cloudsinthesky

> The migrant caravans are obviously intending to violate US law by entering the country illegally.

Citation need. I think it is the exact opposite situation, so regardless of the final truth, it's clearly not obvious that the people in caravan were intending to break the law. I've literally never heard of that accusation and I've been following this story.

The idea that these people are all intent on crossing the border illegally is a lie.

> Entering the country illegally is itself a crime. It's a misdemeanor, but a crime nonetheless.

Did any of these people do this? Did this happen already? Did they state they were planning on it? It is my understanding that they stated the opposite! That they were coming to apply for asylum completely legally.

> Participating in the illegal transport of a person from one country to another is called human trafficking

Okay but how is this relevant? Who is travelling illegally? This is literally the first time I've heard this was a potential issue here; the caravan is operating legally and its members were asking for legal asylum.

> These people are suspected of participating in human trafficking under the guise of journalism, so they are being questioned even though there is not enough evidence to officially accuse/charge them.

By whom? Where is this stated? I find absolutely no evidence to support this claim.

I'll go out and say it: This whole thing reeks of racism to me, of racist policies and racist prejudices all playing out in the real world. The reason so many comments are buried here is because there is so much racist dog-whistling on HN. It's so loud here it hurts my ears.

---

I'm no longer allowed to post on HN this morning, the site has some (temporary?) ban placed on me. But I can edit this post to say that you are LYING about the post below with the BBC link. That articles does not state that anyone has admitted to illegal things. You are lying, please stop.

> Republicans can only remain in power if people continue to vote them into office

That's not true. People voted them out in 2016 but their votes were not counted, or their registrations were falsely and illegally cancelled, etc. There is a lot more at play here than people's choices; and given that people's ability to choose with correct information and free will has been significantly hampered by Republican-led efforts to reduce the quantity of real factual information in the hands of voters, replaced with lies designed to steal votes.

Now I know that Donald Trump lies a lot, like a lot but sometimes he tells the truth. He has stated at least 5 times that neither he nor his supporters would accept any election results where he did not win.

The current President threatens the nation regularly with his active plans to cancel the next elections and stay in power.

Be careful assuming that the popularity of politicians or their party has anything at all to do with them being in power. It doesn't.

> not unreasonable to ask for information

It is unreasonable to state that being asked for information is the exact same thing as being accused of a crime and found guilty. OP comment stated unequivocally that these journalists are criminals.

That's just False as far as we can tell. Being asked for information has nothing to do with actually being a criminal, but you are conflating the two.

> not to release the documents

I'm quite certain the crime here would be releasing these documents and doxxing innocent people who are doing their normal, okay, not-illegal jobs.

> The migrant caravan is very obviously being accused of breaking the law

By whom? I've never heard this!

> (at a minimum, conspiracy to commit a crime)

What crime? What are you talking about?

> Is this hard to grasp?

Yes, because none of it is true. It looks like it's all made up to me and you have offered no evidence of your claims. You just state that you are "very obviously" right, but I think you are lying.

What law is so obviously being broken, that would lead to individual people being very obviously accused of breaking it? Having "ties" to something is not a criminal accusation anyway, so I'm really super confused about this.

AFAIK, none of the journalists or activists are accused of committing any crimes, much less convicted of it already as suggested by OP.

I think some news articles mentioned that test drives are over? Maybe that was a mistake? I think that Tesla will remove the Schedule a Test Drive link soon? Maybe I'm wrong.

Buying a car and returning it is not the same as going on a test drive. Pretending it is the same thing is just ridiculous and super out-of-touch with the target audience of the lower-cost cars.

> without even being able to try the product?

People can still try it, just not for free and from Tesla. I test drove a Model S P90 in 2012 from the store in Toronto and it changed my life. I can't afford the car, but it was an incredible experience for me. The test drive storeperson told me at the end of the (safe) trip that I could not drive back into the car basement parking lot. The last person they let test drive it into the parking lot totalled the car. So now for test drives they limit it to street-level. Anecdote and maybe irrelevant.

But if I want to test drive one today, I'd just go to Turo and rent one for like $50 and then not have to worry about someone over my shoulder telling me I'm gonna be a bad driver.

I'm not suggesting Turo or whatever is a replacement for a test drive! But it's also not the case that interested buyers have to buy without trying first.

Article discusses the differences in measuring what a user counts as, so the numbers are difficult to pin down exactly. Anecdotally, I still _have_ my account, but no longer log in. It has been 2-3 months now, so I ought to be counted as such - that is, not an active user despite having an account. I don't use insta or whatsapp or messenger either - but I still have my FB account.

I wonder how many people there are like me, with nearly dead accounts but could still be 'counted' if you wanted to.

Are you now the CEO of a publicly traded company, making statements about privacy directly to the people you insulted previously, without even addressing the horrible insults you stated previously?

> There has to be a statute of limitations on these things.

On what things? How? Directly insulting someone, and then just ignoring that you did it - while asking for their trust, which you previously said someone was a "dumb fuck" for giving - isn't something people are going to forget out of politeness for some "statute of limitations".

And lol, I just asked for an apology, not for him to be in prison or something. It's for his benefit - I'm offering some advice: if he wants trust, the place he has to start is by apologizing and asking for forgiveness first. Nothing else will mean anything.

If Mark wants more money, and he wants trust to get there, he should apologize clearly and explain why he has changed. He should also demonstrate that Facebook is willing to - and will carry out - changing incentives to align to privacy.

Step 1: Apologize

Step 2: Offer a real change.

Neither is happening.

> No one cares who you are, they are just trying to sell ad space.

That's not true at all. GP comment referenced the fact that foreign companies get the data and then manipulate public opinion by spreading lies in a targeted manner, with the direct goal of cheating elections to get far-right, fascist governments in power globally.

> What am I really losing though by allowing access?

We have a lot to lose here. We already lost our democracy. At least temporarily.

> No one cares who you are

Yeah, they do. They care because that gives them power. We know humans like power and we know it is corrupting.

Your posts are spreading dangerous lies. The ad space is not some innocent thing. It is insidious and threatens democracy, with tyrants and dictators already taking over countries with the help of 'innocent ad space' that 'nobody really cares about'.

> But, I think you're overestimating people's capacity to care about issues that will have no real consequence on their life.

Why do you think that this has no real consequence on their lives? I would state unequivocally that privacy violations have a direct consequence on people's lives. And they see that consequence, too, it's not some hidden thing. I would blame a lack of privacy culture on the election of a lying, cheating government that has directly caused pain to individual Americans. This is happening presently and I believe that if we had valued privacy significantly more over the last two decades, there would be far less physical pain intentionally caused on targeted people.

> This is exactly the type of information that people don't care about. "So, you're telling me FB knows I'm browsing Groupon for house cleaning deals and looking at cat pictures on Reddit? O, and other people could have access to that data?" Shoulder shrug...

What do you mean? I'm not talking about that at all. I'm talking about how when you go to the grocery store and someone snaps a selfie with you in the background, FB knows. They know when you take the subway and where you go, they [will] know pretty much every single detail of your life even if you don't have an account.

I'm not talking about browsing the web. By the way, that privacy violation is real and serious, not something to shrug off.

> The problem is that their uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything, other than making their lives less fun

What do you mean by this? Uninstalling Facebook isn't going to change anything because FB spies out the wazoo anyway! And anecdotally, I think that people are generally happier when they spend less time on Facebook, not less happy.

> If there's a real threat to democracy, the solutions need to come via regulation.

Sure - but with the way laws are written, FB's lawyers will write those laws and nothing meaningful will change. More than legislation has to happen, a cultural shift into caring about privacy is needed.

> there's a bug in that procedure

Are you sure? I don't think there is!

> Before he signed the act, digitally signing wasn't legal,

Is that true? I think this is the source of error here. In your quote citation (the full extent of my knowledge on this topic), it says that the bill being signed is to facilitate the use of those signatures, and to ensure the validity. It doesn't state that it is making e-signatures legal for the first time ever, it's stating that it is clarifying that they are for-sure good-to-go.

I don't think there is a bug in the procedure.

> The unfortunate explanation for the phenomena that you're observing is that most people simply don't care about their privacy -- at least not nearly as much as you do.

I don't think that is a fair assessment. Even if that is true technically, it is missing the spirit of the question at hand. I think many people are misinformed about what is happening in data collection and processing, and if they were well-informed, would care more about their privacy. Given that people are intentionally being misled about the implications of giving up their privacy - via various propaganda about how it's not-that-bad, etc - I think it is unfair to state that people "simply don't care about their privacy ... as much as you do".

I think if people knew what was at stake, they would care more. Stating that they "simply don't care" is basically ending the conversation preemptively, such that the only possible future is that there is no privacy.

But I think people are misinformed, greatly. Very few people have any idea how intense FB's data collection efforts are, or how insecure the data is when it goes there, etc. Even NYT pieces do not reach that many Americans. And NYT or other publications are careful and methodical about their writing, barely able to reach into the future and question out loud the future FB is building.

Democracy is at stake. This is more than a question of individual privacy: people need to understand that our society is crumbling due to lack of privacy, because wealthy and powerful institutions are using that intense violation into private American lives to brainwash targeted people with conspiracy theories and other dangerous society-damaging things.

Privacy matters to everyone, I'd wager even to those who think they don't value their individual privacy.