Nacdor

Your own source contradicts you:

> The two people said they could not confirm whether any of the material presented to them was the same as that which has been recently published in the U.S.

Furthermore, they made no effort to determine the authenticity of the documents, so I find it odd that you assume they must be fake:

> The two people who said they were approached with Hunter Biden’s alleged emails last year did not know whether any of them were real

So you used two anonymous sources to support your erroneous conclusion, yet you don't believe all of the sources who have publicly come forward to say the documents are legitimate?

Very interesting.

> Source?

There is no source that disputes the authenticity of the Hunter Biden documents. On the contrary, there are many pieces of evidence (such as Secret Service travel logs) that support them.

The liberal media spreads disinformation as often as it condemns it, this is just one example. They will happily bend over backwards and contort themselves into the most bizarre logical positions in order to do so: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1320358217382268934

> "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren't."

You may find this shocking, but the Mueller report supports none of the substantive claims about Trump's campaign conspiring with Russians and actually contradicts many of them: https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/robert-mueller-did-not-m...

> Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”

Greenwald doesn't work for Fox and there are multiple copies of the documents, I don't see your point?

> The Mueller report was heavily redacted

So your first argument is essentially "There's proof in the report, we just can't see it"?

> multiple members of his campaign are now in jail.

Don't you think you should mention the fact that they went to jail for reasons that have nothing to do with Russian collusion?

You seem to have insider info that the rest of us are not privy to. What misinformation was he attempting to spread?

I'm not familiar with this conspiracy theory, can you explain how they're connected?

On the one hand, this is shocking because Glenn co-founded the Intercept as a response to the rampant partisan censorship happening at other media outlets.

On the other hand, I had been reading The Intercept regularly since at least 2016 and there was a very noticeable lack of "independent" journalism as the years went by. At some point this year I stopped visiting their website because the worthwhile articles were few and far between, buried in a mountain of partisan rubbish.

If founding your own company isn't enough to avoid censorship, then what is? Is there any hope left for truly independent journalism in this country?

Do you have anything to support this accusation?

I've been watching him closely for several years and it seems the mortal sin he committed was his failure to join the Russiagate bandwagon. In the end that was clearly the correct choice, but the liberal media no longer tolerates anyone who has the audacity to undermine their chosen narrative.

> I'm not sure that "everyone except the NYPost" constitutes a single side.

That was never implied.

> extrapolate an entire faction of society

Care to correct your typo so we can figure out what you're trying to say here?

> That said, maybe it's best if NYPost stays off Twitter.

You believe it would be best if public discourse became even more of a one-sided echo chamber?

Why is that?

My Facebook account was banned multiple times during an 8-year period when it was 100% inactive. Each time they demanded more invasive forms of verification. First, verify a phone number. Then, upload a picture of my driver's license. Finally, I had to upload a picture of my driver's license AND a secondary photo of myself that was supposed to be taken right then for that purpose.

I will never consider using any service that requires a Facebook account, nor should anyone else.

I'm not just talking about the "flame-war detection", although that system alone is extremely crude an ineffective (in my opinion).

There are lots of other moderation features -- e.g. shadow bans and automatic vote penalties -- that are completely opaque but turn HN into a strong echo chamber.

I also disagree with your point about Reddit. At least on Reddit you can easily track what was removed (there are entire subreddits dedicated to tracking what's been removed by moderators) and many subreddits provide explanations of why content was removed.

> how often does it get triggered?

That's my least favorite part of HN: There's zero transparency in the moderation and a lot of it is extremely subjective.

Wasn't Reddit just a slight iteration on Digg? If Digg hadn't self-destructed then we might all still be using it instead of Reddit.

It seems like a lot of YC's success comes down to luck. They happened to be in the right position at the right time.

Looks like it's already working again but I'll just leave these in case.

Google cache: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qm8IZ5...

Text-only cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qm8IZ5R...

> our own societal evolution

I'm not sure I'd call it "evolution" so much as a race to the bottom. The drivers in this article are now forced to pay an intermediary in order to secure work that was previously available for free. It's basically a form of scalping.

This is why labor laws are important and why classifying employees as contractors can be so detrimental.

> labor organizing threats against the company

If anyone needed confirmation that unions are beneficial to employees, Amazon just handed it to them on a silver platter.

It never claimed to be an exhaustive history of the video game industry so I'm not sure why so many people levy this criticism against it. It reminds me of the G4 show called Icons, with each episode covering a specific game, developer or piece of gaming hardware.

I thought it did a great job of covering the topics that were chosen. It wasn't quite as good as The Toys That Made Us but it was still very enjoyable if you're into video games and I really hope they're making another season.

It's pretty silly to say that protecting workers is exploitative. You're essentially trying to redefine the word "exploitation" be reversing its meaning.

Yes, it's amazing that the top comment misses the point completely. Plenty of inmates become "institutionalized" and claim they would prefer to stay in prison, but no one would ever cite that as a legitimate reason to keep them there.

This sort of 'perseverance porn' has been a problem for a while now:

https://fair.org/home/medias-grim-addiction-to-perseverance-...

https://fair.org/home/media-just-cant-stop-presenting-horrif...

I'm trying to understand the moderation policies here. Why was the word 'comfy' removed from the HN title even though it's part of the article's title? When I checked HN a few hours ago the word 'comfy' was definitely there.

This reminds me of a piece Glenn Greenwald wrote after Trump won the election. He'd been saying the same thing for a while but Clinton's loss finally proved his point:

> opinion-making elites were so clustered, so incestuous, so far removed from the people who would decide this election — so contemptuous of them — that they were not only incapable of seeing the trends toward Trump but were unwittingly accelerating those trends with their own condescending, self-glorifying behavior.

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-...

Many of the most influential journalists and politicians are shockingly out of touch with (and often hostile towards) the everyday people they're supposed to represent. It's now painfully clear that the media has little or no interest in reporting the truth, they want to create it themselves.

Looks like it: https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-employees-wouldnt-let...

> 8 months before the first 737 Max crash, 2 Boeing employees talked about how they wouldn't let their families fly on the plane

Given the option, would anyone choose to book a trip on one of these new Boeing aircraft rather than anything else? I know I wouldn't, my family wouldn't, and none of the friends or co-workers I've discussed this with would.

Something tells me airlines are going to be making it even more difficult to determine which aircraft you'll be flying on when you book a ticket. As far as I know they're not required to tell you, nor are they required to use the aircraft listed at the time of booking (they can swap it at the last minute if they want).