Why is it absurd? Because there's no evidence of it taking place. It's the same ...

smtddr · on Jan 18, 2015

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipula...

EDIT: Added firstlook url per reply, originally pointed to https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140224/17054826340/new-s...

...not really sure I see a substantial difference between the 2 articles, but there you go.

diminoten · on Jan 18, 2015

Why link to the blogspam and not the firstlook.org article it's sourced from?

Oh right, because it doesn't support what you're saying. Got it.

DanBC · on Jan 18, 2015

Are you saying that GCHQ don't do it?

Or that GCHQ does do it, but because they're GCHQ and not NSA that it's irrelevant?

Because now you have evidence that GCHQ does it you should allow the possibility that NSA does it. The reason you don't have evidence that NSA does it might be because NSA is a secret organistion.

diminoten · on Jan 18, 2015

So Snowden decided to leak the GCHQ presentation, but chose not to show any of the evidence he had that the NSA does it?

DanBC · on Jan 18, 2015

Snowden did not gather everything. Maybe he just missed it? Or maybe GCHQ does it but NSA doesn't? We know that other bits of the US government have different levels of online presence so I'm not sure why you're so hostile to the idea that NSA has people that disrupt online conversation about NSA.

diminoten · on Jan 18, 2015

I for one try to only accuse folks of doing things I actually have evidence of them doing, and I know this sounds crazy, but there's currently no evidence the NSA is on HN astroturfing comments, so maybe we shouldn't pretend like we know things we don't.

rhizome · on Jan 20, 2015

I for one try to only accuse folks of doing things I actually have evidence of them doing

That's not true.

diminoten · on Jan 18, 2015

You don't see a substantial difference between GHCQ and CIA?

Interesting.