to specific areas and/or legislation and/or funding.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com