WhoFundsWho: Instantly see who funds the organizations you are reading about | Hacker News Reader

WhoFundsWho: Instantly see who funds the organizations you are reading about

whofundswho.com

Is there any rationale behind the decision of publishing this exclusively as an extension? Why is it not possible to just provide a public webform. I want to try it out but it doesn't support Firefox yet.

Yes, I'm not about to give an extension "read all information on all web pages you visit" permissions.

Absolutely. No need to climb the gutter, in spite of some better scenery, when there are direct stairs.

The engine must use some repository: it should be directly accessible.

Based on what I've been reading, it's probably so they can sell the extension to a malware or adware company, or receive proceeds of crimes from them in exchange for providing data of extension users.

A little context about the author, as it may have a bearing on this particular project: https://twitter.com/KoenSwinkels

And? Not even sure what you want us to focus on, but:

Does that have any bearing on facts revealed by this extension?

Also truly ask yourself: Would you post this exact comment had he been (seemingly) of a different political alignment?

Yes. He posts conspiracy theories and says he uses Wikispooks as a source of his data. He simply is not a trustworthy actor.

If he relied on CNN and similar outlets would you be just as concerned for the truth?

There is a difference between being skeptical and being conspiratorial in thinking. We can be critical of mainstream media in its accuracy but not have to immediately trust the next person to come along. Especially when they utilize sources with even more extreme biases and inaccurate information.

CNN being a poor source doesn’t make this browser extension a better one. In fact CNN being bad has zero bearing on the quality and accuracy of this source or Wikipedia or Bellingcat or anything else that doesn’t use the same methodology and primary sources as CNN.

Per his website

> We did the research for you and compiled a database

Given that I am relying on this person and his editorial decisions, this sort of thing is very relevant to me. It might affect what data he chooses to include or exclude, and what he is willing to treat as reliable or unreliable. Needless to say, his usage of Wikispooks as a source does not inspire confidence.

Just curious: Do you rely on mainstream news and their editorial decisions?

This[0] is Wikispooks' page on the Holocaust. Wikispooks is one of this guy's 7 listed sources. However much I may distrust 'mainstream news', I automatically trust the whole lot of them more than I trust Holocaust deniers.

[0]https://wikispooks.com/wiki/The_Holocaust

> Does that have any bearing on facts revealed by this extension?

Yes. If the information is derived from questionable sources, that makes the information itself questionable.

> Also truly ask yourself: Would you post this exact comment had he been (seemingly) of a different political alignment?

Probably not, but that's fine; you're here.

Additionally, from the website itself:

> What are the sources for the information in the database?

> InfluenceWatch

> Wikispooks

> SourceWatch

> On Think Tanks

> Conservative Transparency

> ProPublica

> Duke Reporters’ Lab

will this tool alleviate or exacerbate the current conspiracy theories about WEF or the Gates Foundation? looking over the results my bet is 100% exacerbate. it’s a tool made to fan the flames, not to extinguish them, not to make us understand things better.

Yes, but on the other hand, it can be informative (even though only partially so, hence capable of eliciting or causing premature judgements).

This applies to pretty much all media.

Heck, your appearance can cause premature judgements. Does that mean you should now walk around fully masked?

In significant amount, proportionate to the context.

> Does that mean

It means that education must return to be taken very seriously.

I agree. The road to hell is paved with the best intentions. The problem with a tool like this is the populistic oversimplification. Not every funding is equal, not every funding means the person working for the organization funded can’t really speak their mind and so on. This are nuances that are happily disregarded and sacrificed on the altar of “data truth”.

You see I want to give what you say some merit for a second.

But I am 100% certain that you hold some political views and convictions.

And I am 100% certain that you would use funding information against your political opponents.

And it's not wrong. But let's just not pretend that all of a sudden this is something that should be hidden away "to prevent premature judgement". Yea right.

Cui bono should ALWAYS be a legitimate question to ask.

no one is arguing for "hidden away". we just want more information. it helps no one except the conspiracy fans when you find out someone is funded by the Gates Foundation. funded for what? for how much? these details matter.

The extension seems to offer a ton of information already, and it's still in its early stages it seems. Moreover, the genuine reader can always use Google and Wikipedia to educate themselves further.

Besides, your OP certainly reads like advocating for hiding away certain facts as a kind of better choice in a tradeoff of sorts.

Otherwise you would have certainly written it in a more constructive manner as opposed to implying that we would be better off without things like this extension altoghether (for fear that facts may "exacerbate" things).

i suggest you re-read my initial comment.

Just did, still can't find the constructive content.

The destructivism in it, however, was about 259 characters long.

The problem with cui bono is that it can, and usually is, be twisted to fit any narrative without proving causation. Just because something is possible, or beneficial, does not mean it happened or had any causal link. Human decision making is full of shortcuts when there's a good story that aligns with existing beliefs.

That's only true in some kind of naive sense imho.

When "big people" with particular histories do "big decisions" such as where to spend a specifically humongous amount of $$$ it is usually a very conscious decision.

Thus it can be deeply insightful to ask "what interests could entity X possibly derive out of investment Y".

> "what interests could entity X possibly derive out of investment Y"

sure, but will this question lead to a thoughtful investigation or a "grab the pitchforks" moment? we already know the answer: "grab the pitchforks".

If only we saw this much thoughtfulness and consideration in both directions on the political spectrum.

Yet we have other commenters on here still using pejorative words like "anti-vaxxers" despite all the science that has come out.

Everyone likes to create "grab the pitchforks" moments when it fits their narrative.

> That's only true in some kind of naive sense imho.

My opinion is that the use of cui bono is simplistic and naive and therefore inherently prone to abuse. It is rarely a real tool for investigation and then only ever the starting point, but for many it is the conclusion.

For example, to pick a controversial topic, who gains from Trump being investigated for multiple crimes before an election and so who is behind these investigations? The obvious answer, derived from cui bono, is that Trump is orchestrating these investigations into himself in order to profit financially and politically. It keeps funds rolling in, keeps him in the media spotlight whilst drowning out stories about his opponents and builds up his reputation as fighting against the the swamp/deep state/whatever. Pure genius, he's playing 4 D chess ;)

However it is equally easy to make the case the the Democrats, judges, deep state, Illuminati, whomever... benefit from trying to stop Trump from being elected again. But which story you believe is totally based on existing bias, making cui bono nothing but a tool for confirmation bias.

Probably exacerbate, but so what? Soros was the boogeyman for decades, and it didn't matter because the people that believed such conspiracies usually are poor, know almost nothing about the world and generally have no effect on anything. It's a very useful project.

> and it didn't matter

oh, i think it mattered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros_conspiracy_theori...

Okay but how did it matter? Other than some news stations having content to broadcast and sell ads against?

For comparison, here are conspiracy/shit theories that did have an impact on the world in the past, or continues to have an impact:

  - Saddam has WMD
  - Ukraine is not a country
  - the end days of the world are here and we Muslims need to band up for the final fight (ISIS)

Whenever you are worried about facts exacerbating anything you should be more worried about the facts themselves than their publication.

Seriously, who in their right mind still believes hiding the truth somehow will protect people from "conspiracy theories" (aka tomorrow's facts)?

Honestly? So what? The alternative should never be "be more ignorant so you can be more complecent or peaceful."

without more details this is useless and in effect will simply prolong the various conspiracy theories.

conspiracy does happen though, so is it more important that conspiracy is discovered or that theories don't exist?

For more in this space, there's Josh On's 2001

https://www.theyrule.net/

which may or may not have been kept up to date (it's an ongoing task to track board members and sub company inter connects).

Commercially in the Minerals domain

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/campaigns/met...

(subscription) is kept up to date by parsing the stock exchange release documents across Toronto TSX, London Metals, South Africa, Sydney, etc.

Are there any good free | low cost sites tracking mineral, energy, media, think tank, etc. interconnects and ownerships?

It's no small task to stay up to date and an area where some effort is made to obfuscate some (but not all) direct and indirect control.

Well this seems like a useful tool. I had considered doing something similar at one point - to show significant share holders of public companies.

Good job! I’ll try it out

I love the idea of 'making politicians wear their sponsors’ logos on their suits, like NASCAR drivers do'

Bureau van Dijk or Dun and Bradstreet should release a version of this. All of their business entity beneficial owner data would provide a much more straightforward version of this. Granted, that wouldn't include political spending or anything like that.

The irony of ironies:

The same people who seem to fear "premature judgement" caused by this extension

are the ones who skim the author's Twitter page for a few keywords, returning immediately with a judgement.

Don't we need more such geniuses.

*whom

Thank you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com