Steve Bannon Sought to Infiltrate Facebook Hiring
buzzfeed.comThis article names no sources, only purported emails. It doesn’t show the full text of the emails, just short quotes. It doesn’t provide message headers [1] or any other substantive indication that they are factual. How were these vetted? I’m going to guess that they weren’t.
This article has all of the weight of a gossip column.
[1] Headers can be forged, of course, but it’s at least enough that an external party might be able to corroborate or disprove this story.
Buzzfeed does have a general reputation for accuracy; their not a propaganda outlet.
I'm fine with raising questions, but we can question everything on that level - nothing is certain. Long, involved scientific studies still have enough flaws and uncertainties to fill many HN threads. Some uncertainty doesn't wipe out all credibility.
Anonymous sources are essential to critical public information; Woodward and Bernstein never revealed their source - should the Washington Post never have published the articles?
> I’m going to guess that they weren’t.
That statement has less credibility than the article's, though at least it's acknowledged that it's a guess.
As always, the why is the most important part.
>The secret attempt to find bias in Facebook’s hiring process reflects longstanding conservative fears that Facebook and the other tech giants are run by liberals who suppress right-wing views both internally and on their dominant platforms.
As someone who considers themselves above the fray, I would say those fears are not unfounded.
1. Do you remember Trump badgered his supporters to be vigilant about voter fraud during his campaign? The only person caught voting twice was a Trump supporter. She wanted to "test the system." I suspect they encourage the paranoia on purpose.
2. I've worked at tech companies for almost a decade. The only right wing view I've seen suppressed is "defense of traditional marriage." It's 2017. I think we all know what that means.
>1. Do you remember Trump badgered his supporters to be vigilant about voter fraud during his campaign? The only person caught voting twice was a Trump supporter. She wanted to "test the system." I suspect they encourage the paranoia on purpose.
Of course they do. Fear is a great motivator to both parties.
>2. I've worked at tech companies for almost a decade. The only right wing view I've seen suppressed is "defense of traditional marriage." It's 2017. I think we all know what that means.
So obviously it happens. Like I said, Bannon's fears aren't unfounded.
> "The only right wing view I've seen suppressed..."
Well if views are effectively suppressed then you won't hear them.
I've heard people talk about abortion is baby killing and Obama being a Muslim out loud. Weren't suppressed.
> As someone who considers themselves above the fray
If your biggest concern about this is that liberals are suppressing right-wing views in their own company, then you are most certainly not above the fray.
I didn't say it was my concern, I said it was Bannon's concern.
Politics is a game. The prize is to get elected. Most of the stuff we consume has been designed for us to consume. It's not just an article, it an entire string of articles over the course of an entire election cycle. Ever hear of the October surprise? That happens every election and it's an obvious tell of the design.
Snowden revelations? Not by design. NYT wouldn't touch it until the story already broke. Ever wonder why that is?
Come on - what part of the hiring process asks anything other than technical questions? For conservatives can't figure out why tech companies are filled with liberal leaning folks, here's a clue - there is a well-known correlation between education and liberalism.
Are you arguing with me or Bannon?
>here's a clue - there is a well-known correlation between education and liberalism.
Pretty smug. Here's some research that backs your assertion though:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-g...
You'll notice that this reference only applies your conclusion to the "consistently liberal" category. I'm of the opinion that if anyone is either consistently liberal or consistently conservative, they're not really considering issues in and of themselves, but rather attaching themselves emotionally to political movements.
In other words, if you are a liberal and you can't think of a single conservative position you agree with, or if you are a conservative and you can't think of a single liberal position you agree with, you are on the Koolaid.
The garbage thing is that there's not really anything coherent about the "liberal" and "conservative" positions in the US. There's no inherent ideological reason why one position should be in favor of strong government controls on abortion, drugs, immigration and marriage but against government controls on guns and corporate governance. And vice-versa. It's mostly historical happenstance, driven by electoral motives and demographic shifting.
Oh you are absolutely right. If you take it way back to first principles, you have two parties that need to get at least 50% + 1 of the population to vote for them (or at least people who vote). How do they accomplish that? They plant their flag on the side of a position, then their competitor plants their flag on the other side to counter it. If their competitor plants their flag, they have to plant their flag on the other side of their position. If a third party comes along, they could plant their flag on the sensible sides of these issues (and make the existing parties look out of touch), so the two parties actively prevent third parties from gaining traction. It's a political oligarchy, and to make things shittier, these are private (non-government) organizations that control our political system.
Wedge issues in the US are a good example of this. They will never get solved, politicians have no intentions to solve them either. They exist as a place to plant a flag every cycle. They also serve as a centerpiece of a campaign so politicians don't have to try to solve the hard, unsolvable problems, like how to improve the economics of the non-coastal areas, criminal justice reform, rolling back the drug war without admitting a Vietnam defeat, how to roll back the Middle East policies without admitting a Vietnam defeat, etc.
arguing with " I would say those fears are not unfounded." - so you :)
We can agree on your last sentence though: "In other words, if you are a liberal and you can't think of a single conservative position you agree with, or if you are a conservative and you can't think of a single liberal position you agree with, you are on the Koolaid." If people can't look beyond party for ANY position, we are in trouble.
>If people can't look beyond party for ANY position, we are in trouble.
Yes, and based on those charts, it looks like we're in trouble. :)
When clicking on the facebook links in the comment section, several profiles look like fake ones. Do you know if Buzzfeed use this strategy to fake activity in the comment section? Or is it a pro/anti-trump fight strategy?
Were they successful? Maybe not in WhatsApp but in some other group?