CDC data are disappearing(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
CDC data are disappearing
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/01/cdc-dei-scientific-data/681531/
645 comments
Damage done, mission accomplished... If you do something illegal and can get away with it relatively unscathed, then it isn't in practice illegal.
Who would even prosecute? State attorneys general?
How do you know you've gotten away with it? That takes the rest of your life. (Well, statute of limitations.)
It's going to be a couple months at most. If it's not punished immediately, it's practically legal with the current gov. And the next one will have way bigger things to unfuck than some missing documents.
The question becomes: Is this crime pardonable? If yes, how likely the current administration will pardon those people?
They can't do anything about state AGs. Federalism is kind of silly but it works out here.
Can state AGs prosecute federal crimes, like this one?
No, but if it affects someone in the state there's usually something to get them on.
My understanding is that anyone can sue anyone in theory. Ideally, yes.
In practice, the State AG's are one of the most respectable powers to sue for a federal law being broken, which would then go to federal court. Ideally the SCOTUS would step in itself and injunction all this stuff so it doesn't get to this point, but Trump sure is working them overtime.
In practice, the State AG's are one of the most respectable powers to sue for a federal law being broken, which would then go to federal court. Ideally the SCOTUS would step in itself and injunction all this stuff so it doesn't get to this point, but Trump sure is working them overtime.
Trump is just going to blanket pardon anyone involved.
Lol I think anyone who thinks legal and illegal mean anything, has still not gotten the plot.
Courts are still fighting. Something are being overturned already (which is lightning quick). The moment we throw our hands up and give up is when the administration wins.
Yeah that was basically my point with my earlier comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42905289
If this was an order from the President as an official act, no scrutiny can be applied here in any court (broad immunity recently granted by the SCOTUS: absolute immunity for actions within his core constitutional powers and presumptive immunity for other official acts)... so good luck proving any wrongdoing without any evidence...
If you go after any of the underlings who executed such order, they are likely getting auto-pardonned by Trump if he gave the order (otherwise it will make it harder to find people to execute his "illegal" orders next). There is no such thing as illegal for this administration. Wake up.
If you go after any of the underlings who executed such order, they are likely getting auto-pardonned by Trump if he gave the order (otherwise it will make it harder to find people to execute his "illegal" orders next). There is no such thing as illegal for this administration. Wake up.
That's not true. The restriction applies only to scrutiny of the President himself -- his agents still can be prosecuted.
His agents can be pardoned. He’s done that for thousands already.
And he can pardon them, without even specifying what he pardons them for. Indeed, this seems to be becoming the the norm.
The US really needs to reign in the pardoning power. There are 3 areas in particular that need coverage (I'll cover pardons by the President, but the same might apply to Governors):
1) Most pardons come with a political cost, either for the president himself or his party. The main exception is just after an election, especially during the President's last term. This could be solved by outlawing pardons during the last 6 months of a term. At minimum, morally questionable pardons should come with such a cost.
2) All pardons should specificy specifically what actions and potential crimes they apply to. They do not specifically need to be admission of guilt (as they may be for gray zone behavior that could need protection against political prosecution by the next administration), but they do need to specify what actions or allegations they apply to.
3) Congress' ability to specifically contest pardons should be clarified. Specifically, congress should have the ability to contest a pardon, if the pardon is made from personal interest, seriously undermines the rule of law or national security.
Also, since the sitting president's party may controll the Speaker seat at the time, even the NEXT congress should have a chance to start proceedings. This requires that congress retains the right to do this even if the sitting president resigns before the term ends. (Since the new congress starts before the president's normal term ends).
Taken together, the above 3 points would ensure that IF a president is seen by the general public to abuse the pardon power, voters would get one chance at voting for representatives (and senators) that promise to "restore justice".
The time to introduce such a system would be now, while there's still outrage over Biden's pardons among Republicans. Democrats would also want to go along with this to prevent Trump from abusing the power in similar (or worse) ways near the end of his term. In fact, if they're sufficiently scared of this, they may even allow an opening to impeach Biden for potentially corrupt pardon's that were granted during the last weeks of his term.
This would allow Republicans to go after Fauci, Hunter, etc, in congress by impeaching Biden over those pardons, even now, even if they wouldn't actually be able to reach a guilty verdict in the Senate without significant Democrat support.
Still, being able to run this show may be so tempting to Trump and Republicans that they may be willing to make the new law effective immediately, while Democrats
The US really needs to reign in the pardoning power. There are 3 areas in particular that need coverage (I'll cover pardons by the President, but the same might apply to Governors):
1) Most pardons come with a political cost, either for the president himself or his party. The main exception is just after an election, especially during the President's last term. This could be solved by outlawing pardons during the last 6 months of a term. At minimum, morally questionable pardons should come with such a cost.
2) All pardons should specificy specifically what actions and potential crimes they apply to. They do not specifically need to be admission of guilt (as they may be for gray zone behavior that could need protection against political prosecution by the next administration), but they do need to specify what actions or allegations they apply to.
3) Congress' ability to specifically contest pardons should be clarified. Specifically, congress should have the ability to contest a pardon, if the pardon is made from personal interest, seriously undermines the rule of law or national security.
Also, since the sitting president's party may controll the Speaker seat at the time, even the NEXT congress should have a chance to start proceedings. This requires that congress retains the right to do this even if the sitting president resigns before the term ends. (Since the new congress starts before the president's normal term ends).
Taken together, the above 3 points would ensure that IF a president is seen by the general public to abuse the pardon power, voters would get one chance at voting for representatives (and senators) that promise to "restore justice".
The time to introduce such a system would be now, while there's still outrage over Biden's pardons among Republicans. Democrats would also want to go along with this to prevent Trump from abusing the power in similar (or worse) ways near the end of his term. In fact, if they're sufficiently scared of this, they may even allow an opening to impeach Biden for potentially corrupt pardon's that were granted during the last weeks of his term.
This would allow Republicans to go after Fauci, Hunter, etc, in congress by impeaching Biden over those pardons, even now, even if they wouldn't actually be able to reach a guilty verdict in the Senate without significant Democrat support.
Still, being able to run this show may be so tempting to Trump and Republicans that they may be willing to make the new law effective immediately, while Democrats
Let him keep pardoning. Sometimes the best way to set new rules is to show the limits of abuse of that power in practice.
I don't think even his packed SCOTUS would appreciate Trump overturning their judgment by pardoning recently convicted agents. They still are the people who are tasked with interpreting the constitution. Push the line too hard and they will push the line back to spite you.
I don't think even his packed SCOTUS would appreciate Trump overturning their judgment by pardoning recently convicted agents. They still are the people who are tasked with interpreting the constitution. Push the line too hard and they will push the line back to spite you.
In most cases, I would think the SCOTUS would point to Congress in a situation like this.
It's Congress' role to step up and provide checks and balances for a president that goes off the rails.
As long as a president has support by their fellow party members in congress to be immune against impeachment, I doubt the SCOTUS would step in.
Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
It's Congress' role to step up and provide checks and balances for a president that goes off the rails.
As long as a president has support by their fellow party members in congress to be immune against impeachment, I doubt the SCOTUS would step in.
Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
SCOTUS can't impreach, but they can make sure the next BS pardon is illegal to do. They can re-interpret the law to limit pardons and deny future ones. That's the extent of their power.
But yes, it's up to congress to actual impreach/convict. The SCOTUS can just keep slapping the president if he keeps overstepping his bounds.
>Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
it would be a very interesting, constitutional crisis. I'm not sure if it has anything built in for that. Even Watergate was simply going to go through the impeachment process before Nixon stepped down.
But yes, it's up to congress to actual impreach/convict. The SCOTUS can just keep slapping the president if he keeps overstepping his bounds.
>Unless, perhaps, the actions of the president were to be bad enough to introduce imminent risk to the whole system of government. Like pardoning people who (provably) organize large scale voting fraud, etc.
it would be a very interesting, constitutional crisis. I'm not sure if it has anything built in for that. Even Watergate was simply going to go through the impeachment process before Nixon stepped down.
During Watergate, congress was still aware of it's role as a counterweight to the executive. Nixon would likely have been convicted if he hadn't resigned first, or at least he must have thought so, since he resigned.
But since then, congress has become more and more partisan, with less and less ability to act together in important issues. This was particularily obvious in all 3 impeachment processes that have happened since. In all 3 cases, impeachment was done without the proper bipartisan basis needed for a conviction, basically just to achieve short term political gain.
Like the boy who cried wolf, each repitition means the probability that people will take it seriously next time goes down.
And when the day comes where a president does something that really requires a bi-partisan conviction during an impeachment, congress may be so used to voting along party lines that this becomes impossible.
And maybe worse: presidents may even begin to consider such a conviction an impossibility, and act with fewer inhibitions.
But since then, congress has become more and more partisan, with less and less ability to act together in important issues. This was particularily obvious in all 3 impeachment processes that have happened since. In all 3 cases, impeachment was done without the proper bipartisan basis needed for a conviction, basically just to achieve short term political gain.
Like the boy who cried wolf, each repitition means the probability that people will take it seriously next time goes down.
And when the day comes where a president does something that really requires a bi-partisan conviction during an impeachment, congress may be so used to voting along party lines that this becomes impossible.
And maybe worse: presidents may even begin to consider such a conviction an impossibility, and act with fewer inhibitions.
Who, I'm assuming, can just be infinitely pardoned by the president because the president has absolute immunity.
>within his core constitutional powers
Well that's the part to challenge, no? As we've seen much too often, just because one ruling happens doesn't mean that later cases can't overturn that precedent.
I'd rather encourage and cheer on these powers because it's not like you and me are doing anything.
Well that's the part to challenge, no? As we've seen much too often, just because one ruling happens doesn't mean that later cases can't overturn that precedent.
I'd rather encourage and cheer on these powers because it's not like you and me are doing anything.
Side question: If Trump just pardons the people responsible, does it matter if it's illegal?
I think Trump would fire any US Attorney who forces him to actually write a pardon. The clear expectation of federal prosecutors is that it's off-limits to criminally pursue Trump functionaries carrying out his orders.
He's fired 30+ AUSA's just *this week*, because they had previously prosecuted Trump allies.
He's fired 30+ AUSA's just *this week*, because they had previously prosecuted Trump allies.
I guess it's up to the states to sue the government then. Trump can't fire publicly elected state AG's.
If he's gonna try to privatize everything with "state's rights", we gotta use those state's powers against him. Using the rulebook he's bound by.
If he's gonna try to privatize everything with "state's rights", we gotta use those state's powers against him. Using the rulebook he's bound by.
I have a sneaking suspicion that pardons aren't going to mean much at the end of this term.
if the term ends ...
I'm afraid you're not going to get an answer that you're going to like.
Data is the ultimate Fact Check. This is a President that's adamantly opposed to fact checking [1] and has even coerced Facebook to drop fact checking. Of course they don't want data on government sites that disprove their "alternate facts".
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4920827-60-minutes-tru...
Well, fact-checking works if it's done impartially. So, if you want to fairly fact-check a political debate, each side should have their own team of researchers/fact-checkers being equally able to object to an argument made by the opposing party. Due process, sort of, kind of.
But I don't think I've ever seen that done actually. Usually, fact checkers are akin to Reddit moderators. Technically independent, but with one important twist. These are people that have a lot of free time and are willing to spend it doing unpaid (or underpaid) work. And that's a huge bias. Big enough to question impartiality, if you ask me.
But I don't think I've ever seen that done actually. Usually, fact checkers are akin to Reddit moderators. Technically independent, but with one important twist. These are people that have a lot of free time and are willing to spend it doing unpaid (or underpaid) work. And that's a huge bias. Big enough to question impartiality, if you ask me.
Having two parties with opposing biases and incentives doesn’t magically cancel out and become impartial. That’s the opposite of impartiality.
That's the problem. Real humans in real world cannot be impartial and will always have biases. So if you expose the public to many different biased opinions and let them learn to recognize the biases and see past them, the "cumulative mindset" will be more objective and less prone to manipulation.
But if you let one biased group decide what the majority is allowed to see, the public opinion will inevitably align with the interests of that group, and won't be necessary beneficial to the public.
Have you noticed how in the past decade or two we have totally abandoned the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and independence? How being depressed and outraged is normal, and is all but encouraged. This is all coming from the media actively shaping what gets into one's attention span and it will only be causing more and more misery with no end in sight.
And this comes down to a very simple formula. Media likes people who will create content for free. People who are willing to do are often unhappy and have a mindset that causes unhappiness. Media broadcasting their content (to their own profit, of course) is popularizing that mindset and making more people miserable. Bingo!
But if you let one biased group decide what the majority is allowed to see, the public opinion will inevitably align with the interests of that group, and won't be necessary beneficial to the public.
Have you noticed how in the past decade or two we have totally abandoned the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and independence? How being depressed and outraged is normal, and is all but encouraged. This is all coming from the media actively shaping what gets into one's attention span and it will only be causing more and more misery with no end in sight.
And this comes down to a very simple formula. Media likes people who will create content for free. People who are willing to do are often unhappy and have a mindset that causes unhappiness. Media broadcasting their content (to their own profit, of course) is popularizing that mindset and making more people miserable. Bingo!
> Have you noticed how in the past decade or two we have totally abandoned the pursuit of happiness through self-reliance and independence?
No.
No.
Interesting. If you don't mind me asking, at what age do you plan to retire, what funds to you plan to use to cover the living expenses, and what skill set are you trying to pass to your kids so they will be able to afford moving out and staring their own families?
I'm asking because things things are getting harder every year and the media has a permanent blind eye on them.
I'm asking because things things are getting harder every year and the media has a permanent blind eye on them.
"Things" are not getting harder every year; if you only see negative things in the world, this is a sign you have depression more than anything.
Hmm.
If things are not getting harder then either they stay the same or get better. I would find it hard to argue for either of those positions, but I would welcome you to try to defend that "things are not getting harder". In just about every possible metric outside of maybe "few really, really wealthy individuals make more money" things are not getting better or are stable.
Are you maybe suggesting that what is good for an individual is not good for society?
If things are not getting harder then either they stay the same or get better. I would find it hard to argue for either of those positions, but I would welcome you to try to defend that "things are not getting harder". In just about every possible metric outside of maybe "few really, really wealthy individuals make more money" things are not getting better or are stable.
Are you maybe suggesting that what is good for an individual is not good for society?
Income inequality in the US hasn't increased since 2014 and is sharply decreased since 2019. Lower income people are making more money than ever. There was a period of no income growth for upper-middle class people, however, which probably made them unhappy.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w310...
What did happen in the last two years was there was a "vibecession" where everyone decided to pretend the economy was bad even though everything about it was objectively good. You can see this in surveys, because everyone answered them with "I'm personally doing well, but I know everyone else is doing badly because I heard it on the news".
First described here:
https://kyla.substack.com/p/the-vibecession-the-self-fulfill...
Note, this was written at the tail end of the inflation period and none of the predictions of bad things quoted in the article actually happened.
Of course, that's the story up to the end of 2024. All kinds of bad things can happen now - I can't tell you about the future, but the present is easier.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w310...
What did happen in the last two years was there was a "vibecession" where everyone decided to pretend the economy was bad even though everything about it was objectively good. You can see this in surveys, because everyone answered them with "I'm personally doing well, but I know everyone else is doing badly because I heard it on the news".
First described here:
https://kyla.substack.com/p/the-vibecession-the-self-fulfill...
Note, this was written at the tail end of the inflation period and none of the predictions of bad things quoted in the article actually happened.
Of course, that's the story up to the end of 2024. All kinds of bad things can happen now - I can't tell you about the future, but the present is easier.
Ok. First, the 1st paper is interesting, but I can't digest it now. Added to the list for later.
That said, temporarily ignoring the paper, income in absolute terms may have well increased, but from 2014 to 2024 we also had ~33% official CPI inflation ( edit: which is well above FED's goal ), which effectively eroded any gains average person may have managed to eke out. In other words, it is not a vibe whem that 100k+ is getting you ~33% less. It is simply what things are.
<< Of course, that's the story up to the end of 2024. All kinds of bad things can happen now - I can't tell you about the future, but the present is easier.
I am not hopeful, but I am willing to accept it as a possible outcome.
That said, temporarily ignoring the paper, income in absolute terms may have well increased, but from 2014 to 2024 we also had ~33% official CPI inflation ( edit: which is well above FED's goal ), which effectively eroded any gains average person may have managed to eke out. In other words, it is not a vibe whem that 100k+ is getting you ~33% less. It is simply what things are.
<< Of course, that's the story up to the end of 2024. All kinds of bad things can happen now - I can't tell you about the future, but the present is easier.
I am not hopeful, but I am willing to accept it as a possible outcome.
Don't insult my intelligence like that. I would never quote nominal income to you. My post was inflation adjusted.
<< Don't insult my intelligence like that. I would never quote nominal income to you. My post was inflation adjusted.
Apologies. Let me look at the link provided.
I am going through the paper now and the things that did jump at me that while you state that your post was inflation adjusted and I will admit that I am not sure it says what you claim to think it says. Lets go over relevant passages.
From quoted paper[1]:
"Wage compression was accompanied by rapid nominal wage growth and rising job-to-job separations—especially among young non-college (high school or less) workers. Comparing across states, post-pandemic labor market tightness became strongly predictive of real wage growth among low-wage workers (wage-Phillips curve), and aggregate wage compression."
In other words, higher absolute values were considered to be good predictors for wage-phillips curve ( which shows a relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth ). I worry that you saw word real wage and made an assumption that it measures real wage. It doesn't. We can argue whether it is a good proxy, but from get go it is tougher sell. In other words, if methodology for attempting to derive real wage is off, the whole premise falls apart from where I sit.
"Moreover, despite substantial post-pandemic inflation–measured with the benchmark Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)–real hourly earnings at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution rose by 7.8% between January 2020 and June 2023."
Ok. This is where it does get messy, because I genuinely do not want to get into the weeds here, but lets... for the sake of the argument assume all that including methodology is fine.
"Real US hourly wages rose by approximately 10 percentage points at all percentiles during the first quarter of the Covid-19 pandemic, from March through June of 2020. (As we show below, much of this spike reflected a change in composition of the workforce as low-wage workers disproportionately lost their jobs.) Thereafter, these quantiles diverged. The 10th wage percentile held its real value over the next three years, while the 50th and 90th real wage percentiles fell by around 6 and 8 percentage points, respectively. In net, the 90/10 ratio declined by about 8 percentage points over these three years "
In other words, for the period of time listed, assuming we accept the premise, methodology and so on, wages rose above inflation. And then, those same real wages fell on average of 8% between July 2000 and 2024. I don't know man, it sounds me, again if we accept premise, methodology and so, as if things got briefly better and got worse again. So my example of 100k became 92K..
FWIW, I am really curious of how you will defend it.
[1]https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w310...
Apologies. Let me look at the link provided.
I am going through the paper now and the things that did jump at me that while you state that your post was inflation adjusted and I will admit that I am not sure it says what you claim to think it says. Lets go over relevant passages.
From quoted paper[1]:
"Wage compression was accompanied by rapid nominal wage growth and rising job-to-job separations—especially among young non-college (high school or less) workers. Comparing across states, post-pandemic labor market tightness became strongly predictive of real wage growth among low-wage workers (wage-Phillips curve), and aggregate wage compression."
In other words, higher absolute values were considered to be good predictors for wage-phillips curve ( which shows a relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth ). I worry that you saw word real wage and made an assumption that it measures real wage. It doesn't. We can argue whether it is a good proxy, but from get go it is tougher sell. In other words, if methodology for attempting to derive real wage is off, the whole premise falls apart from where I sit.
"Moreover, despite substantial post-pandemic inflation–measured with the benchmark Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U)–real hourly earnings at the 10th percentile of the wage distribution rose by 7.8% between January 2020 and June 2023."
Ok. This is where it does get messy, because I genuinely do not want to get into the weeds here, but lets... for the sake of the argument assume all that including methodology is fine.
"Real US hourly wages rose by approximately 10 percentage points at all percentiles during the first quarter of the Covid-19 pandemic, from March through June of 2020. (As we show below, much of this spike reflected a change in composition of the workforce as low-wage workers disproportionately lost their jobs.) Thereafter, these quantiles diverged. The 10th wage percentile held its real value over the next three years, while the 50th and 90th real wage percentiles fell by around 6 and 8 percentage points, respectively. In net, the 90/10 ratio declined by about 8 percentage points over these three years "
In other words, for the period of time listed, assuming we accept the premise, methodology and so on, wages rose above inflation. And then, those same real wages fell on average of 8% between July 2000 and 2024. I don't know man, it sounds me, again if we accept premise, methodology and so, as if things got briefly better and got worse again. So my example of 100k became 92K..
FWIW, I am really curious of how you will defend it.
[1]https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31010/w310...
> Are you maybe suggesting that what is good for an individual is not good for society?
I don't read any such suggestion into the person's post; to me, it seems to mean what it says. As to whether individual needs and societal needs always align, I would guess you probably know the answer is "no" -- but also far from "never"
I don't read any such suggestion into the person's post; to me, it seems to mean what it says. As to whether individual needs and societal needs always align, I would guess you probably know the answer is "no" -- but also far from "never"
Really? Maybe its my bias showing through, but my memory of the last couple decades is largely an exercise in most people looking to outside authorities (governments, corporations, titled experts, etc) to fix problems rather than dealing with it individually.
Yes, it's your bias.
Well in an attempt to at least show where the bias, if that's what it is, comes from:
- Affordable Care Act - the entire Covid response - GDPR - the "TikTok Ban" act
To name a few, those are all examples of us having granted larger powers to the government in hopes that they will fix problems for us that we won't fix ourselves.
- Affordable Care Act - the entire Covid response - GDPR - the "TikTok Ban" act
To name a few, those are all examples of us having granted larger powers to the government in hopes that they will fix problems for us that we won't fix ourselves.
Let’s take the ACA. That was designed to fix the problem “healthcare in the US is insanely expensive and insurance companies can deny coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.” How could you fix that problem individually?
My argument there wasn't actually that all of those could have done bottom up, only that they are examples of us granting the government more power and asking for a collectivist solution. That isn't always a bad thing, but it does point to the trend that I recognize (potentially due to my bias as pointed out above).
Personally I think the US going from extremely hyper-individualistic to the point of self-destruction to slightly less hyper-individualistic is not a sign of a shift, but rather a return to normalcy.
We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.
We forget that the US has been far, far more collectivist in the past, particularly from the 20's - last 70's. The shift towards hyper-individualism is, in my opinion, a wealth extraction mechanism masquerading as a strength. It is highly beneficial to every wealthy person to have low regulations and low requirements for care. The ACA is just common sense - the reason we didn't have it isn't because of individualism, but rather because by not having it you can make a lot more evil and consequently make a lot more money as an insurer.
Okay, but… if there’s no feasible individual solution, it really undercuts your argument here.
> if you expose the public to many different biased opinions and let them learn to recognize the biases [then good stuff]
Is that an assumption, or based on research?
Based on the last couple years of elections, I'd guess that exposing the public to every opinion ever makes people vote for the most catchy sound-bite. I don't follow american news enough to echo whatever people echo over there (perhaps "pro life"? Not sure that I have enough context on that one), but in the Netherlands one might recognize rhetorical statements like "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" from what is now the biggest party. We even have an organization that works out different parties' plans into expected economic impact per income group, but the resulting spreadsheet isn't very clickbaity and so I never heard anyone even be aware it exists. For a lot people it's simple: the foreigners use up all the benefits, jobs, and cause the high rent; if they would read reliable sources, however, they would see that the parties that don't try to stop immigration or leave the EU collaboration ("increase our independence" and fuck our tiny country's trade economy for decades) are the ones that yield the highest expected welfare across all income brackets
Of course, this (unfiltered opinions drowning out actual information) is also just my guess, I could very well be wrong. After all, I can't explain why we don't already live in a world where everything burns because such statements are the ones that get disproportionately echoed around. I'm just not sure that releasing the opinion floodgates further will make things better without indications thereof
Is that an assumption, or based on research?
Based on the last couple years of elections, I'd guess that exposing the public to every opinion ever makes people vote for the most catchy sound-bite. I don't follow american news enough to echo whatever people echo over there (perhaps "pro life"? Not sure that I have enough context on that one), but in the Netherlands one might recognize rhetorical statements like "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" from what is now the biggest party. We even have an organization that works out different parties' plans into expected economic impact per income group, but the resulting spreadsheet isn't very clickbaity and so I never heard anyone even be aware it exists. For a lot people it's simple: the foreigners use up all the benefits, jobs, and cause the high rent; if they would read reliable sources, however, they would see that the parties that don't try to stop immigration or leave the EU collaboration ("increase our independence" and fuck our tiny country's trade economy for decades) are the ones that yield the highest expected welfare across all income brackets
Of course, this (unfiltered opinions drowning out actual information) is also just my guess, I could very well be wrong. After all, I can't explain why we don't already live in a world where everything burns because such statements are the ones that get disproportionately echoed around. I'm just not sure that releasing the opinion floodgates further will make things better without indications thereof
Hmm, I'm not sure the "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" question is as rethorical as you say.
Also, I don't think the main real reasons for such a question are the economical ones, even if that DOES matter to some.
It appears that the main concern for the populist right is that the people (ethnicity + culture) they identify with will become a minority or even disappear at some point.
One can always discuss if this is a realistic threat or if it is, if it's really such a bad thing.
But I think it's pretty obvious that for as long as Northern Europe has the kind of generous welfare states they currently have, there will be a LOT of people in the "Global South" that really would like to come, easily enough to overwhelm some of these countries, if there are no restrictions on immigration.
Which is what makes "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" a valid question to ask, as far as I can tell. Either that, or "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?"
If even asking this question is a taboo, well then that's almost like deleting datasets that your political group doesn't like.
Also, I don't think the main real reasons for such a question are the economical ones, even if that DOES matter to some.
It appears that the main concern for the populist right is that the people (ethnicity + culture) they identify with will become a minority or even disappear at some point.
One can always discuss if this is a realistic threat or if it is, if it's really such a bad thing.
But I think it's pretty obvious that for as long as Northern Europe has the kind of generous welfare states they currently have, there will be a LOT of people in the "Global South" that really would like to come, easily enough to overwhelm some of these countries, if there are no restrictions on immigration.
Which is what makes "do we want more or fewer muslims in this country?" a valid question to ask, as far as I can tell. Either that, or "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?"
If even asking this question is a taboo, well then that's almost like deleting datasets that your political group doesn't like.
> if there are no restrictions on immigration
But there are. I'm not aware that even the most pro-"share the love" party thinks we can unilaterally make the decision to let just anybody into Schengen (the EU-related freedom of movement area), or that it would be a good thing if they could. The problem is that the fascist parties want to deny people entry, and evict people who built lives here, who can prove that they fear for their life in the country of origin (such as war refugees), which seems inhumane to me and the european convention on human rights iirc aligns with that as well. It's not something you can just stop doing under national or european law, but by framing it in the right way they create a boogeyman where it's not mainly war refugees but religious terrorists and gold diggers coming into the country
> "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?" If even asking this question is a taboo
That is not taboo. This topic is discussed by every party, of course, and a topic of negotiations between European countries ("will you take this many then we will do this other thing"). The taboo is discrimination, verbal in this case. It harms minorities for no benefit and that's why that is illegal per (what I think is in English called) the constitution ("grondwet")
---
To me it feels like you're approaching this from a forced neural point of view. That feels very odd to say, because of course neutrality and objectivity is good; not sure I'm expressing this right. Maybe it's like... feels like searching for a way to frame it as neutral no matter how extreme (inhumane, uncommon) it really is to say that you would close the door on someone who shows up at your doorstep in mortal peril. No human would do that if personally faced with that choice. The inflammatory statement I gave as example is meant to rile people up against a minority group and gain votes, it's not aimed at starting a rational discussion because that has already been ongoing since time immemorial
But there are. I'm not aware that even the most pro-"share the love" party thinks we can unilaterally make the decision to let just anybody into Schengen (the EU-related freedom of movement area), or that it would be a good thing if they could. The problem is that the fascist parties want to deny people entry, and evict people who built lives here, who can prove that they fear for their life in the country of origin (such as war refugees), which seems inhumane to me and the european convention on human rights iirc aligns with that as well. It's not something you can just stop doing under national or european law, but by framing it in the right way they create a boogeyman where it's not mainly war refugees but religious terrorists and gold diggers coming into the country
> "What is the maximum number of <insert minority group> we want to have in our country?" If even asking this question is a taboo
That is not taboo. This topic is discussed by every party, of course, and a topic of negotiations between European countries ("will you take this many then we will do this other thing"). The taboo is discrimination, verbal in this case. It harms minorities for no benefit and that's why that is illegal per (what I think is in English called) the constitution ("grondwet")
---
To me it feels like you're approaching this from a forced neural point of view. That feels very odd to say, because of course neutrality and objectivity is good; not sure I'm expressing this right. Maybe it's like... feels like searching for a way to frame it as neutral no matter how extreme (inhumane, uncommon) it really is to say that you would close the door on someone who shows up at your doorstep in mortal peril. No human would do that if personally faced with that choice. The inflammatory statement I gave as example is meant to rile people up against a minority group and gain votes, it's not aimed at starting a rational discussion because that has already been ongoing since time immemorial
That's a whole lot of conjecture.
There is some honesty with this argument. You can admit that your own bias overrides your ability to be impartial. The dishonest bit is that by attempting to refute a premise of impartiality, you're really making a case for the dominance of your personal bias against impartially. It's a posture that seeks a win condition in the form of a society that has abandoned impartiality, and with it ideas of justice, democracy, self rule, scientific progress (basically everything that depends on the pursuit of impartiality).
Your siren's song to a new and better dark age, isn't as appealing as you think it is. Get psychological help.
Your siren's song to a new and better dark age, isn't as appealing as you think it is. Get psychological help.
> let them learn to recognize the biases and see past them, the "cumulative mindset
Is there any evidence that most people are capable of this?
Is there any evidence that most people are capable of this?
>Having two parties with opposing biases and incentives doesn’t magically cancel out and become impartial. That’s the opposite of impartiality.
No, but it's close. It's similar to a courtroom where you have a plaintiff and a defendant. Each party plays a roll on each issue that is up to debate. They plead their side and ultimately the citizenry is the jury. Unfortunately, in the political arena there aren't any rules for speech like in a courtroom; perjury for example.
It's imperfect, but you won't ever find an impartial person or group, nor should you blindly take their word for it. It's an appeal to authority fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
No, but it's close. It's similar to a courtroom where you have a plaintiff and a defendant. Each party plays a roll on each issue that is up to debate. They plead their side and ultimately the citizenry is the jury. Unfortunately, in the political arena there aren't any rules for speech like in a courtroom; perjury for example.
It's imperfect, but you won't ever find an impartial person or group, nor should you blindly take their word for it. It's an appeal to authority fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Although true, it isn't a very useful observation. "How do I find someone impartial to this matter?" is one of the great unsolved questions that the lawyers have to deal with. Up there with "what is true?".
If anything that is one of the big promises of AI systems. Maybe we can have adjudication that is both extremely intelligent and provably biased towards consistency, facts and evidence. SHA256sum-ed and torrented around for inspection. It'd be a game changer for fact checking instead of the highly falliable groups that we have right now.
If anything that is one of the big promises of AI systems. Maybe we can have adjudication that is both extremely intelligent and provably biased towards consistency, facts and evidence. SHA256sum-ed and torrented around for inspection. It'd be a game changer for fact checking instead of the highly falliable groups that we have right now.
> Although true, it isn't a very useful observation. "How do I find someone impartial to this matter?" is one of the great unsolved questions that the lawyers have to deal with. Up there with "what is true?".
Although true, this isn't a particularly useful observation either. It turns out we can define "true" very well for a lot of really useful stuff. We know the sky is blue. We know the sun rises. We know that two plus two equals four. And we know that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing that exists and is likely to have a large impact on our world.
There are some things that we're less confident about, such as different projections for exactly how large an impact we're likely to experience, what the most efficient way to limit that impact is, who bears the responsibility for implementing those changes, and so on. Reasonable people can quibble over some of those details, and there are multiple valid ways of interpreting those facts. But we can very definitely - and completely objectively - fact check statements like "anthropogenic climate change does not exist" and "fossil fuels do not have an impact on our climate and environment".
Although true, this isn't a particularly useful observation either. It turns out we can define "true" very well for a lot of really useful stuff. We know the sky is blue. We know the sun rises. We know that two plus two equals four. And we know that anthropogenic climate change is a real thing that exists and is likely to have a large impact on our world.
There are some things that we're less confident about, such as different projections for exactly how large an impact we're likely to experience, what the most efficient way to limit that impact is, who bears the responsibility for implementing those changes, and so on. Reasonable people can quibble over some of those details, and there are multiple valid ways of interpreting those facts. But we can very definitely - and completely objectively - fact check statements like "anthropogenic climate change does not exist" and "fossil fuels do not have an impact on our climate and environment".
A lot of those are technically not true - the sky is frequently not blue, the sun doesn't actually rise and there are number systems where 2+2 does not equal 4 (eg, 2+2 = 1 in a mod 3 arithmetic).
That sounds pedantic until people start disagreeing or implementing legal requirements that result in people needing to use the definitions. Eg, if there is a legal requirement to recognise that 2+2=4, is it ok to teach modular arithmetic? Especially if someone has a grudge against the teacher. Lawyers are more than happy to punish someone over a technicality.
That sounds pedantic until people start disagreeing or implementing legal requirements that result in people needing to use the definitions. Eg, if there is a legal requirement to recognise that 2+2=4, is it ok to teach modular arithmetic? Especially if someone has a grudge against the teacher. Lawyers are more than happy to punish someone over a technicality.
We are fucking doomed.
We cannot even agree on the basics any more.
We cannot even agree on the basics any more.
if it's any consolation, when the sky isn't blue, it's mostly because the ground is on fire. a situation which is exacerbated by anthropogenic climate change.
so i mean, it's hard to agree on the basics when the basics are changing, I guess.
so i mean, it's hard to agree on the basics when the basics are changing, I guess.
As you will see if you ask DeepSeek about notable events which happened in Tiananmen Square, AI systems are perfectly capable of failing to provide impartiality or facts. Any model that claims to do so simply is failing to state the biases of the person who trained it, and the biases of the data upon which it was trained.
AI just regurgitates what it learned from non experts.
One will have a strong tendency to leave the easily challanged out.
> Well, fact-checking works if it's done impartially. So, if you want to fairly fact-check a political debate, each side should have their own team of researchers/fact-checkers being equally able to object to an argument made by the opposing party. Due process, sort of, kind of.
IIRC, This is mostly what Facebook did after the 2016 election; put together a non affiliated board and made sure it was populated by all sides - Facebook itself had no/minimal control over what said board did/decided; but all decisions were public.
Zuck just gave in to 'community moderation' instead because "actual solutions" are considered a negative in today's political climate.
IIRC, This is mostly what Facebook did after the 2016 election; put together a non affiliated board and made sure it was populated by all sides - Facebook itself had no/minimal control over what said board did/decided; but all decisions were public.
Zuck just gave in to 'community moderation' instead because "actual solutions" are considered a negative in today's political climate.
The Trumpian opposition to fact checkers is not based on some principled disagreement of substance. Trump, and by extension Republicans, oppose fact checking because the facts are in contradiction to their goals. Trump himself exists in some post-modern environment where "facts" aren't real and all that matters is spin. He wants what he says to go unquestioned. That's why instead of having a debate about facts, supported by evidence, he simply seeks to remove facts from the discussion entirely.
eastbound(3)
I don't believe that is a one party issue. Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture.
It's a fundamental problem of scale, you either become so bogged down in details and nuance that you get nothing done or you lose so much context that your statements are false without a massive list of caveats.
It's a fundamental problem of scale, you either become so bogged down in details and nuance that you get nothing done or you lose so much context that your statements are false without a massive list of caveats.
[deleted]
> Life is messy and politicians attempt to smooth that over with grandiose, but hollow, visions for the future and data points taken out of context to paint a picture.
Your point is: politicians lie. Of course they do. They always have.
What's new in our era is not the lying, but the utter contempt for facts. A study in contrasts:
* A "traditional politician" will lie. If they are caught, with plain evidence that contradicts their claim, they will evade, or reframe, or apologize, or blame someone else.
* A "Trumpian politician" will lie. If he is caught, with plan evidence that contradicts their claim, he will flatly oppose the facts. He'll invoke a vague conspiracy of evildoers who concocted the alleged facts. People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. He gaslights: believe me, he says, not your common sense and lyin' eyes.
So we're in a conundrum where many people have lost their ability to believe in facts, and instead believe a con-man. The problem is not just dishonesty, it is demoralization (in the psychological warfare sense of the word[1]).
EDIT: I read somewhere that Trump's superpower is lack of shame. A weaker politician concedes to facts out of respect for his audience: to deny a plain truth would be embarrassing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare)
Your point is: politicians lie. Of course they do. They always have.
What's new in our era is not the lying, but the utter contempt for facts. A study in contrasts:
* A "traditional politician" will lie. If they are caught, with plain evidence that contradicts their claim, they will evade, or reframe, or apologize, or blame someone else.
* A "Trumpian politician" will lie. If he is caught, with plan evidence that contradicts their claim, he will flatly oppose the facts. He'll invoke a vague conspiracy of evildoers who concocted the alleged facts. People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person. He gaslights: believe me, he says, not your common sense and lyin' eyes.
So we're in a conundrum where many people have lost their ability to believe in facts, and instead believe a con-man. The problem is not just dishonesty, it is demoralization (in the psychological warfare sense of the word[1]).
EDIT: I read somewhere that Trump's superpower is lack of shame. A weaker politician concedes to facts out of respect for his audience: to deny a plain truth would be embarrassing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoralization_(warfare)
> People believe him because he is charismatic and he talks like a regular person.
I'm not so sure many people really believe him very often. I live in a part of the country that heavily supported Trump, even diehard fans of his that I talk to consider him a shit talker and support him only because he throws a wrench in the system.
Even those I know who do seem to believe him cave pretty quickly when asked any slightly substantive question. They know tariffs raise prices for example, that we aren't going to buy Canada or take over Greenland, and that Trump in fact had no plan to end Russia's war on day one.
I'm not so sure many people really believe him very often. I live in a part of the country that heavily supported Trump, even diehard fans of his that I talk to consider him a shit talker and support him only because he throws a wrench in the system.
Even those I know who do seem to believe him cave pretty quickly when asked any slightly substantive question. They know tariffs raise prices for example, that we aren't going to buy Canada or take over Greenland, and that Trump in fact had no plan to end Russia's war on day one.
> support him only because he throws a wrench in the system.
Interesting insight, thanks.
Well, if that's what they want, that's what they get. I guess I can't understand an attitude that leads you to want to destroy your own country.
Interesting insight, thanks.
Well, if that's what they want, that's what they get. I guess I can't understand an attitude that leads you to want to destroy your own country.
I guess I can't understand an attitude that leads you to want to destroy your own country.
The voters that call themselves "conservatives" these days will saw off their feet at the ankles, if it means that a member of a class they hate loses their legs.
The voters that call themselves "conservatives" these days will saw off their feet at the ankles, if it means that a member of a class they hate loses their legs.
Pretty confident that now that critical thinking has been thrown out the window and accountability has disappeared in political discourse this would just result in endless objections in any debate deliberately used to add noise and misdirect conversation.
I don't know what the solution is in today's climate, but I suspect it no longer matters. America is post-truth and he who controls the data and pathways to information (Murdoch, Meta, Google) directly influences a large percentage of the people.
I don't know what the solution is in today's climate, but I suspect it no longer matters. America is post-truth and he who controls the data and pathways to information (Murdoch, Meta, Google) directly influences a large percentage of the people.
> Pretty confident that now that critical thinking has been thrown out the window and accountability has disappeared in political discourse
Politicians and the media have always lied about big and small details. The difference is that social media has made it easier to dispute, and now we started noticing it more. Now that they can't gatekeep the information anymore they adopted the word "misinformation" to deal with the problem. "It may be true, but it's misinformation, trust us, we have your best interests in mind".
Remember the trusted news initiative from covid? That was an attempt to continue gatekeeping, anything from any other sources was considered false and unverified, and the global media all had the same talking points at the same time. It was terrifying to see how easy everyone conformed.
Politicians and the media have always lied about big and small details. The difference is that social media has made it easier to dispute, and now we started noticing it more. Now that they can't gatekeep the information anymore they adopted the word "misinformation" to deal with the problem. "It may be true, but it's misinformation, trust us, we have your best interests in mind".
Remember the trusted news initiative from covid? That was an attempt to continue gatekeeping, anything from any other sources was considered false and unverified, and the global media all had the same talking points at the same time. It was terrifying to see how easy everyone conformed.
I like it, the legal system might be more suitable for putting the "truth" on trial than its current application.
It will cost a bunch of money but we get something out of it.
It will cost a bunch of money but we get something out of it.
The fact checkers’ own employer said that the fact checkers didn’t work because they were so heavily biased that the audience noticed it.
Translation: the audience is so biased that they automatically reject facts in conflict with their biases.
No amount of showing you the mistakes in your papers works. “Women earn 52 cents on the dollar!” Same job? “Yes” No, look here.
“But there is still this argument” — No, there isn’t, it’s been studied in that other study.
You guys just always come back and cast doubt, but it’s only this: Doubt and finally, falsehoods.
“But there is still this argument” — No, there isn’t, it’s been studied in that other study.
You guys just always come back and cast doubt, but it’s only this: Doubt and finally, falsehoods.
> You guys just always come back and cast doubt
If that's your attitude, maybe you're the one with the preconvieved biases.
If that's your attitude, maybe you're the one with the preconvieved biases.
Let's first work on eliminating political parties altogether, then let's work on eliminating bias.
I like this idea, but doubt it works. People naturally coalesce around ideas. That cohesion is then call a political party. The only way to get rid of parties is to get rid of freedom of organization.
The Republican Party has been eliminated, it’s been replaced by a dictator cult.
Interestingly increasing numbers of young people want this.
Interestingly increasing numbers of young people want this.
> Data is the ultimate Fact Check.
This is wrong IMO. Data can be missing, incomplete, biased, skewed, and even just plain wrong. Cherry-picked data can be worse than no data.
The ultimate fact check is a scientific process of collecting data, modeling it, scrutinizing it and its methodology and the entities involved, contextualizing it, cross-checking, replicating, etc.
What media likes to call "fact checking" to me feels more motivated by punchy headlines and chyrons.
This is wrong IMO. Data can be missing, incomplete, biased, skewed, and even just plain wrong. Cherry-picked data can be worse than no data.
The ultimate fact check is a scientific process of collecting data, modeling it, scrutinizing it and its methodology and the entities involved, contextualizing it, cross-checking, replicating, etc.
What media likes to call "fact checking" to me feels more motivated by punchy headlines and chyrons.
> Data can be missing, incomplete, biased, skewed, and even just plain wrong.
All true of course. The solution for that is more data, not less.
All true of course. The solution for that is more data, not less.
Maybe. It needs to be the right data, and interpreted correctly. More of the wrong data isn't particularly helpful.
I think what I'm arguing is that just having data isn't good enough, and it's dangerous to accept data at face value. It needs to be the right data, and interpreted correctly.
I think what I'm arguing is that just having data isn't good enough, and it's dangerous to accept data at face value. It needs to be the right data, and interpreted correctly.
[deleted]
Data is always lacking. More data may help you be more confident in your conclusion, but it will never be certain.
Many of us here are engineers. Similar to our work, databcollected by scientists will eventually get to "good enough" in that interpretations are nearly indistinguishable from the truth. We don't need to understand every atom in the atmosphere to predict rain coming soon, for example. We don't need to do a full body scan to see visible breast cancer lumps.
I agree with you, but that wasn't my point. The post I replied to simply said the answer is more data. Without any more context about what kind of answer it is or how it should be used, it seemed important to me to remind whoever passes by that data alone does not make truth and its always worth keeping in mind that what we "know" today may be considered false tomorrow.
What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be. Of course we don't need to measure every atom to predict the weather - weather predictions are wrong all the time and rarely is that more than an inconvenience.
What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be. Of course we don't need to measure every atom to predict the weather - weather predictions are wrong all the time and rarely is that more than an inconvenience.
Naturally, garbage in, garbage out. Anyone who's worked any job should under stand that. And no data is ever perfect when measuring nature.
But I'm giving a best faith interpretation that the ones collecting the data are competent and have goals on what the data is collected for. We have too much talent flowing to assume the worst. We'll see how the next 4 years challenges my assumptions, though.
>What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be
Yes. That goal of data is to approximate the truth. More (good) data helps those who can interpret it to make better guesses. So the base truth of "we need more data then" is true. With a good faith interpretation.
But I'm giving a best faith interpretation that the ones collecting the data are competent and have goals on what the data is collected for. We have too much talent flowing to assume the worst. We'll see how the next 4 years challenges my assumptions, though.
>What you're talking about is more a question of scape, impact, and how accurate a prediction really needs to be
Yes. That goal of data is to approximate the truth. More (good) data helps those who can interpret it to make better guesses. So the base truth of "we need more data then" is true. With a good faith interpretation.
Fact checking is things like Republicans claiming that people in a certain town are eating cats and dogs or their are pedophiles in the basement of a certain pizza place. There isn't any need to model and scrutinize data to fact check the majority of nonsense Republicans spout.
xedrac(2)
>What media likes to call "fact checking" to me feels more motivated by punchy headlines and chyrons.
True. It's a good thing media doesn't collect data on that case. Just interprets it to various levels of accuracy. Those who want a better interpretation can read the data itself and learn the mechanics behind it.
True. It's a good thing media doesn't collect data on that case. Just interprets it to various levels of accuracy. Those who want a better interpretation can read the data itself and learn the mechanics behind it.
Similarly, everyone feels like a camera captures truth except the people who operate cameras for a living.
Data isn't the ultimate fact check - it's just numbers waiting to be twisted. Bias, bad sources, and cherry-picking turn 'facts' into fiction. Real fact-checking needs brains, not just bar graphs.
> Data isn’t the ultimate fact check
But it is. Numbers can be twisted, but it they can easily be verified. Bias, bad sources and cherry picking can allow you to tell stories, but the data will allow you to verify those stories are indeed facts. Brain can’t really fact check things that don’t have any data.
But it is. Numbers can be twisted, but it they can easily be verified. Bias, bad sources and cherry picking can allow you to tell stories, but the data will allow you to verify those stories are indeed facts. Brain can’t really fact check things that don’t have any data.
Numbers alone will always lack context. You can absolutely verify where the numbers came from, weren't altered, and the math was done right. What you can't do is verify the numbers alone accurately portray what was happening in the real world, or what has happened in the real world since the snapshot of those numbers was taken.
Numbers are extremely useful, but numbers alone mean absolutely nothing.
Numbers are extremely useful, but numbers alone mean absolutely nothing.
True, numbers alone mean nothing. And the surrounding context alone also doesnt paint a sufficient story. You need both, for without both you can't be effective.
Unless said data/context is fabricated, trying to suppress either seems like a clear case of acting in bad faith.
Sure, I didn't mean to say data is unimportant or not needed at all. My point was just that data solves nothing without context (among other things, pike discernment and critical thinking).
I'm not sure I agree.
Even if the numbers are accurate, nearly any situation has a nearly infinite number of potential data points, and deciding which ones are relevant isn't as straightforward as people act like it is.
This is easy to see play out; you can look at the same stories being reported on both Fox News and MSNBC. Usually both sources' raw facts will be basically "correct" in the sense that they're not saying anything explicitly false, but there can be bias in determining which facts are actually useful or how they're categorized.
You can see how the reporting of the January 6th stuff varied between news outlets.
Even if the numbers are accurate, nearly any situation has a nearly infinite number of potential data points, and deciding which ones are relevant isn't as straightforward as people act like it is.
This is easy to see play out; you can look at the same stories being reported on both Fox News and MSNBC. Usually both sources' raw facts will be basically "correct" in the sense that they're not saying anything explicitly false, but there can be bias in determining which facts are actually useful or how they're categorized.
You can see how the reporting of the January 6th stuff varied between news outlets.
Disagree. Numbers don't exist in a vacuum - they are collected, framed, and interpreted by humans with biases, agendas, and limitations. Verification isn't just about checking numbers; it's about scrutinizing methodologies, sources, and context. Data can affirm falsehoods when selectively presented or measured poorly. Brains aren't secondary to fact-checking; they are the ultimate tool for discerning whether data reflects reality or is merely a well-dressed distortion.
True, though in order for brains to do that at all, they need data to analyze. Data is a necessary prerequisite for trying to understand things at all. Removing said data means there is not even the chance to achieve understanding or change. Which is kinda the point.
Barring said data being fabricated, deleting data seems to be a sign of bad faith.
Barring said data being fabricated, deleting data seems to be a sign of bad faith.
Can data, or AI, tell me definitively who the MVP of the NFL was this season? Allen, Lamar, Saquon? The numbers certainly help when making comparisons, but they aren't the entire story, different people will come to different conclusions based on the exact same set of facts.
In theory, yes. But we're more approaching philosophy with Laplace's demon at this point.
A more realistic example: we can theoretically predict the weather weeks in advance. In reality, it's pointless because there so much data needed to collect for that, and so many events to away the weather, that's its impractical past a few days in the future.
A more realistic example: we can theoretically predict the weather weeks in advance. In reality, it's pointless because there so much data needed to collect for that, and so many events to away the weather, that's its impractical past a few days in the future.
Who cares about the NFL? The issue here is that, and mark my words this almost this exact conversation will play out in the very near future:
Scientists: X number of people died of Covid in the US according to CDC data.
US Government: you can't prove that number. That data doesn't exist on government servers, the data in the copies is fake and can't be trusted.
Scientists: X number of people died of Covid in the US according to CDC data.
US Government: you can't prove that number. That data doesn't exist on government servers, the data in the copies is fake and can't be trusted.
> Who cares about the NFL?
It's a simple example, that's why it's relevant. All the facts are available for anyone to see, to process, to analyze. There is no disputed or hidden data. And yet nobody, including any AI, can produce a "true" answer to the question, because it's reliant on one's personal biases.
Even with Covid, did a 92-year old die because of Covid, or because of a multitude of existing conditions that Covid triggered? Probably impossible to know medically, and AI isn't going to tell you definitively one way or the other.
It's a simple example, that's why it's relevant. All the facts are available for anyone to see, to process, to analyze. There is no disputed or hidden data. And yet nobody, including any AI, can produce a "true" answer to the question, because it's reliant on one's personal biases.
Even with Covid, did a 92-year old die because of Covid, or because of a multitude of existing conditions that Covid triggered? Probably impossible to know medically, and AI isn't going to tell you definitively one way or the other.
It's not relevant because the person who is MVP in a sport is an opinion. Or, to put it more bluntly, it's a marketing scheme to keep people talking about it. There's no correct answer when it comes to opinions.
If the question was who scored the most points in the year, that can be answered factually by data.
If the NFL was deleting all their data at the end of the season with the goal of creating arguments and sowing disinformation, that would be a more relevant example.
If the question was who scored the most points in the year, that can be answered factually by data.
If the NFL was deleting all their data at the end of the season with the goal of creating arguments and sowing disinformation, that would be a more relevant example.
Lol - "cause of death" is often an opinion as well. Or no opinion at all - "natural causes."
No, cause of death is objective. Whether or not we have the data to figure out the truth doesn't deny the truth.
That's the point of data. To get us closer to the truth. Gravity will keep making you cling to the earth no matter your opinion. Even though as we speak we are still trying to develop models to properly understand the particles or forces behind gravity.
That's the point of data. To get us closer to the truth. Gravity will keep making you cling to the earth no matter your opinion. Even though as we speak we are still trying to develop models to properly understand the particles or forces behind gravity.
You are proving my point. The CDC has faced several instances where its data was inaccurate or misrepresented:
- COVID-19 Death Overcount: In 2022, a coding error led the CDC to overcount 72,277 COVID-19 deaths across 26 states. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
- Maternal Mortality Data: Changes in death certificate reporting, particularly the addition of a pregnancy checkbox, resulted in overcounts of maternal deaths due to false positives. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/08/materna...
- Lead Exposure Report: A 2004 CDC report underestimated the impact of lead-contaminated water in Washington, D.C., leading to criticism over its data accuracy. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbidity_and_Mortality_Weekly...
- Property System Data: An audit revealed that the CDC's property system data was neither accurate nor complete, with an estimated $29.2 million of property at risk of being lost or misplaced. Source: https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2016/centers-for-disease-con...
These instances highlight that data, even from reputable sources, can be subject to errors, misinterpretation, or manipulation, underscoring the need for critical analysis beyond face-value acceptance.
- COVID-19 Death Overcount: In 2022, a coding error led the CDC to overcount 72,277 COVID-19 deaths across 26 states. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/24/cdc-coding-err...
- Maternal Mortality Data: Changes in death certificate reporting, particularly the addition of a pregnancy checkbox, resulted in overcounts of maternal deaths due to false positives. Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/08/materna...
- Lead Exposure Report: A 2004 CDC report underestimated the impact of lead-contaminated water in Washington, D.C., leading to criticism over its data accuracy. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morbidity_and_Mortality_Weekly...
- Property System Data: An audit revealed that the CDC's property system data was neither accurate nor complete, with an estimated $29.2 million of property at risk of being lost or misplaced. Source: https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2016/centers-for-disease-con...
These instances highlight that data, even from reputable sources, can be subject to errors, misinterpretation, or manipulation, underscoring the need for critical analysis beyond face-value acceptance.
[deleted]
So one of the most important things to "fact check" in this election for me was the clear elder abuse of someone with advanced dementia.
How do you fact check that?
Because almost everyone has a grandparent and has seen what it looks like. When push comes to shove and you lie about something everyone can see and has such a visceral reaction to, it's hard to move past it.
And even seeing clear as day for months it kept being denied. If you can't solve for that, there's no point.
How do you fact check that?
Because almost everyone has a grandparent and has seen what it looks like. When push comes to shove and you lie about something everyone can see and has such a visceral reaction to, it's hard to move past it.
And even seeing clear as day for months it kept being denied. If you can't solve for that, there's no point.
Meanwhile Biden has one bad day and everyone's saying "he's too old". While voting in the oldest president in history months later.
You can fact check it. No one wants to for whatever reason.
You can fact check it. No one wants to for whatever reason.
But surely, the answer to 'data can be twisted' is not to remove the data? We have enough of a problem already with wilful misinformation.
Having the data is the first step towards a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have to resort to 'I feel ....' vs 'Based on this interpretation....'
I agree that the first kind of debate is already the dominant form today, however I think we can all agree that it's not been good for society overall.
Having the data is the first step towards a reasonable discussion. Otherwise, you have to resort to 'I feel ....' vs 'Based on this interpretation....'
I agree that the first kind of debate is already the dominant form today, however I think we can all agree that it's not been good for society overall.
This isn't a new problem unfortunately. Data and research during the pandemic response was being horribly mishandled, largely by the Democrats at the time.
This isn't a one party or one person problem. It sure seems like a problem more correlated with our government structure and/or climate, or authority structures themselves.
This isn't a one party or one person problem. It sure seems like a problem more correlated with our government structure and/or climate, or authority structures themselves.
There not being another pandemic during the information age to compare with, it's hard to say whether The Democrats mishandled it or not. Perhaps one could look at aspects where there was consensus within at least one of the opposing parties about what should happen (before the outcome of any path could be known) and compare that against hindsight. If you have specific examples where others clearly knew better than the ruling party, that would be relevant to consider if it's chance or a pattern, but otherwise it feels like the age-old opposing of the current ruling force
I’m sorry, I’m no fan of the dems but if you think Trump isn’t above and beyond when it comes to lying and twisting truth you’re either a shill or just ignorant
Oh he is bad about it, don't get me wrong. That doesn't excuse other politicians though, and attempting to weigh and compare the relative lying and truth twisting seems like an extremely difficult thing to do.
Bush Jr blatantly lied to the country and rallied us around a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people minimum. How do we weigh that with Trumps ridiculous lies?
Bush Jr blatantly lied to the country and rallied us around a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people minimum. How do we weigh that with Trumps ridiculous lies?
> largely by the Democrats at the time.
Who was president in 2020?
Who was president in 2020?
Was the pandemic limited to 2020?
Nope, it was not. But 2020 is when it was first addressed by the US federal government (through various means including the CARES Act), and the US federal government was run by one Donald Trump. So it seems disingenuous of you to place the blame specifically on Democrats without citing what the Democrats did wrong but Donald Trump did right.
lol if you watch zuck's take on it his problem is the fact checkers ended up being biased.
Maybe they are. The solution to this is to provide evidence in favor of your argument. That's how we used to resolve conflicting opinions: debates supported by evidence.
Now, instead, we're simply getting rid of any attempt to decide what is factual, and instead let demagogues decide for us what is fact and what is not, without any evidence at all. Since evidence is now superfluous, why waste government money by providing it?
Now, instead, we're simply getting rid of any attempt to decide what is factual, and instead let demagogues decide for us what is fact and what is not, without any evidence at all. Since evidence is now superfluous, why waste government money by providing it?
I think the problem there is the powers granted to government rather than how today's people decide to wield it.
Facts are never really decided, things can always change if we learn something new or just consider what we know from a different angle.
The problem here is that anyone in charge can decide what they believe is fact and make very real, very impactful changes that they force on everyone else.
Facts are never really decided, things can always change if we learn something new or just consider what we know from a different angle.
The problem here is that anyone in charge can decide what they believe is fact and make very real, very impactful changes that they force on everyone else.
> The problem here is that anyone in charge can decide what they believe is fact and make very real, very impactful changes that they force on everyone else.
Sure, such is the nature of power. Thus has it always been.
What's novel is not that people in charge can broadcast their favored view of facts, but that anyone can broadcast their favored view of facts, which has to led to the current demoralization crisis: in the presence of conflicting authorities, no one believes any facts anymore.
Of course, some of the "facts" being broadcast are not, in fact, facts. The problem is that the flood of misinformation is so large, the force of echo chambers so strong, and the cynicism of consumers so great, that it is infeasible to produce persuasive evidence sufficient to make the truth more appealing than lies.
Sure, such is the nature of power. Thus has it always been.
What's novel is not that people in charge can broadcast their favored view of facts, but that anyone can broadcast their favored view of facts, which has to led to the current demoralization crisis: in the presence of conflicting authorities, no one believes any facts anymore.
Of course, some of the "facts" being broadcast are not, in fact, facts. The problem is that the flood of misinformation is so large, the force of echo chambers so strong, and the cynicism of consumers so great, that it is infeasible to produce persuasive evidence sufficient to make the truth more appealing than lies.
> but that anyone can broadcast their favored view of facts
Some blame, if not a majority, belongs on whoever actually hears those views and facts though. Knowing someone's intent is extremely hard, it really shouldn't matter whether they intend to mislead or believe what they are saying. Just because someone shares what they may honestly believe to be a fact doesn't mean we have to take it as fact.
We lack critical thinking and somehow landed in a spot where we're highly skeptical of anyone in charge but completely believe what a random person writes online. It honestly doesn't matter what facts are being shared or whether they are accurate, without critical thinking and the ability to discern for ourselves how could this ever play out well?
Some blame, if not a majority, belongs on whoever actually hears those views and facts though. Knowing someone's intent is extremely hard, it really shouldn't matter whether they intend to mislead or believe what they are saying. Just because someone shares what they may honestly believe to be a fact doesn't mean we have to take it as fact.
We lack critical thinking and somehow landed in a spot where we're highly skeptical of anyone in charge but completely believe what a random person writes online. It honestly doesn't matter what facts are being shared or whether they are accurate, without critical thinking and the ability to discern for ourselves how could this ever play out well?
> Some blame, if not a majority, belongs on whoever actually hears those views and facts though. Knowing someone's intent is extremely hard, it really shouldn't matter whether they intend to mislead or believe what they are saying. Just because someone shares what they may honestly believe to be a fact doesn't mean we have to take it as fact.
I don't think that casting blame on individuals here is productive. I agree, lack of critical thinking skills is a major factor. Who is responsible for ensuring that a plurality of the population of a democracy learn critical thinking? We've gotten by without critical thinking for so long because we mostly don't need it: when you get all your news from Walter Cronkite, what good could come of further analysis?
So it's not an individual failure, but a societal one. Susceptibility to misinformation is like a plague, or a meteor strike, or some other natural catastrophe that we just haven't prepared for. Maybe we'll find a solution; maybe we won't, and the future of humanity belongs to those with the boldness to lie most effectively.
I don't think that casting blame on individuals here is productive. I agree, lack of critical thinking skills is a major factor. Who is responsible for ensuring that a plurality of the population of a democracy learn critical thinking? We've gotten by without critical thinking for so long because we mostly don't need it: when you get all your news from Walter Cronkite, what good could come of further analysis?
So it's not an individual failure, but a societal one. Susceptibility to misinformation is like a plague, or a meteor strike, or some other natural catastrophe that we just haven't prepared for. Maybe we'll find a solution; maybe we won't, and the future of humanity belongs to those with the boldness to lie most effectively.
Oh there are societal issues here as well, no argument there. They all roll down hill from individuals' choices though.
Society didn't force Walter Cronkite on us. People chose to listen to him and a small number of other trusted sources, and they began choosing to take what was said by those sources at face value. I'm not even saying that was a bad thing or wrong, at the time news did seem to be reported in better faith.
We choose our sources though, and we choose how deeply to consider what they say. I don't see how this could have started as a societal issue rather than individual choice first.
Society didn't force Walter Cronkite on us. People chose to listen to him and a small number of other trusted sources, and they began choosing to take what was said by those sources at face value. I'm not even saying that was a bad thing or wrong, at the time news did seem to be reported in better faith.
We choose our sources though, and we choose how deeply to consider what they say. I don't see how this could have started as a societal issue rather than individual choice first.
> I don't see how this could have started as a societal issue rather than individual choice first.
really? I'd say it's clearly a matter of education. Critical thinking and media analysis just isn't part of American public schooling. If anything, people are taught to believe authority figures.
Regardless of how it "started", blaming the individual isn't helpful, because that suggests there's nothing to be done. "Well," you say, "folks made a bad decision, c'est la vie." Instead, we should be looking for solutions to media illiteracy, and that solution is certainly social in nature.
really? I'd say it's clearly a matter of education. Critical thinking and media analysis just isn't part of American public schooling. If anything, people are taught to believe authority figures.
Regardless of how it "started", blaming the individual isn't helpful, because that suggests there's nothing to be done. "Well," you say, "folks made a bad decision, c'est la vie." Instead, we should be looking for solutions to media illiteracy, and that solution is certainly social in nature.
Sounds like we just have a very different view the relative merits of individual vs collective (or societal) approaches.
I very much shy away from control, and that generally means trusting the individual to generally do what is best or at a minimum accept that the result of that will at least be more resilient than the result of a collectivist or top-down approach. Both have risks for sure and there are absolutely times where individualism are a bad idea in my opinion, this just doesn't meet that bar for me.
I very much shy away from control, and that generally means trusting the individual to generally do what is best or at a minimum accept that the result of that will at least be more resilient than the result of a collectivist or top-down approach. Both have risks for sure and there are absolutely times where individualism are a bad idea in my opinion, this just doesn't meet that bar for me.
Since we're talking about the functioning of democracy, which necessarily requires a plurality of people, I don't see how anything other than group- or society-level action could possibly make any difference.
Oh we were a very individualistic nation for much of our history. That does come and go over the years, and like anything it has pros and cons, but it can be done.
If group or societal solutions are the only viable option we might as well cut to the chase and go full socialist. I don't mean that derogatorily, if collectivism is the only solution when individual choices inevitably lead to bad outcomes why bother trying individual at all?
The challenge with individuals making choices that ultimately move in us a better direction is fear. That is really embracing uncertainty and trusting the average person to do what they think is best or "right." Its my opinion that we should absolutely embrace that uncertainty and trust people, but that doesn't land well for most people today.
A group or collectivist solution sounds much safer. As long as we have a good plan and trustworthy people in charge, we just need to empower them to do what they know we need. That can run into just as many, and just as dangerous, end points as an individualist model.
Both are risky. Both can work, and both can go horribly wrong. I just prefer the one where I get to trust myself and everyone around me to think for themselves and do what they think is best. I also personally prefer the bad result of reaping what we sow rather than it going wrong because the well intended leader was wrong or the ill intended leader was right (I.e. got what the evil end they wanted).
If group or societal solutions are the only viable option we might as well cut to the chase and go full socialist. I don't mean that derogatorily, if collectivism is the only solution when individual choices inevitably lead to bad outcomes why bother trying individual at all?
The challenge with individuals making choices that ultimately move in us a better direction is fear. That is really embracing uncertainty and trusting the average person to do what they think is best or "right." Its my opinion that we should absolutely embrace that uncertainty and trust people, but that doesn't land well for most people today.
A group or collectivist solution sounds much safer. As long as we have a good plan and trustworthy people in charge, we just need to empower them to do what they know we need. That can run into just as many, and just as dangerous, end points as an individualist model.
Both are risky. Both can work, and both can go horribly wrong. I just prefer the one where I get to trust myself and everyone around me to think for themselves and do what they think is best. I also personally prefer the bad result of reaping what we sow rather than it going wrong because the well intended leader was wrong or the ill intended leader was right (I.e. got what the evil end they wanted).
The internet was designed to be robust in the event of nuclear war. Maybe it’s time for distributed data caches. Maybe we encode it all in crypto currency.
They sometimes are. If you're using a biased source to fact-check, you're just transitively applying that bias.
I do feel like there is a limit to how biased a source can be when it tries to be based in evidence, though. Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers, the climate has warmed enough that you can dump weather records into a spreadsheet and see the effect without needing to measure CO2 at all. That COVID causes disease and a warming climate causes more extreme weather is also rather easy to corroborate. Accepting the obvious is already a good starting point for deciding whether climate policy XYZ is good or not (combined with other basic facts and every party's proposals), but it seems to me that the current striving for unbiasedness leads to giving lunatics equal air time. Any amount of fact checking would at least remove this level of misinformedness
> Nobody would disagree that 1+1=2, basic physics tells one that COVID is not spread by 5G towers,
But yet people believe these things, and will believe a source that supports them. What's obvious to you is not obvious to others.
But yet people believe these things, and will believe a source that supports them. What's obvious to you is not obvious to others.
Okay? Then you disprove their claims and their bad sources. If they don't want to understand that, there's nothing to do. They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.
Them denying nature's truth doesn't allieve them from nature's forces.
Them denying nature's truth doesn't allieve them from nature's forces.
Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?
Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person.
The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choices affect everyone.
Go watch some flat earther videos on YouTube. Lots of people are very committed to a particular conclusion and have developed elaborate processes for disregarding evidence that would persuade a rational person.
The US political system right now is built on believing easily disprovable lies. Unfortunately, their bad choices affect everyone.
>Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?
No I do not:
>They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.
but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach.
I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube comments complaining about Hilary emails (iroinc, isn't it?)
No I do not:
>They are not a reasonable audience to debate with logos at that point.
but if people insist on arguing, that's your approach.
I just don't debate on Youtube. The people who matter aren't there anyway. Those people have to go through a slower process but one that doesn't care about the feelings of youtube comments complaining about Hilary emails (iroinc, isn't it?)
> The people who matter aren't there anyway.
The people who matter are the ones who vote.
The people who matter are the ones who vote.
We're past voting. The people who matter now are those who can stop the country from falling apart.
But sure, if anyone feels they can change minds in 2 years before midterm, go for it. That is not where I am useful.
But sure, if anyone feels they can change minds in 2 years before midterm, go for it. That is not where I am useful.
> Do you honestly think that people who believe these things will be swayed by facts and evidence?
I've got two data points to offer!
For one, some research from last year showed that
> Over three rounds of back-and-forth interaction, [a tuned version of GPT-4 Turbo], also known as DebunkBot, was able to significantly reduce individuals’ beliefs in the particular theory the believer articulated, as well as lessen their conspiratorial mindset more generally — a result that proved durable for at least two months.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/mit-study-ai-c...
It's not like the chatbot gave them a beating or something, so it must be appeals to reason and evidence that did something? At least, that's my takeaway
Second data point is an anecdote. I somehow ended up on this flat earther youtube video where they had gotten their viewers to fund them an expedition to the south pole (wtf is a south pole if the earth is flat? Where did they fly out to? Idk, they seemed to have an alternative hypothesis in case the earth really was flat, such that this "experiment" mattered) to, and I shit you not, observe that the sun does not set during summer. Why they didn't just ask someone living beyond the (ant)arctic circle, I don't know, but so they're stood there watching the sun, waiting for it to set. It didn't, and after another glance at a wristwatch that it really is midnight, they now said they believed that the earth is in fact round because their alternative hypothesis had been disproven
Whether many of the viewers on youtube believed it, I have no idea. Also conspicuously missing from the video was any sort of remark hinting at "gee, what everyone outside of our little community said turned out to be right, I wonder if maybe this could mean that there isn't some big conspiracy going on", so perhaps they'll go on to believe the next useless thing now and it was all for naught? I'm not deep enough into conspiracy theory, but it does seem to me that: if you get them to work it all out (whatever that means for them) to a point where there is an experiment you can sensibly do, or evidence they can obtain or so, they'll actually be swayed if given that evidence. Or at least some of them are. (Or maybe these are just really good actors and getting a free holiday to the most exclusive continent by becoming famous was their long con all along, who's to say, but I'm inclined to apply occam's and hanlon's razors.)
I've got two data points to offer!
For one, some research from last year showed that
> Over three rounds of back-and-forth interaction, [a tuned version of GPT-4 Turbo], also known as DebunkBot, was able to significantly reduce individuals’ beliefs in the particular theory the believer articulated, as well as lessen their conspiratorial mindset more generally — a result that proved durable for at least two months.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/mit-study-ai-c...
It's not like the chatbot gave them a beating or something, so it must be appeals to reason and evidence that did something? At least, that's my takeaway
Second data point is an anecdote. I somehow ended up on this flat earther youtube video where they had gotten their viewers to fund them an expedition to the south pole (wtf is a south pole if the earth is flat? Where did they fly out to? Idk, they seemed to have an alternative hypothesis in case the earth really was flat, such that this "experiment" mattered) to, and I shit you not, observe that the sun does not set during summer. Why they didn't just ask someone living beyond the (ant)arctic circle, I don't know, but so they're stood there watching the sun, waiting for it to set. It didn't, and after another glance at a wristwatch that it really is midnight, they now said they believed that the earth is in fact round because their alternative hypothesis had been disproven
Whether many of the viewers on youtube believed it, I have no idea. Also conspicuously missing from the video was any sort of remark hinting at "gee, what everyone outside of our little community said turned out to be right, I wonder if maybe this could mean that there isn't some big conspiracy going on", so perhaps they'll go on to believe the next useless thing now and it was all for naught? I'm not deep enough into conspiracy theory, but it does seem to me that: if you get them to work it all out (whatever that means for them) to a point where there is an experiment you can sensibly do, or evidence they can obtain or so, they'll actually be swayed if given that evidence. Or at least some of them are. (Or maybe these are just really good actors and getting a free holiday to the most exclusive continent by becoming famous was their long con all along, who's to say, but I'm inclined to apply occam's and hanlon's razors.)
Nah come on, what you've cited is obvious to everyone but a delusional 0.001%. They do not need a podium for that
You're not an American, so maybe you aren't aware how widespread conspiracy theories are in the US and how much they influence the public discourse. As a trivial example, the American Senate is currently interviewing the nominee for the head of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, CDC, and FDA, among other agencies.
The nominee, Robert F Kennedy Jr, has been very outspoken in his opinions, some of which are:
The nominee, Robert F Kennedy Jr, has been very outspoken in his opinions, some of which are:
Wi-Fi causes cancer and "leaky brain"
Chemicals in the water supply could turn children transgender
Antidepressants are to blame for school shootings
AIDS is not be caused by HIV
the Covid is designed to target white and black people but not Ashkenazi Jews
Are they so widespread because of this "both parties/sides' views need to be represented" perhaps? And is that why they influence discourse so much, because they have to be brought up again and again?
Of course, you're right that I'm not an American, it may be that I'm missing something that would have been clear to me. Not meaning to pretend to know it all, just hoping that an outside perspective (from a place where, from my POV, it works better even if far from perfect) might be helpful
Of course, you're right that I'm not an American, it may be that I'm missing something that would have been clear to me. Not meaning to pretend to know it all, just hoping that an outside perspective (from a place where, from my POV, it works better even if far from perfect) might be helpful
To give a much undeserved BOTD: I don't think he'll be approved because people really believe nor even trust RFO Jr. He will be approve to upkeep the status quo. A status quo to appeal to their voter base or to appeal to Trump or something like that.
Almost nothing on the RFO appointment is rooted in facts.
Almost nothing on the RFO appointment is rooted in facts.
> He will be approve to upkeep the status quo. A status quo to appeal to their voter base or to appeal to Trump or something like that.
No, RFKJr will be approved because he was nominated by Donald Trump and Donald Trump has a total control of the Republican Party. That's all there is to it.
No, RFKJr will be approved because he was nominated by Donald Trump and Donald Trump has a total control of the Republican Party. That's all there is to it.
I don't think it's that blatant. Even R's have limits when Gaetz got rejected. I don't think it's as rank and tow as implied.
But yes, a lot of policy for R's will ba passed. We'll see how much insanity they Will tolerate when it comes to Trump destroying the economy. Rich people kinda need that.
But yes, a lot of policy for R's will ba passed. We'll see how much insanity they Will tolerate when it comes to Trump destroying the economy. Rich people kinda need that.
Data is not the ultimate fact check. Data can be skewed in infinite ways to represent whatever you want.
During covid links to the CDC that could be used by vaccine skeptics were flagged on Facebook. There was an actual problem with the fact-checking and it was often judged by who benefited from the information rather than the truth behind the information.
[deleted]
Going out on a bit of a limb here, but I’m guessing the data will find their way to xAI.
My hypothesis is Musk is following a South African playbook. That involves, in part, privatising the commons.
Hope to be proven wrong.
My hypothesis is Musk is following a South African playbook. That involves, in part, privatising the commons.
Hope to be proven wrong.
chasing(2)
calculatte(3)
I’m an epidemiology professor and I write a weekly “weather report” outbreaks [1]. These communication and data blackouts are coming at a bad time. We’re having an unusual flu season—activity has rebounded unexpectedly. I’ve been having to scramble for data, last week by visiting each state health department website. It’s really troubling and consequential.
[1] https://caitlinrivers.substack.com
[1] https://caitlinrivers.substack.com
Reach out to the developer behind 91-DIVOC. That won't cover red states that go dark when and if they do, but it was invaluable to me during the covid pandemic.
I'm a CS professor who used to write and develop the software behind a daily and weekly Pennsylvania covid report. I get the pain here. It's a messy, incompatible jumble without the CDC.
Would you like me to see if there are some CS folks here to provide programming support to help with what you're doing?
I -hope- this is transient but I'm not holding my breath either.
(feel free to reach out at [email protected])
Would you like me to see if there are some CS folks here to provide programming support to help with what you're doing?
I -hope- this is transient but I'm not holding my breath either.
(feel free to reach out at [email protected])
Relieved to see it's back online. Hopefully it remains reliable in both senses of the word.
Definitely troubling. Not a replacement, but you might be interested in EHR derived communicable disease data available here:
https://www.epicresearch.org/data-tracker/communicable-disea...
https://www.epicresearch.org/data-tracker/communicable-disea...
Your Twitter was one of several I followed to get trusted information during most of Covid. Just wanted to say "Thanks".
The scope of the scrubbing is broader that datasets. On /r/medicine they're reporting that some treatments guidelines for physicians (100 page+ PDF's) are disappearing, if they're adjacent to the topic of sex:
https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1iepzln/cdc_has_r... ("CDC has removed the pages with STI treatment and contraceptive guidelines (self.medicine)")
https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1iepzln/cdc_has_r... ("CDC has removed the pages with STI treatment and contraceptive guidelines (self.medicine)")
The CDC page on PrEP, a life-saving medicine to protect against HIV, has been removed. This will result in people dying. https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/prevention/prep.html
Isn't this a worthwhile kick in the pants?
No one who actually relies upon real raw data is just downloading a live snapshot from official government hosting on demand are they?
Proper data handling procedures is streaming updates, doing your own backups and archiving and sharing where possible and important. Not trusting the everlasting benevolence of whiplash politically controlled resources?
No one who actually relies upon real raw data is just downloading a live snapshot from official government hosting on demand are they?
Proper data handling procedures is streaming updates, doing your own backups and archiving and sharing where possible and important. Not trusting the everlasting benevolence of whiplash politically controlled resources?
> whiplash politically controlled resources
When was the last "whiplash" that did something this catastrophic?
Put blame where blame lies.
When was the last "whiplash" that did something this catastrophic?
Put blame where blame lies.
what are you on about? The page that was destroyed was consumer health information about a life-saving preventative medication.
And this was the only website on the internet with information about it? People are going to die because this one website was taken down and there is no other place to possibly read about it?
It was one of the most complete databases, yes.
>People are going to die because this one website was taken down and there is no other place to possibly read about it?
Potentially yes. Doctors and scientists research these stats, find anamolies or patterns, and use that for research into better treatments or tobevem predict future outbreaks if the strain evolves.
We shouldn't be shocked that experts in a field can do a lot with a more complete dataset.
>People are going to die because this one website was taken down and there is no other place to possibly read about it?
Potentially yes. Doctors and scientists research these stats, find anamolies or patterns, and use that for research into better treatments or tobevem predict future outbreaks if the strain evolves.
We shouldn't be shocked that experts in a field can do a lot with a more complete dataset.
Today in the New York Times: C.D.C. scientists ordered to withdraw studies that use terms such as ‘L.G.B.T.’ or ‘pregnant people.’
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/01/us/trump-tariffs-new...
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/02/01/us/trump-tariffs-new...
This is a blitzkrieg campaign designed to try and get Musk and his people as much control of the digital government as possible before the roadblocks (legal, systematic, etc.) make things too difficult for him. As it stands, his goal is likely a purge of the federal government akin to what he did with Twitter. And the resulting 80% drop in revenue by Twitter is a similar kind of outcome we can expect from his careless meddling.
https://bsky.app/profile/altnps.bsky.social/post/3lh3dl3rkgc...
> Elon Musk staff has been caught installing hard drives inside the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Treasury Department, and the General Services Administration (GSA). His staff encountered resistance when demanding that Treasury officials grant access to systems managing the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Tensions escalated when Musk’s aides were discovered at OPM accessing systems, including a vast database known as the Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI), which contains sensitive information such as dates of birth, Social Security numbers, performance appraisals, home addresses, pay grades, and length of service for government employees. In response to employees speaking out, Musk’s aides locked civil servants out of computer systems and offices, with reports of personal items being searched.
> Elon Musk staff has been caught installing hard drives inside the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Treasury Department, and the General Services Administration (GSA). His staff encountered resistance when demanding that Treasury officials grant access to systems managing the flow of more than $6 trillion annually to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Tensions escalated when Musk’s aides were discovered at OPM accessing systems, including a vast database known as the Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI), which contains sensitive information such as dates of birth, Social Security numbers, performance appraisals, home addresses, pay grades, and length of service for government employees. In response to employees speaking out, Musk’s aides locked civil servants out of computer systems and offices, with reports of personal items being searched.
It is very plausible that he is also using it to get all the data he wants from this, not just to scrub it. It would make sense given his desire to compete on AGI that he can both scrub this data for public use and feed it to his own training sets.
I don't think he cares a whole lot about xAI at the moment. He's busy being shadow president.
Except of course, instead of a company nobody cares about losing advertisers and money, lives are going to be lost. The stakes are higher when you start dismantling critical institutions and stuffing them full of loyal incompetents.
Still so stupid in my eyes. This isn't the public sector, you can't just lay off 80% of the government without a hell of a battle with all the representative powers of the US.
Government's already being sued over these actions this weekend. I just hope federal employees ignore all his actions. They don't work for him (and Trump can't fire most of them in retaliation)
Government's already being sued over these actions this weekend. I just hope federal employees ignore all his actions. They don't work for him (and Trump can't fire most of them in retaliation)
Maybe useful to someone:
https://archive.org/details/20250128-cdc-datasets
"""
An archive of all CDC datasets uploaded to https://data.cdc.gov/browse before January 28th, 2025. Excludes corrupt datasets and data not publicly accessible.
Most datasets are accompanied by an additional file ending in -meta that includes the metadata associated with the data. Attachments referenced in these files can be found in the attachments/ folder.
If you would like to seed this data to improve its redundancy please do not use the auto generated torrent, as it is incomplete. Instead use the torrent file labeled "full-20250128-cdc-datasets-USETHIS.torrent"
"""
https://archive.org/details/20250128-cdc-datasets
"""
An archive of all CDC datasets uploaded to https://data.cdc.gov/browse before January 28th, 2025. Excludes corrupt datasets and data not publicly accessible.
Most datasets are accompanied by an additional file ending in -meta that includes the metadata associated with the data. Attachments referenced in these files can be found in the attachments/ folder.
If you would like to seed this data to improve its redundancy please do not use the auto generated torrent, as it is incomplete. Instead use the torrent file labeled "full-20250128-cdc-datasets-USETHIS.torrent"
"""
This highlights why the Internet Archive is so important.
Thanks, that is useful. Are there any other efforts to archive all the data on government websites? I suppose we could crawl archive.org.
It will only take an order making the data illegal to host to have it removed. More copies are critical.
This means nothing if you host it on non-US servers. No one would take it seriously internationally.
It’s terrifying that data US taxpayers paid for, collected and analyzed in the name of public health, can be removed on a whim. While there are a lot of efforts to archive said data, it would still make it unavailable to Americans who are not tech savvy. Unfortunately, that seems to be the idea, I think.
Would the removed data be something that could be requested under FOIA?
I can answer this as a serial FOIA litigator.
If the data is still in the possession of the government (e.g. in backups, on paper) then it is FOIA-able.
I had a gov agency temporarily throw all the materials into a trash can when I requested them and argued that since they were sitting in a trash can they were not available under FOIA.
If the data is still in the possession of the government (e.g. in backups, on paper) then it is FOIA-able.
I had a gov agency temporarily throw all the materials into a trash can when I requested them and argued that since they were sitting in a trash can they were not available under FOIA.
> temporarily throw all the materials into a trash
Just curious, did they pull it out of the trash later on?
Just curious, did they pull it out of the trash later on?
Yes. It was argued in court that they couldn't be expected to go into the trash to pull out documents. But they were later. The case was settled on some ground, I can't remember what. Maybe they handed over the documents in the end. This was a decade ago, so I'm hazy on what the final outcome was.
A lot of public bodies will play games like this. It's not even clear to me why they do it. It'll be documents that aren't even controversial that they will resist. Ask them what brand of coffee they buy for the break room and they'll immediately get defensive and find some random exemption to apply. Law enforcement bodies are by far the worst, I think because the public are seen as terminal nuisances all the way down through the bodies.
A lot of public bodies will play games like this. It's not even clear to me why they do it. It'll be documents that aren't even controversial that they will resist. Ask them what brand of coffee they buy for the break room and they'll immediately get defensive and find some random exemption to apply. Law enforcement bodies are by far the worst, I think because the public are seen as terminal nuisances all the way down through the bodies.
Requires a law abiding administration.
It is terrifying. Especially since the Executive Order didn't require it.
Why is the CDC taking down data when it's not required to do so?
Why is the CDC taking down data when it's not required to do so?
majority of voters have made an ultimate choice. everything has to serve the choice. if you pay tax but don't or can't vote, sorry, it's your own problem.
Isn't this data already inaccessible to those who are not tech savvy? My grandma isn’t visiting any of the data download sites provided by the federal government. She doesn’t even know why she would, or even that such data is available. And if I provide it to her, she hasn’t the skills to do anything with it.
A lot of federal money goes to state and local health programs. For example, consider mammograms. A state will be given a budget to spend on mammograms. The state doesn't do those screenings itself, so it solicits bids from several healthcare organizations. Those organizations create proposals with estimates of the number of residents eligible for free screening in their area, the burden of breast cancer among that group, and whether those potential patients fall into underserved or high risk demographics. All of that comes from high quality data published by the federal government. Those groups pull data from these online data sets.
Your grandma might have gotten free mammograms because of that data.
Your grandma might have gotten free mammograms because of that data.
[deleted]
Agreed that your grandma is unlikely to access the data directly, however that doesn't imply she is not affected by it's removal. As others have noted, professionals your grandma almost certainly depends upon(doctors for example) rely on the data.
Luckily, we live in a society of specialists, and while you are laying bricks, public health orgs are generating reports and taking interviews and making these data accessible and meaningful to you.
So, yes, your grandma relies on a data "supply chain" but, nevertheless, it benefits her.
So, yes, your grandma relies on a data "supply chain" but, nevertheless, it benefits her.
A lot of the user facing pages with general info about stuff like HIV has been deleted too.
It's a bit like asking whether road signs are effective for Americans who can't read. The signs are there for the people that are using the road, and if you're not using the road you can safely ignore it.
It's also a bit like saying that medical school is an elitist institution that only benefits the medical class. :-)
More like asking whether road signs are effective for Americans who are passengers in cars. No, it doesn't directly do her any good that they're technically accessible since she can't act on it, but it sure as hell affects her life that other people have access to the information provided by road signs.
I'm not sure the analogy works: roads were around long before writing, and there are still road users who can't read. That is why pedestrian crossing signals use lights in the shape of a person rather than written instructions.
That's why this is more of an attack on the Hacker News demographic, not Grandma.
If you had a real startup doing real things in healthcare, this is an intentional spoke in your wheels.
If you had a real startup doing real things in healthcare, this is an intentional spoke in your wheels.
Grandma goes to the doctor.
[deleted]
An "interesting" consequence of these type of measures of stopping collecting or publishing data will be that soon it will be impossible to tell how much infant mortality, or number of cases of tuberculosis or similar changed with respect to last year. Maybe that is partially the goal.
Well, if your plan is to destroy governmental agencies while being in charge of them, it makes sense to destroy anything that might show you are causing harm first.
See maternal mortality in Texas.
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/06/texas-maternal-morta...
https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/06/texas-maternal-morta...
Yes, that may be part of the same playbook. Those pesky foreign viruses are taking our ill! We must stop that! Glory to the White Death!
This is very similar to when the CDC stopped recording defensive gun use statistics! The pendulum is certainly swinging, on the other hand, I think we should retain data even if it doesn’t align with the current administration. I think it’s important that people should record data that they value, independent of governments, so they can maintain a source of truth throughout time. Articles from Axios, NYT and posts on X can change or be deleted, it’s important to take snapshots to go back and check for deltas.
The Dickey amendment in 1996 made it extremely difficult to study gun violence at the federal level. That only started to change in 2013 and then was finally fixed in 2019.
This is one issue where there is no pendulum. The pro-gun lobby has owned censorship of gun research for a generation and is likely to keep it from being an active and honest research area.
This is one issue where there is no pendulum. The pro-gun lobby has owned censorship of gun research for a generation and is likely to keep it from being an active and honest research area.
dingnuts(1)
Yeah, we need snapshots of the internet, not just the data
It seems to me that all uses of guns are defensive.
Assassination and suicide both seem non-defensive, unless you use a very broad definition of defense.
Suicide is more common than homocide. By a factor of 2 to 1.
Murder is more common than self defense. By a factor of 10 to 1.
In all cases you are highly likely (>90%) to be on a first name basis with the person that kills you.
Murder is more common than self defense. By a factor of 10 to 1.
In all cases you are highly likely (>90%) to be on a first name basis with the person that kills you.
It should also be noted that uses of guns in self defense (e.g. “pulling a gun”) not involving any injuries or deaths are not well-tracked (though they’re estimated to be much more frequent than instances involving bodily harm).
Interesting, an unloaded or even fake gun would be just as effective in "defense" then. (And is not going to be used for either suicide or used against you.)
If you are a very good actor, confident that nobody will call your bluff, and the assailant believes it is likely that the gun is real and loaded, yes.
This is part of a broader rolling catastrophe. Musk is evidently seizing control of the Office of Personnel Management
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-01-31/exclus...
Nasa took down their applied sciences page and is evidently scrubbing the data
https://www.reddit.com/r/gis/comments/1icqchv/why_is_the_nas...
(https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/)
Lots of other data sets are disappearing too:
https://mashable.com/article/government-datasets-disappear-s...
There is active discussion of this at https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/
as well as at https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-01-31/exclus...
Nasa took down their applied sciences page and is evidently scrubbing the data
https://www.reddit.com/r/gis/comments/1icqchv/why_is_the_nas...
(https://appliedsciences.nasa.gov/)
Lots of other data sets are disappearing too:
https://mashable.com/article/government-datasets-disappear-s...
There is active discussion of this at https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/
as well as at https://www.reddit.com/r/fednews/
I would just like to point out that Musk is the richest man in the world and is now directing critical areas of the U.S. government. Surely he doesn't have ulterior motives and is looking out for the average person?
As far as things like ending EV tax credits musk noted it would hurt his competitors more than him.
It’s all obvious corruption.
It’s all obvious corruption.
EV tax credits under the previous administration applied to almost every EV that wasn't a Tesla. They got Tesla its start, though, so the ladder must be pulled up.
Of course, carbon offsets are still a huge cash cow for Tesla, so Musk won't be eager to touch those.
Of course, carbon offsets are still a huge cash cow for Tesla, so Musk won't be eager to touch those.
> EV tax credits under the previous administration applied to almost every EV that wasn't a Tesla.
Your statement might give somebody the impression that somebody in the previous administration singled out Tesla. This is obviously not correct. EV credits were available to all car makers. But there was a limit and Tesla reached their limit first. And later GM did as well.
Your statement might give somebody the impression that somebody in the previous administration singled out Tesla. This is obviously not correct. EV credits were available to all car makers. But there was a limit and Tesla reached their limit first. And later GM did as well.
> applied to almost every EV that wasn't a Tesla
And Tesla?
https://www.tesla.com/IRA
And Tesla?
https://www.tesla.com/IRA
The tax credits were eventually reapplied to Tesla with the changes starting in 2023, but for a while, Tesla had crossed the sales limit so that the credit wasn't available.
It's worth mentioning that situation wasn't unique to Tesla, as GM also crossed the sales limit and had no credit available before 2023.
The phaseout based on units sold was in place as far back as 2018 since Tesla reached it in July 2018 and GM in November 2018. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (effective August 2022, not 2023) reinstated Tesla's eligibility and disqualified a number of other EVs.
Although the Inflation Reduction Act became effective in August 2022, no EV tax credit was available for new Tesla or GM EVs purchased in 2022, regardless of month. The units-sold threshold phaseout was only lifted for purchases made after 2022.
Source: personal experience, as well as https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...
Source: personal experience, as well as https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/manufacturers-and-mod...
You're right, thank you for the fix. My apologies.
If you look back at Germany in the 19th century, nations like Prussia and Austria had this sort of power struggle between the merchant class and the nobility at the advent of steam power.
in this case the de-facto US nobility (rank-and-file career politicians) are being usurped by the bourgeouise (billionaires like Musk) at the advent of AI and tech by promising the working class a combination of culture war policy and relief from the very capitalist excess they themselves endorse. by reducing congress and senate to a simple debate team (conversely similar to the German National Asssembly) the tech-elite are able to seize power once reserved for the crown.
the question will be, after four years, will they abdicate their power or concentrate it?
in this case the de-facto US nobility (rank-and-file career politicians) are being usurped by the bourgeouise (billionaires like Musk) at the advent of AI and tech by promising the working class a combination of culture war policy and relief from the very capitalist excess they themselves endorse. by reducing congress and senate to a simple debate team (conversely similar to the German National Asssembly) the tech-elite are able to seize power once reserved for the crown.
the question will be, after four years, will they abdicate their power or concentrate it?
I laughed when those people self-identified as accelerationists... but holly shit! they knew what it means and were honest.
Historically, they are just a bunch of rich morons that got lucky, got power, and decided to stage a coup. This is not some enlightened movement trying to replace the social norms. It's just your run of the mill personal power switch, and the only notable things about it are it's on a country that has been extremely stable before, and those people are stupid enough to willfully destroy it.
Historically, they are just a bunch of rich morons that got lucky, got power, and decided to stage a coup. This is not some enlightened movement trying to replace the social norms. It's just your run of the mill personal power switch, and the only notable things about it are it's on a country that has been extremely stable before, and those people are stupid enough to willfully destroy it.
> it's on a country that has been extremely stable before
The US is a known bad design, nation builders working for the United States stopped trying to use this design for new countries in the 20th century, it doesn't work. It's inherently unstable and you previously got very lucky, although you have had a civil war and numerous close calls.
It's like oh, why don't we make coal-powered cars. Well because it's a known bad idea. We actually did try that, it's a bad idea, don't do it again.
The US is a known bad design, nation builders working for the United States stopped trying to use this design for new countries in the 20th century, it doesn't work. It's inherently unstable and you previously got very lucky, although you have had a civil war and numerous close calls.
It's like oh, why don't we make coal-powered cars. Well because it's a known bad idea. We actually did try that, it's a bad idea, don't do it again.
And the bad design has severely limited our ability to self-correct.
While I absolutely do not like what is happening right now, I cannot agree with your general statement. Could you elaborate?
The US has proper separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The legislative has a per-state and popular representation. Which part of this is "inherently unstable"?
The only part lacking a proper proportional representation (as in a parliament).
The US has proper separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. The legislative has a per-state and popular representation. Which part of this is "inherently unstable"?
The only part lacking a proper proportional representation (as in a parliament).
The US Executive is way more powerful than the other powers. It can act as it wishes, and consequences only come years later, if ever.
Also, the per-state representation doesn't seem to lead to good results at all. As you said, the popular representation isn't proportional, what is a more relevant flaw than anything before this point on this comment.
And that is before you get into the details that are actually bad. It's incredible that they managed to stay stable with that electoral system, for example.
That said, looks like they will have an almost perfect opportunity to fix some of those in a few years...
Also, the per-state representation doesn't seem to lead to good results at all. As you said, the popular representation isn't proportional, what is a more relevant flaw than anything before this point on this comment.
And that is before you get into the details that are actually bad. It's incredible that they managed to stay stable with that electoral system, for example.
That said, looks like they will have an almost perfect opportunity to fix some of those in a few years...
[Citation Needed]
I'd love to read about the new designs.
I'd love to read about the new designs.
Literally every other existing democracy is newer. Dig in.
The core is the President is kept from becoming a dictator by nothing more than norms. If Trump staffs the military with loyalists, there isn’t much anyone can do to make him do anything. Most other countries have power over the military, particularly in domestic contexts, much more shattered.
In those "newer designs" there is no electoral college. Also various alternative electoral systems have been tried. The winner-takes-all system of the US is known pathological and inevitably results in a two party system. Democracies in Europe most often result in many parties and a necessity to form coalitions. Ireland even goes as far as using IRV and STV.
The issue isn't even in how votes are counted, it's in parliamentary versus presidential republics.
The latter inevitably slide towards autocracy. Too much power is concentrated in one person, who is almost impossible to legally remove before their term is up, and who will happily punish dissenters within the party.
In parliamentary republics, every PM is one internal party vote away from being deposed. You tend to see less of the tail wagging the dog in them.
The latter inevitably slide towards autocracy. Too much power is concentrated in one person, who is almost impossible to legally remove before their term is up, and who will happily punish dissenters within the party.
In parliamentary republics, every PM is one internal party vote away from being deposed. You tend to see less of the tail wagging the dog in them.
[deleted]
>the question will be, after four years, will they abdicate their power or concentrate it?
You honestly think that's a question?
Power corrupts. You saw Trump, who in 2016 said he'd get everything done so he'd see no need to run again, he'd have Made America Great Again. He then tried to rig the 2020 election so he could stay in power, despite saying "if I lose the election you'll never hear from me again", and 4 years later, here we are.
These people are here to entrench themselves permanently.
You honestly think that's a question?
Power corrupts. You saw Trump, who in 2016 said he'd get everything done so he'd see no need to run again, he'd have Made America Great Again. He then tried to rig the 2020 election so he could stay in power, despite saying "if I lose the election you'll never hear from me again", and 4 years later, here we are.
These people are here to entrench themselves permanently.
I know that Trump was something of a bad loser when Biden was elected, and that he encouraged the riots on Capitol Hill, but I had not heard (from the media media here in Britain) that he attempted to rig the election. Could you provide a source for this please?
Possibly a reference to the fake electors plot [0], although there was also the phone call to the Georgia secretary of state asking him to find 11,780 more votes [1], the pressure he applied to his VP to reject the election results [2], the subsequent Jan 6 riot that disrupted the certification...
At least some of these were covered by BBC [3, 4].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#Vote_counting_and_s...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55524838
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55559172
At least some of these were covered by BBC [3, 4].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_fake_electors_plot
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_ph...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pence#Vote_counting_and_s...
[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55524838
[4] https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-55559172
He also tried to get the DoJ to label the election as suspicious. Don’t have an immediate reference for that but it was surfaced by the Jan 6 committee.
> the question will be, after four years, will they abdicate their power or concentrate it?
Musk, Thiel, and their friends clearly intend to consolidate power, and the people they associate with openly advocate for the creation of independent corporate fiefdoms with authoritarian control over society. There is no doubt at this point. These are not good people. They are oligarchs. They are the bitter nerds that just want power for themselves so they can be the bullies.
Musk, Thiel, and their friends clearly intend to consolidate power, and the people they associate with openly advocate for the creation of independent corporate fiefdoms with authoritarian control over society. There is no doubt at this point. These are not good people. They are oligarchs. They are the bitter nerds that just want power for themselves so they can be the bullies.
There are far more nerds (bitter or not) who were not so successful yet are far more clever than these "leaders" are, and they aren't the type to tolerate intolerance...
> will they abdicate their power
Yeah, no. This is a coup and they are all in. They would not be this blatant about taking control illegally and fast if they expected to leave any institutions to still enforce the law against them.
Yeah, no. This is a coup and they are all in. They would not be this blatant about taking control illegally and fast if they expected to leave any institutions to still enforce the law against them.
> the question will be, after four years, will they abdicate their power or concentrate it?
Why would they? Once they come for the judges and replace them with “real Americans”, there’s no bottom.
Why would they? Once they come for the judges and replace them with “real Americans”, there’s no bottom.
The Federalist Society has been a 40/50 year project to install a judiciary loyal to this coup project. This mix of Christian nationalist theocracy and unitary executive has been their aim all along.
[deleted]
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.
They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984Yea, these guys don't seem like the kind to do any abdicating, voluntarily.
A lot can happen in 4 years though. Maybe self-inflicted catastrophic wounds will drive down support for Trump enough where it becomes possible for R pols and oligarchs to abandon him. Or maybe they'll choose the dark path, and go farther into repressive authoritarianism to stay in power.
The problem for Musk et al is that they are concentrating power directly to Trump, not themselves. They're shackling themselves to the leopard and betting it will never eat their face.
A lot can happen in 4 years though. Maybe self-inflicted catastrophic wounds will drive down support for Trump enough where it becomes possible for R pols and oligarchs to abandon him. Or maybe they'll choose the dark path, and go farther into repressive authoritarianism to stay in power.
The problem for Musk et al is that they are concentrating power directly to Trump, not themselves. They're shackling themselves to the leopard and betting it will never eat their face.
> Maybe self-inflicted catastrophic wounds will drive down support for Trump enough
They will blame women, minorites and especially trans people for all of that.
And when dust settles, those who supported Trump and Musk will see themselves as primary victims - and will blame minorites, women, democracts and trans people for consequences of their own actions.
They will blame women, minorites and especially trans people for all of that.
And when dust settles, those who supported Trump and Musk will see themselves as primary victims - and will blame minorites, women, democracts and trans people for consequences of their own actions.
"Why didn't you stop me from putting my hand in the pain hole?"
Looking at the human nature while interacts with Capitalism, looks like they will try to concentrate it.
I found it shameful that we hold so much a power hungry war while however as Memento Mori teach us, the only certainty is death, and that power is simply gone.
I found it shameful that we hold so much a power hungry war while however as Memento Mori teach us, the only certainty is death, and that power is simply gone.
I really hope you're being sarcastic.
The tech oligarchs want to dismantle democracy, receive a gift of 0.5% of Federal land from Trump and establish their own democracy-free fiefdoms. [1]
The social support system in the US is being dismantled and when people can no longer afford to eat, the ensuing riots will provide the necessary trigger to declare martial law and suspend democracy completely.
[1] DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
The social support system in the US is being dismantled and when people can no longer afford to eat, the ensuing riots will provide the necessary trigger to declare martial law and suspend democracy completely.
[1] DARK GOTHIC MAGA: How Tech Billionaires Plan to Destroy America https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RpPTRcz1no
Musk is not the richest man in the world. Those lists exclude royalty and other individuals who do not want the extra publicity. The Rothschilds are far richer.
> Those lists exclude royalty and other individuals who do not want the extra publicity
What individual(s)? You just mentioned a family and not an individual. Forbes lists Elon's net worth at $419 billion.
What individual(s)? You just mentioned a family and not an individual. Forbes lists Elon's net worth at $419 billion.
David de Rothschild. The family has lent money to governments and royalty for centuries. You’re not going to find his accurate net worth on Forbes.
Also, any king or dictator effectively owns their nation’s entire treasury, including all real estate. Maduro, for example, is wealthier than Musk.
Also, any king or dictator effectively owns their nation’s entire treasury, including all real estate. Maduro, for example, is wealthier than Musk.
There is no evidence — reliable, speculative, or otherwise — that suggests Nicolás Maduro's net worth exceeds even $100 billion. It's more likely in the hundreds of millions, not hundreds of billions.
Even the most aggressive speculative estimates from opposition figures, investigative journalists, or geopolitical analysts do not approach that figure.
No credible leaks (like the Panama Papers or Pandora Papers) have hinted at such vast assets tied to Maduro.
No intelligence reports or financial investigations from entities like the U.S. Treasury, the EU, or independent watchdogs have ever approached figures remotely close to hundreds of billions.
Even the most aggressive speculative estimates from opposition figures, investigative journalists, or geopolitical analysts do not approach that figure.
No credible leaks (like the Panama Papers or Pandora Papers) have hinted at such vast assets tied to Maduro.
No intelligence reports or financial investigations from entities like the U.S. Treasury, the EU, or independent watchdogs have ever approached figures remotely close to hundreds of billions.
OP's point is that Maduro's authority over the whole country effectively grants him control over the resources and the corresponding net worth. It's a stretch but I can see where they are coming from.
As someone living in a monarchy, I can assure you that our regent very much does not own my nation’s treasury.
I agree with your point but in this parent discussion doesn't make sense just throw "they are way richer than Z person"
Tho in the Maduro sense, which is a dictator that just make sense while he is in power, it's not actually own by him.
Tho in the Maduro sense, which is a dictator that just make sense while he is in power, it's not actually own by him.
Elon seems to have bought control over the US treasury, so he's in those leagues.
Our king has to moonlight as a airline pilot.
Our queen emerita is a part-time painter.
[deleted]
At this point, being a Musk supporter is nothing to be proud of.
I cancelled a Model 3 order and went with a different EV a few years ago. I was starting to soften my stance, and considering a Tesla for my next, but at this point, I have a hard time accepting the idea that buying one wouldn't send a message of implicit support.
Indeed it is, but maybe is time that we detach a person from their proposals. I wonder how that would be achieved.
So you are suggesting that all posts on news.ycombinator be anonymous?
Ohhhg I think I expressed myself wrongly, I meant for example, the Musk person and his proposals as a public man in politics, should I edit my comment to be more clear?
Still now following.
Are you saying something like, "You know I hate everything Musk stands for, everything he does publicly — but he might be an okay guy as a person"?
Are you saying something like, "You know I hate everything Musk stands for, everything he does publicly — but he might be an okay guy as a person"?
I think Musk was a bad example, I mean for example, people wants better health care, and some public person and/or politician proposes better prices in prescriptions drugs at a mid term, then that person who was elect does not only holds the power but also is obligated to follow that project.
It's literally to detach the person from the projects, of course times changes and the elected project can not be achieved by an X factor, tho we should have checks and balances in that too.
Today we follow X or Y politician/party but in this polarization we lost the focus that in the end a politician is elected to execute goal/project and not to hold power and then maybe do it.
It's literally to detach the person from the projects, of course times changes and the elected project can not be achieved by an X factor, tho we should have checks and balances in that too.
Today we follow X or Y politician/party but in this polarization we lost the focus that in the end a politician is elected to execute goal/project and not to hold power and then maybe do it.
(I did the, slightly snarky, original sibling comment, but this comment was better to reply to.)
My understanding of your original comment was similar to how 'JkCalhoun understood it, but this comment reads more like "the country show follow through on decided changes" regardless of who is in power. That I agree more with, with exceptions of course. (One example is maybe Obamas connection with "Obamacare" that is still a thing even though he is not in power.) Perhaps another way to put it is to detach the project from the person, but the person will still be linked (in some way) to the project.
Especially when it comes to international policies. For one, international relations and agreements are (normally) much slower moving and longer lasting than internal ones, and if countries can't depend on agreements lasting longer than the current leadership then such countries will see themselves not taken very seriously.
Kind of like if a president signs a trade deal with his country's closest neighbors and then a few years later instigate a trade war against the same countries.
My understanding of your original comment was similar to how 'JkCalhoun understood it, but this comment reads more like "the country show follow through on decided changes" regardless of who is in power. That I agree more with, with exceptions of course. (One example is maybe Obamas connection with "Obamacare" that is still a thing even though he is not in power.) Perhaps another way to put it is to detach the project from the person, but the person will still be linked (in some way) to the project.
Especially when it comes to international policies. For one, international relations and agreements are (normally) much slower moving and longer lasting than internal ones, and if countries can't depend on agreements lasting longer than the current leadership then such countries will see themselves not taken very seriously.
Kind of like if a president signs a trade deal with his country's closest neighbors and then a few years later instigate a trade war against the same countries.
Pretty much what you said, Obamacare is a great example. Your snarky comment was pretty after I thought about.
This is the downside of the web.
Fortunately we have depository libraries, so some key stuff won’t be destroyed by these barbarians. https://www.gpo.gov/how-to-work-with-us/agency/services-for-...
Fortunately we have depository libraries, so some key stuff won’t be destroyed by these barbarians. https://www.gpo.gov/how-to-work-with-us/agency/services-for-...
> Musk is evidently seizing control of the Office of Personnel Management
Suddenly I feel out of the loop when it comes to US politics, how come Musk is suddenly seemingly seizing control of parts of the US government? I don't recall him being on any ballots or anything?
Suddenly I feel out of the loop when it comes to US politics, how come Musk is suddenly seemingly seizing control of parts of the US government? I don't recall him being on any ballots or anything?
As it so happens he did not appear on any ballots. But Musk (his aides more specifically) have locked federal employees out of their own systems
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-...
Evidently set up an on-prem email server at the OPM to send out their emails asking disloyal employees to resign
https://gizmodo.com/federal-employees-sue-agency-over-new-em...
And is attempting to do the same at the US Treasury (edit: I meant to gain access to/control of, not the email server thing)
https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-demands-...
The twitzkrieg seems to be working.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-aides-lock-government-...
Evidently set up an on-prem email server at the OPM to send out their emails asking disloyal employees to resign
https://gizmodo.com/federal-employees-sue-agency-over-new-em...
And is attempting to do the same at the US Treasury (edit: I meant to gain access to/control of, not the email server thing)
https://www.finance.senate.gov/chairmans-news/wyden-demands-...
The twitzkrieg seems to be working.
treis(2)
The trouble is, to talk about WHY Musk is attempting to seize control of parts of the US government and why the Trump administration is attempting to censor mass quantities of data would be a political conversation.
Hacker News isn't designed for this. The point at which it becomes mass censorship that computer hackers (in their capacity as The Internet) might take an active role in routing around, is more or less this point: you're quite correct that this is worrying, but up to this point it's been a deeply political conversation and only as it becomes mass censorship and control by technological means, does it become really on-message for Hacker News.
Hacker News isn't designed for this. The point at which it becomes mass censorship that computer hackers (in their capacity as The Internet) might take an active role in routing around, is more or less this point: you're quite correct that this is worrying, but up to this point it's been a deeply political conversation and only as it becomes mass censorship and control by technological means, does it become really on-message for Hacker News.
Hacking includes systems, not just code, and what Musk is doing certainly counts as systems hacking I would say.
Hell, Captain Crunch didn't even use a computer.
Hell, Captain Crunch didn't even use a computer.
Oh, I don't disagree. I'm getting downvotes as if I didn't think this was Hacker News business. I think it became Hacker News business when unelected guys seized offices and computer systems and started doing… what? We don't know, but there's a lot of data deleting, censoring, and grant-freezing going on.
I'm leaning very hard into an HN 'tone' with this because this is Hacker News. There's other places where I can be a lot more direct, but the HN tone is perfectly valid as a response: being able to think dispassionately is both tactically and strategically useful as long as it's not purely used to obfuscate.
I fear HN folks have been sheltered from a lot of the reality of what's happening and led down the garden path BY intentionally asserting that tone anytime things get too assertive, but the tone still has its uses.
edit: woof! Ok ok, this is fully HN business and always was. Right on. Sorry I even suggested it could ever be otherwise. I didn't give my fellow nerds enough credit :)
I'm leaning very hard into an HN 'tone' with this because this is Hacker News. There's other places where I can be a lot more direct, but the HN tone is perfectly valid as a response: being able to think dispassionately is both tactically and strategically useful as long as it's not purely used to obfuscate.
I fear HN folks have been sheltered from a lot of the reality of what's happening and led down the garden path BY intentionally asserting that tone anytime things get too assertive, but the tone still has its uses.
edit: woof! Ok ok, this is fully HN business and always was. Right on. Sorry I even suggested it could ever be otherwise. I didn't give my fellow nerds enough credit :)
> to talk about WHY Musk is attempting to seize control of parts of the US government and why the Trump administration is attempting to censor mass quantities of data would be a political conversation.
In an attempt to keep it non-political: perhaps they (DOGE) are trying to put a "freeze" on the records while they consider who to fire. That would imply DOGE does not trust the people who have access to the records not to alter them in their favor. (Irony, since DOGE is demanding trust themselves.) You might not agree with that reason, but it is a reason.
In an attempt to keep it non-political: perhaps they (DOGE) are trying to put a "freeze" on the records while they consider who to fire. That would imply DOGE does not trust the people who have access to the records not to alter them in their favor. (Irony, since DOGE is demanding trust themselves.) You might not agree with that reason, but it is a reason.
Not every person in the government is elected. Some positions are appointed. Not one judge from SCOTUS is elected. None of the members of the president's cabinet are elected. They are all Senate confirmed though, which is what's going on now with the current clown show. Somehow, Musk has created a role for himself where he even gets to bypass the Senate confirmation stage. That's the most disconcerting thing to me. Not that I think he wouldn't get confirmed, but the fact that he has this much power totally unchecked.
> the fact that he has this much power totally unchecked.
I think this is just a symptom of the amount of power the office of the president has accumulated over the years. Musk has no authority on his own; he's acting on the authority of the president.
Due to the number of things Congress has delegated to the executive branch over the years, that's quite a lot of unchecked power indeed. But it's not Musk's power, it's the president's.
I think this is just a symptom of the amount of power the office of the president has accumulated over the years. Musk has no authority on his own; he's acting on the authority of the president.
Due to the number of things Congress has delegated to the executive branch over the years, that's quite a lot of unchecked power indeed. But it's not Musk's power, it's the president's.
The US is undergoing a fascist takeover basically.
You’re being downvoted but looking from the outside in, Gitmo being scaled up to house 30k people that the administration expects never to be able to repatriate, an unelected billionaire running around destroying institutions and a president actively starting trade wars and threatening occupation with allies looks an awful lot like it.
People aren't downvoting because they disagree about what's happening. They are downvoting because they agree with fascism, but don't like it when people say the truth out loud. It's a fundamental reality of fascism that those who support it will also deflect all valid criticism of their movement.
A majority of U.S. voters chose this. After all that was already known about this admin, they aren't backing down, he's doing what he promised he would do.
It is going to be more catastrophic than I think anyone knows.
A majority of U.S. voters chose this. After all that was already known about this admin, they aren't backing down, he's doing what he promised he would do.
It is going to be more catastrophic than I think anyone knows.
Nitpick - fewer than fifty percent of votes went to trump
I was sure this was wrong, but it's true: according to official state counts, Donald Trump won 49.80% of the popular vote to Kamala Harris's 48.32%. The top 5 was rounded out by Jill Stein (0.56%), Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (0.49%), and Chase Oliver (0.42%) [1].
[1] https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...
(yes, I'm aware of the irony of linking to federal agency data in this thread)
[1] https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/2024pres...
(yes, I'm aware of the irony of linking to federal agency data in this thread)
While technically true the difference between 49.8 and 50.01 is quite small and not very interesting. I think the major point was probably that a lot of US citizens don't vote.
Why would it be surprising enough to need verification? There was more than 2 candidates and the US presidential election is always very close.
archive it, quick! Can't have that data around contradicting the landslide and all :)
He also has the assurance from SCOTUS that he can do no wrong as POTUS. That's a very disconcerting thought about the supposed checks and balances. Now that his party controls both houses, he'll never be impeached for anything he does either. And that was the one limit that Trump was stipulating existed--the only way POTUS could get in trouble was to be convicted in the Senate after the House impeaches. So he essentially is untouchable.
If fascism means secure borders, an end to the kinetic conflict in Ukraine, an end to social media censorship, and a booming economy, more than half the country will vote for fascism. Promises fulfilled or not aside.
The article we're discussing talks about removal of publicly accessible data. Huge amounts of it. How is that better than "social media censorship"?
At some point you're going to have to stop spouting the bullshit talking points and accept that this administration are actively worse on most metrics that they campaigned on improving.
At some point you're going to have to stop spouting the bullshit talking points and accept that this administration are actively worse on most metrics that they campaigned on improving.
Trump tariffs are definitely not going to make the economy boom...
"The government of Columbia has agreed to all of President Trump's terms, including the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft, without limitation or delay. Based on this agreement, the fully drafted IEEPA tariffs and sanctions will be held in reserve, and not signed, unless Colombia fails to honor this agreement. The visa sanctions issued by the State Department, and enhanced inspections from Customs and Border Protection, will remain in effect until the first planeload of Colombian deportees is successfully returned. Today's events make clear to the world that America is respected again. President Trump will continue to fiercely protect our nation's sovereignty, and he expects all other nations of the world to fully cooperate in accepting the deportation of their citizens illegally present in the United States."And how does this make the economy boom, exactly?
"Some things are more important than GDP".
Ah, so it won't help the economy. Funny how you've moved the goalpost so far that you're now arguing against your own claim.
This is literally a Trump press release. Are you aware there were new tariffs announced today?
liontwist(2)
Lmao. Nope. US is reclaiming the common sense
I won't argue about immigration here because I don't want to get mired in that shit, but what is common sense about denying the existence of climate change and attempting to destroy/reverse our progress as a nation against it, and further engaging in activities to make it worse rather than alleviate it?
What is common sense about sewing chaos in the federal government, inhibiting it's ability to function? In removing datasets that help us keep track of how effective our actions are?
What is common sense about sewing chaos in the federal government, inhibiting it's ability to function? In removing datasets that help us keep track of how effective our actions are?
President add unelected civilians to their cabinet every election.
Did anyone elect Anthony Blinken? Janet Yellen? Lloyd Austin?
None of these people were elected yet have substantial power delegated through the President.
And while these people were approved by Senate vote, plenty of people in the Biden circle weren’t - Chief of Staff, members of the National Security Council, etc.
Did anyone elect Anthony Blinken? Janet Yellen? Lloyd Austin?
None of these people were elected yet have substantial power delegated through the President.
And while these people were approved by Senate vote, plenty of people in the Biden circle weren’t - Chief of Staff, members of the National Security Council, etc.
Musk was appointed as the administrator of DOGE, itself a subordinate "temporary organization" under the United States DOGE Service (formerly the United States Digital Service).
All of this is happening within the Executive Office of the President, which is essentially fancyspeak to mean the government employees working the Executive Branch of the federal government. Those government employees serve at the pleasure of the President; Congress only has very limited influence (namely budgetary influences from the House and certain positions that require Senate confirmation).
So Musk, being appointed as a part of the Executive Branch, derives authority vested in the President of which Trump has delegated some to Musk for the purposes of implementing and enforcing DOGE policies.
Musk for his part also serves at the pleasure of the President, so whatever he does is ostensibly what Trump wants regardless of who actually does it.
All of this is happening within the Executive Office of the President, which is essentially fancyspeak to mean the government employees working the Executive Branch of the federal government. Those government employees serve at the pleasure of the President; Congress only has very limited influence (namely budgetary influences from the House and certain positions that require Senate confirmation).
So Musk, being appointed as a part of the Executive Branch, derives authority vested in the President of which Trump has delegated some to Musk for the purposes of implementing and enforcing DOGE policies.
Musk for his part also serves at the pleasure of the President, so whatever he does is ostensibly what Trump wants regardless of who actually does it.
Most federal workers do not serve at the pleasure of the President, ever since the Pendleton Act in 1883:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Refo...
So remember, when Trump talks about the "deep state," he means workers hired through a merit system.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendleton_Civil_Service_Refo...
So remember, when Trump talks about the "deep state," he means workers hired through a merit system.
> In January 1981, the Jimmy Carter administration settled the court case Luévano v. Campbell, which alleged the Professional and Administrative Careers Examination (PACE) was racially discriminatory as a result of the lower average scores and pass rates achieved by Black and Hispanic test takers. As a result of this settlement agreement, PACE, the main entry-level test for candidates seeking positions in the federal government’s executive branch, was scrapped.[36] It has not been replaced by a similar general exam, although attempts at replacement exams have been made. The system which replaced the general PACE exam has been criticized...
People couldn't agree what merit was, and sued over it. Now it's not only [still] unclear what merit is, but it's also unclear how aligned federal hiring practices are with any platonic ideal of "merit".
Trump and Elon taking a blowtorch to a lot of agencies isn't better, or even good. It looks to me like a different kind of bad that can't be quantified at the moment. Some of the worst of this will be temporary, since various resources are offline so that federal agencies can be compliant with Trump's EOs while they figure out how to change the resources and their databases, or wait for lawsuits to clarify before changing much or putting it back online.
Hiring through a merit system does not imply that the employees' work is meritful.
Congress had over 140 years (1883 to 2024) to carefully balance the rights of civil service workers against the need for top-down executive authority to ensure agencies are effective, in a way that would survive judicial review. Unfortunately, Congress is inept at almost everything. The Pendleton Act, followed by the CSRA, don't seem to have very well addressed the original patronage-based exec-branch staffing issue; as the article describes it, they've only ensured that replacing high-level staff is delayed by a term. Have they also made it too difficult to dismiss lower-level staff if agencies are ever in need of scaling back?
People couldn't agree what merit was, and sued over it. Now it's not only [still] unclear what merit is, but it's also unclear how aligned federal hiring practices are with any platonic ideal of "merit".
Trump and Elon taking a blowtorch to a lot of agencies isn't better, or even good. It looks to me like a different kind of bad that can't be quantified at the moment. Some of the worst of this will be temporary, since various resources are offline so that federal agencies can be compliant with Trump's EOs while they figure out how to change the resources and their databases, or wait for lawsuits to clarify before changing much or putting it back online.
Hiring through a merit system does not imply that the employees' work is meritful.
Congress had over 140 years (1883 to 2024) to carefully balance the rights of civil service workers against the need for top-down executive authority to ensure agencies are effective, in a way that would survive judicial review. Unfortunately, Congress is inept at almost everything. The Pendleton Act, followed by the CSRA, don't seem to have very well addressed the original patronage-based exec-branch staffing issue; as the article describes it, they've only ensured that replacing high-level staff is delayed by a term. Have they also made it too difficult to dismiss lower-level staff if agencies are ever in need of scaling back?
I'd be very surprised to find Musk went through the trouble of becoming an actual employee with a Salary. Are cabinet members very often volunteers?
The "defender of free speech" is censoring data? Who ever thought about it?
A lot of "woke" people warned it but several ignored as being "political speech" now we pay the consequences.
A lot of "woke" people warned it but several ignored as being "political speech" now we pay the consequences.
Only paranoid SJWs called Musk a right wing person and here we are, watching Musk fund extreme right clearly proving them wrong. Those SJW were doing this thing whole my life, seems to me. There was always outrage about them accusing an innocent person of bad stuff ... only to turn out they were actually right.
How is this not all illegal? How are cease and resists not being put into place? An illegal immigrant, narcissist, billionaire, and many other things is taking over federal agencies and actively purging them for his own ideologies.
Anything the president does is legal so says the supreme court
I'm surprised that this was not given more attention, despite how much it was given, it should have gotten orders of magnitudes more.
In the US, you can fly multiple planes into skyscrapers, rape three whole kindergartens, and lynch an entire race to extermination. As long as you then win the next election before you get convicted, you're in the clear.
This is the United States of America.
Vulgar examples? The bare minimum necessary to make people remotely feel the severity in their bones. Problem is that no one dares to say them out loud in fear of their reputation, despite it being a good thing to do.
In the US, you can fly multiple planes into skyscrapers, rape three whole kindergartens, and lynch an entire race to extermination. As long as you then win the next election before you get convicted, you're in the clear.
This is the United States of America.
Vulgar examples? The bare minimum necessary to make people remotely feel the severity in their bones. Problem is that no one dares to say them out loud in fear of their reputation, despite it being a good thing to do.
Absolutely. That begs the question though, if Trump has ordered federal employees to make the government efficient and eliminate the weaponization of government, are those employees not obligated to remove Trump and Musk from their current roles?
I see these kinds of comments regularly and am curious: what is your thought process? What makes you think that it's not illegal? What makes you think that legality matters here?
Can you just state what you would like to?
I did
You made no statements.
They are saying it's likely illegal but it doesn't matter because the law does not apply to certain people. No consequences for illegal activity will ever touch Trump or Musk.
Well that is my opinion of the situation, but other people had already covered that well enough so I didn't feel the need to. I was curious about what thought process results in the assumption that what they're doing is legal, so I asked.
"I see these kinds of comments regularly and am curious"
This clearly states the person's feelings (curiosity) about some observations (seeing comments of a particular sort).
This clearly states the person's feelings (curiosity) about some observations (seeing comments of a particular sort).
Correct, I asked a question, which is what I wanted to do :)
what makes me think it is illegal. I dont think there is a congressional law that X data must be hosted at a given URL.
[deleted]
It's only illegal if someone enforces the law
[deleted]
Laws are just words
I hate to sound like a conventional cis-man, but this is exactly the sort of situation where conventional cis-man energy is needed:
Where are the CDC people growing a spine to stand up to this? This is obviously bad.
The reason why bullies only understand 1 language (force) is exactly why counter-bullies who also speak that language are needed. And these are (usually) men (and some smaller percentage of women). (I'm seriously not trying to genderize this. I'm speaking of "fighting/disobeying/confronting energy" instead of "nurturing/complying/keeping-copacetic energy". Anyone who's good at that, should exercise it.)
If you have to take good science to the darknet, then fucking do so. That's what it's there for.
"The [Dark]Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore.
Alternately, move the data hosting to Switzerland, Iceland, or the Netherlands as a data-haven. Hetzner might be OK too, since very-left-wing Germany (while it has an agreement to comply with legal MLAT requests) might savor the opportunity to snub Trumpian requests or stall them indefinitely due to lack of obvious national-security importance.
Where are the CDC people growing a spine to stand up to this? This is obviously bad.
The reason why bullies only understand 1 language (force) is exactly why counter-bullies who also speak that language are needed. And these are (usually) men (and some smaller percentage of women). (I'm seriously not trying to genderize this. I'm speaking of "fighting/disobeying/confronting energy" instead of "nurturing/complying/keeping-copacetic energy". Anyone who's good at that, should exercise it.)
If you have to take good science to the darknet, then fucking do so. That's what it's there for.
"The [Dark]Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore.
Alternately, move the data hosting to Switzerland, Iceland, or the Netherlands as a data-haven. Hetzner might be OK too, since very-left-wing Germany (while it has an agreement to comply with legal MLAT requests) might savor the opportunity to snub Trumpian requests or stall them indefinitely due to lack of obvious national-security importance.
Sorry, I couldn't get through your third paragraph without hearing the "Team America: World Police" pussies/dicks speech in the background.
But your argument is inherently flawed. Part of the point of government is to regulate and direct the use of force. We have mechanisms that are supposed to apply force to "bullies". The problem is that the "bullies" have co-opted that system to use it for their own ends. This happened gradually so it didn't become obvious until the most recent "bully" decided he didn't even want to pretend that he wasn't in control.
Individuals who directly stand up to this administration will be hammered down with the full force of the government. The best we can hope for is a passive resistance and malicious compliance. That combined with grassroots efforts to fill the media with protests of objectionable policies is probably the best we can do for now.
The only other option is to apply force outside of the system to correct it, but things are not nearly to the point where revolution is the better option.
But your argument is inherently flawed. Part of the point of government is to regulate and direct the use of force. We have mechanisms that are supposed to apply force to "bullies". The problem is that the "bullies" have co-opted that system to use it for their own ends. This happened gradually so it didn't become obvious until the most recent "bully" decided he didn't even want to pretend that he wasn't in control.
Individuals who directly stand up to this administration will be hammered down with the full force of the government. The best we can hope for is a passive resistance and malicious compliance. That combined with grassroots efforts to fill the media with protests of objectionable policies is probably the best we can do for now.
The only other option is to apply force outside of the system to correct it, but things are not nearly to the point where revolution is the better option.
> The problem is that the "bullies" have co-opted that system to use it for their own ends. This happened gradually so it didn't become obvious until the most recent "bully" decided he didn't even want to pretend that he wasn't in control.
The funny thing is that people have always said this exact thing except paraphrased in various ways (perhaps the term was less "bully" and something more conventionally a universal term of disparagement like "fascist"). I definitely didn't want Obama going after whistleblowers, increasing domestic surveillance and not closing Guantanamo when I voted him in... and I liked his healthcare plan, until it died...
I suspect that everyone says this when the person they didn't want in charge, now is, and starts doing things that their biased media always depicts only the negative side of.
The funny thing is that people have always said this exact thing except paraphrased in various ways (perhaps the term was less "bully" and something more conventionally a universal term of disparagement like "fascist"). I definitely didn't want Obama going after whistleblowers, increasing domestic surveillance and not closing Guantanamo when I voted him in... and I liked his healthcare plan, until it died...
I suspect that everyone says this when the person they didn't want in charge, now is, and starts doing things that their biased media always depicts only the negative side of.
There's some people organizing to preserve stuff under the "safeguarding research" moniker
https://fedihum.org/@SafeguardingResearch
https://safeguarding-research.discourse.group/
https://fedihum.org/@SafeguardingResearch
https://safeguarding-research.discourse.group/
That doesn't matter anymore. No one believed the CDC data to begin with. You think they're going to believe it when it comes from third-party backups?
I think the benefit is not just from regular people having access - but other researchers who do need/trust the data.
The problem is that the provenance of that data will be questioned. It’s one thing that researchers will trust and use that data, but that citing these archive sites will fall flat when their conclusions have to exit academia and be subject to extra scrutiny.
Related ongoing thread:
Archivists work to save disappearing data.gov datasets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42881367 - Jan 2025 (56 comments)
Archivists work to save disappearing data.gov datasets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42881367 - Jan 2025 (56 comments)
America voted for cons, crooks and thugs. And is getting conned, crooked and thugged.
Entirely predictable. And well deserved. I say this as someone living and suffering in America.
There is no one else to blame but ourselves. The future is bleak.
Entirely predictable. And well deserved. I say this as someone living and suffering in America.
There is no one else to blame but ourselves. The future is bleak.
It's even worse for us of the rest of the world, because the United States influence the whole world, and we can't do anything against this tragedy.
It is bad for the rest of the world but the rest of the world has an exit. Call your representatives and stop using US dollar for trade. Literally, that one action alone will save a lot of grief for people outside the US.
This is not a joke. What will sting Elon, Trump and crooks the most is losing their wealth. The rest of the world does not need to suffer for these crooks.
This is not a joke. What will sting Elon, Trump and crooks the most is losing their wealth. The rest of the world does not need to suffer for these crooks.
That’s wishful thinking… One can’t simply stop using USD for trade on a whim. Decoupling will take at least a decade if not longer.
Europe manages to use the Euro just fine.
About half of their extra EU trade is in USD, about half in Euro.
Losing half of their import market and half of their export market would be the worst financial calamity they’ve ever faced.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...
Losing half of their import market and half of their export market would be the worst financial calamity they’ve ever faced.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/d...
Nah, stop using the US$ for trade is as simply as just stop doing it. There's no lack of infrastructure, and plenty of commerce doesn't use it already.
What is hard is desinvesting from the US treasure. You have to sell those somewhere, and if everybody tries, their value will quickly go to 0. But if the US is successful in making their trade-balance positive, this will solve itself without a lot of hardship, it's just a matter of the rest of the world helping them here.
Macroeconomics is not what will show you problems here. The US is inserted itself into every supply chain on the world, but you will only notice this if you look at the details. Maybe we should start with an intellectual property reform...
What is hard is desinvesting from the US treasure. You have to sell those somewhere, and if everybody tries, their value will quickly go to 0. But if the US is successful in making their trade-balance positive, this will solve itself without a lot of hardship, it's just a matter of the rest of the world helping them here.
Macroeconomics is not what will show you problems here. The US is inserted itself into every supply chain on the world, but you will only notice this if you look at the details. Maybe we should start with an intellectual property reform...
> as simply as just stop doing it
If you don't mind the tsunami that ensues, sure.
If you don't mind the tsunami that ensues, sure.
Hum... What kind of tsunami do you expect to come from some thousands of people holding dollars for a few fewer milliseconds?
That would take a lot of legwork to confirm, but while the US$ is certainly the most used intermediate currency, it would surprise me if it was even used on the majority of the transactions.
That would take a lot of legwork to confirm, but while the US$ is certainly the most used intermediate currency, it would surprise me if it was even used on the majority of the transactions.
> Call your representatives
This is a very US-style approach; nobody calls their "representatives" in Europe, unluckily.
This is a very US-style approach; nobody calls their "representatives" in Europe, unluckily.
“The people” are too stupid to blame unfortunately, they have no idea what’s going on.
Average IQ Americans freebase propaganda and Joe Rogan for thoughts. The Kremlin and the Republican propaganda empire have been paving the way for a Project 2025 Neo Nazi hostile takeover for decades.
John Doe from Florida doesn’t stand much of a chance when every TV, cell phone, and Facebook bot in his state is beaming the world’s largest psy-ops laser-beam at his head for half of his life.
I tend to blame the Fascists. But yea, the future is bleak. We’re cooked in America, at least.
Average IQ Americans freebase propaganda and Joe Rogan for thoughts. The Kremlin and the Republican propaganda empire have been paving the way for a Project 2025 Neo Nazi hostile takeover for decades.
John Doe from Florida doesn’t stand much of a chance when every TV, cell phone, and Facebook bot in his state is beaming the world’s largest psy-ops laser-beam at his head for half of his life.
I tend to blame the Fascists. But yea, the future is bleak. We’re cooked in America, at least.
And they're gonna learn it good and hard.
Is it even a con? I mean, these people straight up said what they were going to do if elected, and now they are doing it. I know there are some Trump voters who are now going, "uhh, I didn't think he actually meant all that", but c'mon.
Don't worry, absolutely no issues have occurred in medicine as a result of a lack of data on how a drug impacts pregnant people.
You'll be pleased to know that multiple countries elsewhere do worry about this, and will continue to publish evidence-based recommendations about appropriate drug usage. Every other member of the G8, NATO, AUKUS, and so on, all publish science for free, so as the US declines into a corruption-fuelled failed state, there will be access to that material still. I saw Mexican emergency services helping in Los Angeles the other week during the fires - more mature and capable countries are always here to help, even in very direct ways like this, where the US public sector is too fragile and broken to support their own citizens. There's been a rich history of this happening across Europe and Africa for decades, so others know what to do.
You might think I'm being sarcastic, or patronising or somehow trying to belittle the US. I'm not. That's where the country is now. It's failing in a way we've seen others fail many, many times before. The future is predictable, and it doesn't seem like anybody wants to change it.
You might think I'm being sarcastic, or patronising or somehow trying to belittle the US. I'm not. That's where the country is now. It's failing in a way we've seen others fail many, many times before. The future is predictable, and it doesn't seem like anybody wants to change it.
The person you're responding too was being sarcastic.
Let's assume that in 4 years, existing limitations are still in place and a new POTUS is in place. It would be interesting if these edits are soft deletes where they are easily reversed with the next administration, or will they need to go to the backups to restore data.
This ping ponging from one admin to the next on doesn't actually change the science. "The great thing about science is that it doesn't need you to believe it for it to be true." To me, the thinking that the hiding of data is going to make it go away is just one of those things that shows how unintelligent the person with that notion truly is.
This ping ponging from one admin to the next on doesn't actually change the science. "The great thing about science is that it doesn't need you to believe it for it to be true." To me, the thinking that the hiding of data is going to make it go away is just one of those things that shows how unintelligent the person with that notion truly is.
My prediction is that any future data that is published will likely show up in the x.com app. I believe they are trying to privatize all government functions and Musk wants X to be the official government super-app similar to China's system.
NTSB has already said this. https://xcancel.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/1885734974298435943
So this is how Elon gets his everything app. Jesus Christ, the corruption knows no end. And he might actually pull it off with this administration.
Is there an organization forming that opposes these fasicts? The Democrats are useless.
Can any one point me to a group of organized and motivated individuals?
Can any one point me to a group of organized and motivated individuals?
What terrifies me this time around compared to the previous one is that people in support of this kind of initiative are either much more vocal, more boosted, or simply more dominant. In his first term, there was still a form of reserve. It even permeates in this comment thread. It now feels like crazy conspiracy theories and idiocy have become an accepted, and either major stance. I just went on Twitter for a minute, and the only response to anything sensible is insults and derogatory calling.
It just started and I already feel tired
It just started and I already feel tired
For what it's worth, we have no reason to believe this stuff is actually popular. But yes, the right wing propaganda machine has been shockingly effective, and you have a whole lot of people on this forum now trying to contort themselves into odd shapes to justify a coup because their heroes are either 1) at the helm or 2) cheerleaders for it.
Trump won the election by a very slim margin and his popularity will only go down from here. Don't be discouraged by the online stuff. Twitter in particular is just an information weapon now.
Trump won the election by a very slim margin and his popularity will only go down from here. Don't be discouraged by the online stuff. Twitter in particular is just an information weapon now.
I've no doubt things like this will continue to happen. Trump, Musk and co will not stop on their own transforming the US into an authoritarian and likely fascist state. It's now up to the people of the US to stand up and save their democracy. Russia and China must be delighted to see the damage Trump's dealing.
> It's now up to the people of the US to stand up and save their democracy.
We weren't able to save our economy from monopolies and tyranny, and now you want us to go stand up against the people with tanks and machine guns!?
At this rate I expect you'll tell me to stop importing iPhones and Perrier...
We weren't able to save our economy from monopolies and tyranny, and now you want us to go stand up against the people with tanks and machine guns!?
At this rate I expect you'll tell me to stop importing iPhones and Perrier...
> We weren't able to save our economy from monopolies and tyranny, and now you want us to go stand up against the people with tanks and machine guns!?
Yes, because what's the alternative? To give up and watch? I won't be easy, but if you're not even trying, no one can save you.
> At this rate I expect you'll tell me to stop importing iPhones and Perrier...
No, I won't. I don't tell you what to do at all. It's just my view on the path the US currently is. And I'm hoping, yes, because what happens in/to the US affects the world a great deal.
Yes, because what's the alternative? To give up and watch? I won't be easy, but if you're not even trying, no one can save you.
> At this rate I expect you'll tell me to stop importing iPhones and Perrier...
No, I won't. I don't tell you what to do at all. It's just my view on the path the US currently is. And I'm hoping, yes, because what happens in/to the US affects the world a great deal.
This does not only affect the obvious ideological targets of purging any mention of DEI or gender. One section that is missing seems to be the official vaccine recommendations.
Go to the ACIP page (https://www.cdc.gov/acip/) and click on the "Vaccine-specific recommendations".
Other affected topics are HIV prevention, birth control/contraception, domestic violence and probably many more.
Go to the ACIP page (https://www.cdc.gov/acip/) and click on the "Vaccine-specific recommendations".
Other affected topics are HIV prevention, birth control/contraception, domestic violence and probably many more.
Maybe it was unintentional but the Long COVID pulse survey page disappeared: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/covid19/pulse/long-covid.htm (but explanations about long COVID are still available)
The page I used to look for mask efficiency disappeared too (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm ) but the CDC website still discusses masks so it does not seem to be intentional: https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/prevention/masks.htm...
The page I used to look for mask efficiency disappeared too (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm ) but the CDC website still discusses masks so it does not seem to be intentional: https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/prevention/masks.htm...
And the (I thought popular) "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" hasn't been published since Jan 16th...
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
Looks to have been an uninterrupted weekly streak since 1982...
the (still up) archives: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_pvol.html
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/index.html
Looks to have been an uninterrupted weekly streak since 1982...
the (still up) archives: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_wk/wk_pvol.html
That's wishful thinking, sadly. It's much more likely they haven't gotten to it yet.
If there's action by an adversary to try and weaponize naturally occurring disease (never mind the prospect of trying to heighten effectiveness of artificially created disease), that would be expected.
Vaccines and healthcare in general are intended as a safeguard against pandemics and mass death. If the goal IS mass death, it makes practical sense to try and delete all health and vaccine information in hopes it's lost forever and the society that uses it is rendered helpless against such events or weapons.
I'm interested to note that HN's commentariat hasn't mentioned the extent to which all scientific research of this nature was immediately defunded: my social media had indirect exposure to a lot of healthcare researchers who were freaking out, many days ago. Did you notice that part or is this the first sign of it that's made its way over here?
I'd note that defunding medicine isn't strictly HN-type content, though mass deletion of data certainly seems to be HN-adjacent. I would think hackers and entrepreneurs would take that sort of thing personally, as it more or less attacks them by starving them of information that could be useful.
Vaccines and healthcare in general are intended as a safeguard against pandemics and mass death. If the goal IS mass death, it makes practical sense to try and delete all health and vaccine information in hopes it's lost forever and the society that uses it is rendered helpless against such events or weapons.
I'm interested to note that HN's commentariat hasn't mentioned the extent to which all scientific research of this nature was immediately defunded: my social media had indirect exposure to a lot of healthcare researchers who were freaking out, many days ago. Did you notice that part or is this the first sign of it that's made its way over here?
I'd note that defunding medicine isn't strictly HN-type content, though mass deletion of data certainly seems to be HN-adjacent. I would think hackers and entrepreneurs would take that sort of thing personally, as it more or less attacks them by starving them of information that could be useful.
It was mentioned and flagged off the front page. There's lots of pro Trump accounts here.
They look up to me (as of 1pm EST)
https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/index.htm...
https://www.cdc.gov/acip-recs/hcp/vaccine-specific/index.htm...
Where have I seen this before? Oh right, I remember now...
"The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish, half-Jewish, communist, socialist, anarchist, liberal, pacifist, and sexologist authors among others."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
"The books targeted for burning were those viewed as being subversive or as representing ideologies opposed to Nazism. These included books written by Jewish, half-Jewish, communist, socialist, anarchist, liberal, pacifist, and sexologist authors among others."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings
Data is disappearing.
Data is a perfectly valid uncountable noun these days. In fact, it's the de facto standard for amorphous collections of digital data, used by most writers, data analysts and laypeople alike. The uncountable form is awkward and out of place in all but the most specific contexts.
Language is fluid. Used outdated forms is distracting.
Data is a perfectly valid uncountable noun these days. In fact, it's the de facto standard for amorphous collections of digital data, used by most writers, data analysts and laypeople alike. The uncountable form is awkward and out of place in all but the most specific contexts.
Language is fluid. Used outdated forms is distracting.
Don't know if whoever voted thought this through! We are undoing years of good governance, like Data.gov and this, now!
What a disgrace
The target isn't the people, the target is science. It is becoming clear that the intent is to govern through fear.
I think you misunderstand the goal. The target is total control of the people -- the means is disrupting every alternative voice and narrative.
They're targeting every institution or source of authority that isn't overtly aligned with the party. Academia, science, media, etc.
So far it seems to be working, unfortunately.
So far it seems to be working, unfortunately.
[deleted]
lefstathiou(3)
Is there any legal action happening to prevent removal of legally mandated data publication? Backing up data is useful but it seems if statute has requirements about data reporting, then you would expect some legal action?
Related ongoing discussion
The government information crisis is bigger than you think it is - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42895331
The government information crisis is bigger than you think it is - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42895331
Because journalists aren't able to do their jobs :
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States.
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States.
They were disappearing 6 years ago too
What else do we need to backup now before it's gone?
This is the war on Science. Next comes the war on Education. The obliteration of democracy comes next. If you imagine Trump gives up this level of power without bloodshed in the streets you are deluding yourself.
When do we start marching in the streets?
Seems like there's more than a little malicious compliance happening to try and generate negative headlines.
Hardly. Government employees are currently being threatened with punishment for not abiding with wildly illegal instructions.
Sounds like Gödel was right.
Clicked the link and quickly learned it was not about Change Data Capture...
I don't think the article ever resolves CDC (I can't find it at least), so it can be about Change Data Capture.
edit: It is about this CDC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an...
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States. It is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The agency's main goal is the protection of public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and worldwide."
edit: It is about this CDC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_an...
"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the national public health agency of the United States. It is a United States federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services, and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The agency's main goal is the protection of public health and safety through the control and prevention of disease, injury, and disability in the US and worldwide."
This would actually be a great place for capturing change data....
Whether it’s data or things that can kill you, you’re guaranteed at least once delivery either way.
[deleted]
Trump and a section of the conservative elite are like why let COVID or Bird Flu fuck up administration number two? Biden left them this nice present of obfuscating the data on increasing disability until after the election.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01074597
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01074597
Are or is?
Are. If you are talking about a specific set of information, data is a plural. If you are talking about the concept of information sets, data is a singular.
"Data is stored on a computer's hard drive." "The data for the experiment are stored on the computer's hard drive."
"Data is stored on a computer's hard drive." "The data for the experiment are stored on the computer's hard drive."
Both, the word "data" can be used for both singular and plural
[deleted]
What's more depressing is this was completely predictable, totally avoidable, but half the country welcomed this wave of oppression with open arms.
> but half the country welcomed this wave of oppression with open arms.
And the other half? They seem to welcome this as well, but with crossed arms. Where are the protests? Seems most people end up writing upset messages on Twitter/Bluesky, but also seems there are no grassroots movements to actually protest the borderline coup that is happening?
And the other half? They seem to welcome this as well, but with crossed arms. Where are the protests? Seems most people end up writing upset messages on Twitter/Bluesky, but also seems there are no grassroots movements to actually protest the borderline coup that is happening?
This is moving very fast, and the sheer amount of chaos they're creating is successfully stymieing the potential responses. The important initial challenges here are the legal ones. And there are already some temporary decisions that should stop some of the blocks on funds.
Now comes the part where we see if the administration abides by those legal decisions or not, and how the final legal decisions here turn out once these cases inevitably land in front of the Supreme Court.
At the point where the administration ignores the courts and laws and continues on with their illegal impoundment, that's the point where you have to protest.
Now comes the part where we see if the administration abides by those legal decisions or not, and how the final legal decisions here turn out once these cases inevitably land in front of the Supreme Court.
At the point where the administration ignores the courts and laws and continues on with their illegal impoundment, that's the point where you have to protest.
The administration doesn't need to ignore the courts - the courts have building for decades to get to this point, where the unitary executive gets to do whatever they please and the courts exist solely to rubber-stamp the executive's actions.
He was declared immune for all actions he and he alone declares as official.
He will die in office, in his mid 90s. Democracy has been cancelled.
He was declared immune for all actions he and he alone declares as official.
He will die in office, in his mid 90s. Democracy has been cancelled.
I've been monitoring online discussions with some interest and the complete lack of self reflection in left-leaning US population is interesting. People who were writing very nasty things about Russians too scared to destroy their lives by protesting against a brutal dictatorship not that long ago now sit on their asses and do nothing, because "what can we do?". Maybe at least some of them now understand what it's like. My sincere sympathies in any case, we understand you very well.
I voted in the November election. I called my representatives. My plan invited me to a protest over immigrants getting deported.That isn't nothing, but I have very little power on a federal level. The next step is getting involved in local politics and the community, but I am simultaneously moving and live far away.
I can talk to people about it, but the difficult part is not talking but getting people to truly listen.
So yes, ordinary people are limited in their power and capacity even if these adds up.
I can talk to people about it, but the difficult part is not talking but getting people to truly listen.
So yes, ordinary people are limited in their power and capacity even if these adds up.
[deleted]
Protest doesn't do anything. I marched plenty and it accomplished nothing except letting like-minded people blow off a bit of steam and feel like something we did mattered. If anything it was just a distraction.
> Protest doesn't do anything.
Most rights that workers have today have been earned through protesting (and sometimes the bloody consequence of protesting while the state is resisting wanted changes). Protests only "doesn't do anything" when you don't do it enough or give up. Maybe I'm too European to understand, but the "pacifist" approach of the US working class seems to not be working out great.
Most rights that workers have today have been earned through protesting (and sometimes the bloody consequence of protesting while the state is resisting wanted changes). Protests only "doesn't do anything" when you don't do it enough or give up. Maybe I'm too European to understand, but the "pacifist" approach of the US working class seems to not be working out great.
Protest works when it’s backed by a threat. “Do what we want or we will remove you from power”. What we have now is “do what we want or we’ll be sad”.
The pitchforks aren’t just for show!!
And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.
The pitchforks aren’t just for show!!
And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.
Just remember, the most successful protest in recent Europe history has been when about 10% of the Iceland population showed up in front of the administration building with literal pitchforks and torches on their hands.
They immediately got what they wanted.
They immediately got what they wanted.
Even the NRA supports gun control when it's the black panthers exercising their rights.
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
https://www.history.com/news/black-panthers-gun-control-nra-...
More recently, don't forget them being completely silent when Breonna Taylor was summarily executed for Kenneth Walker daring to exercise his second amendment right of home defense in the middle of the night. When this movement says "freedom", they mean merely for themselves to do whatever they please - not as a universal societal principle.
> And I’ve lived in Europe for over a decade now and frankly much of Europe is painfully naive about how much people in power care about protestors waving clever signs.
I guess the same goes the other way, Americans seems painfully unaware how effective the public's will can be, when you act together. But I think that's to be expected, the US is still relatively new and young, compared to other countries, so lessons others have learned still need to be learned by the Americans themselves. I guess this is what we're witnessing right now.
I'd urge you to look up changes brought by protesting and riots, but I think we both know you're not interested in learning, since you already stated twice you think it's pointless.
I guess the same goes the other way, Americans seems painfully unaware how effective the public's will can be, when you act together. But I think that's to be expected, the US is still relatively new and young, compared to other countries, so lessons others have learned still need to be learned by the Americans themselves. I guess this is what we're witnessing right now.
I'd urge you to look up changes brought by protesting and riots, but I think we both know you're not interested in learning, since you already stated twice you think it's pointless.
Your condescending and dismissive tone notwithstanding, I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working when they weren't backed with an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.
Ideally, of course, you have a functioning democracy, but I don't really think that describes much of the US at this point (the people who'd protest are mostly in blue states anyway where their votes, even if correctly tabulated, count less). Other examples might be Ghandi, who promoted nonviolence but really only got India's freedom when the British empire was in terminal decline, or the civil rights movement, which happened when the US was a much healthier democracy and swaying public opinion was enough to remove people through elections. You might cite the velvet revolution too, but that also was targeting an empire in decline.
I argue that elections in the US _will not matter_ (Trump's cryptic comments about how Elon knows all about these voting machines and they won Pennsylvania thanks to him are telling....) and in that context protest doesn't do anything because the people in power have nothing to fear if they ignore the protestors.
Ideally, of course, you have a functioning democracy, but I don't really think that describes much of the US at this point (the people who'd protest are mostly in blue states anyway where their votes, even if correctly tabulated, count less). Other examples might be Ghandi, who promoted nonviolence but really only got India's freedom when the British empire was in terminal decline, or the civil rights movement, which happened when the US was a much healthier democracy and swaying public opinion was enough to remove people through elections. You might cite the velvet revolution too, but that also was targeting an empire in decline.
I argue that elections in the US _will not matter_ (Trump's cryptic comments about how Elon knows all about these voting machines and they won Pennsylvania thanks to him are telling....) and in that context protest doesn't do anything because the people in power have nothing to fear if they ignore the protestors.
> when they weren't backed with an implicit threat of removing politicians from power
Normally, in a democracy, when you get a lot of people together complaining about something, it is already an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.
But if you manipulate the electoral system enough, it stops being. The fact that this mostly doesn't work nowadays is loudly telling people all they need to know.
Normally, in a democracy, when you get a lot of people together complaining about something, it is already an implicit threat of removing politicians from power.
But if you manipulate the electoral system enough, it stops being. The fact that this mostly doesn't work nowadays is loudly telling people all they need to know.
> Your condescending and dismissive tone notwithstanding
I was trying to adopt to your own tone, not sure why you'd feel that it is condescending or dismissive.
> I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working
Some starting points: 2024 protests in Serbia leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister. 15-M protests in Spain leading to the formation of new political parties and reforms. Velvet Revolution (I know you already mentioned this) leading to the overthrowing of the communist government. The Singing Revolution leading to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity leading to the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. These are just recent examples, I could go on...
Honest question: Have you attempted to lookup examples yourself, and you didn't find a single example?
I was trying to adopt to your own tone, not sure why you'd feel that it is condescending or dismissive.
> I am curious to hear more about peaceful protests working
Some starting points: 2024 protests in Serbia leading to the resignation of the Prime Minister. 15-M protests in Spain leading to the formation of new political parties and reforms. Velvet Revolution (I know you already mentioned this) leading to the overthrowing of the communist government. The Singing Revolution leading to the independence of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Euromaidan/Revolution of Dignity leading to the ousting of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine. These are just recent examples, I could go on...
Honest question: Have you attempted to lookup examples yourself, and you didn't find a single example?
It seems like you're missing something pretty basic here, so here it goes:
Government workers going on strike means they're doing what we want them to do, which is nothing. As a Trump voter, I want these federal government workers to stop working so the astronomical waste of our time/money and disturbing of peace stops.
The best work the US government does is when it's doing nothing, because it's hardly working properly unless it's forced to (ICE is an example of government actually working again).
Whether the workers resign, strike/protest, or get back to work implementing MAGA policies in the office, we win.
Government workers going on strike means they're doing what we want them to do, which is nothing. As a Trump voter, I want these federal government workers to stop working so the astronomical waste of our time/money and disturbing of peace stops.
The best work the US government does is when it's doing nothing, because it's hardly working properly unless it's forced to (ICE is an example of government actually working again).
Whether the workers resign, strike/protest, or get back to work implementing MAGA policies in the office, we win.
I hope you still feel like you're winning when more wars start.
The good news is that as a Trump voter who is a MAGA believer, you’ve established that you’re ignorant and open to emotional manipulation. You’re the political equivalent of the old lady who talks to the scammers.
So when your glorious day comes, and your State asserts their rights and levies your bank account to pay for your parents medical bills as your filial responsibility, (or whatever your personal tragedy ends up being) you’ll have the feels, and will flip to the next cult of personality.
So when your glorious day comes, and your State asserts their rights and levies your bank account to pay for your parents medical bills as your filial responsibility, (or whatever your personal tragedy ends up being) you’ll have the feels, and will flip to the next cult of personality.
I agree with you 100%, but in the interest of effective discourse it might make more sense to steelman the response. For one thing I have a hard time believing that the best government is one which does nothing, considering the extent to which our lives depend on an intricate web of supply chains, information networks, etc. that require coordination at a high level and may not be best handled by businesses seeking local profit maxima.
But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy with every person (or family) aiming for self sufficiency in a frontier-style economy. I doubt it (when I try to point out that their truck requires a lot more gas than they can refine as a hobby I get pushback), but maybe.
But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy with every person (or family) aiming for self sufficiency in a frontier-style economy. I doubt it (when I try to point out that their truck requires a lot more gas than they can refine as a hobby I get pushback), but maybe.
>But perhaps they're advocating a return-to-the-Earth philosophy
Indeed. Not quite as far back in time as you sarcastically suggested, but down-to-Earth enough that Congress stops enjoying absolutely abysmal approval ratings and President Reagan's infamous line of "I am from the government and I am here to help." stops resonating so strongly as a prime criticism.
If we also have to destroy ostensibly useful institutions like NASA to achieve it, well then so be it. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the chances for more amicable processes have come and gone.
Indeed. Not quite as far back in time as you sarcastically suggested, but down-to-Earth enough that Congress stops enjoying absolutely abysmal approval ratings and President Reagan's infamous line of "I am from the government and I am here to help." stops resonating so strongly as a prime criticism.
If we also have to destroy ostensibly useful institutions like NASA to achieve it, well then so be it. As I mentioned in a sibling comment, the chances for more amicable processes have come and gone.
Government is there to protect the people from corporate and foreign control. It's one of the main jobs it does. When I was a kid you couldn't breathe the air in LA, now you can. When I was a kid you could believe the news, now you cannot. Your philosophy of 'Government vs People' is faulty as it is missing those other influences. We will see soon if a smaller, less effective US government is better for the citizens. I have a strong feeling we're not going to like what we find out.
For what it's worth I wasn't being sarcastic. I spent some time in the smallholding/no-till/organic/homesteading world and there are some pretty decent arguments that modernity has done a lot to make us depressed and lonely. I also actually agree that a lot of government funds are wasted or spent poorly, if that counts for anything.
Dalewyn(4)
The answer is a general strike. This will never happen in the US though.
Hard to strike when your boss can make you and your kid homeless. Housing precarity is a useful tool of control.
According to this[0], they want around 4% of Americans to agree to a general strike. The problem is the people who are most capable of surviving a general strike are not the same group that has the most impact in a general strike.
[0] https://generalstrikeus.com/
[0] https://generalstrikeus.com/
Wow. My grandfather is turning over in his grave. He suffered not only starvation and homelessness while striking against the coral companies of Pennsylvania, he was also beaten.
If they have instilled this much cowardliness in you they have won. Imagine you’re kid looking at what you wrote twenty years from now and think of how he/she would think of you. Courageous or coward?
If they have instilled this much cowardliness in you they have won. Imagine you’re kid looking at what you wrote twenty years from now and think of how he/she would think of you. Courageous or coward?
I don't know. I am a coward I guess, I emigrated. I think my kids will be glad they didn't grow up in the US.
Good for your grandfather though.
Good for your grandfather though.
You are but so is most of America. And there will be no safe place to emigrate when there are wars everywhere.
People don’t understand how remarkably easy it is to be homeless. Believe me because I was homeless for four years. The fear they have instilled in them is what’s keeping them cowards.
It does. Hopefully people start taking to the streets when the economic calamity (temporary adjustments in Musk-speak) hits.
People slowly figure it out. On HN 2-3 years ago, any critique of Elon would bring out the brigades of simps babbling about autistic genius. That’s mostly gone now.
People slowly figure it out. On HN 2-3 years ago, any critique of Elon would bring out the brigades of simps babbling about autistic genius. That’s mostly gone now.
OK, people walk in the streets and wave signs, then go home.
What happens next?
What happens next?
A general strike. Boycotts, etc.
Protests get the word out and create comrades.
Protests get the word out and create comrades.
This is true - the ability to meet new people and coordinate is a big plus.
How long will they have a home?
Starting a trade war has consequences. That mortgage of yours is pegged to 10 year treasury rates. Bend the demand curve for foreign investors seeking safety in US government debt and stuff happens, like real estate bubbles deflating. What happens when foreign investors start dumping loans for vacant NYC buildings on the market because of their governments restrictions?
Look at the the classic Bogglehead investment - VTI. 30% of that portfolio is 10 companies, half of which are extremely vulnerable to foreign action. What happens to Apple stock when there’s a 30% tariff on iPhones?
You have reckless idiots turning knobs and people are going to get hurt. Then they get angry. LARPing right wing morons love to talk revolutions on their podcasts, they may get their wish.
Starting a trade war has consequences. That mortgage of yours is pegged to 10 year treasury rates. Bend the demand curve for foreign investors seeking safety in US government debt and stuff happens, like real estate bubbles deflating. What happens when foreign investors start dumping loans for vacant NYC buildings on the market because of their governments restrictions?
Look at the the classic Bogglehead investment - VTI. 30% of that portfolio is 10 companies, half of which are extremely vulnerable to foreign action. What happens to Apple stock when there’s a 30% tariff on iPhones?
You have reckless idiots turning knobs and people are going to get hurt. Then they get angry. LARPing right wing morons love to talk revolutions on their podcasts, they may get their wish.
They’re just salivating for anyone to protest. Any protest will be a pretext to use violent power, start some marshal law and move ten steps closer of totalitarianism.
You misread. A lot of us have been warning about this and fighting against it for 10+ years. We have protested, and voted, and passed laws, and conducted investigations, argued in court, impeached him twice, and defended against a legislative coup, and a literal insurrection - every legal, constitutional, and peaceful method was exercised at the federal and state levels.
But at the end of the day a lot of people didn’t listen and voted for this direction instead.
So the people who protested and tried everything for a decade are done. Now we are just waiting for the 70 million people who still support this direction to finally burn themselves on the stove and discover it is in fact hot, just like we’ve been saying. The next protests have to be Republicans and Democrats or there’s no point.
But at the end of the day a lot of people didn’t listen and voted for this direction instead.
So the people who protested and tried everything for a decade are done. Now we are just waiting for the 70 million people who still support this direction to finally burn themselves on the stove and discover it is in fact hot, just like we’ve been saying. The next protests have to be Republicans and Democrats or there’s no point.
What do you propose? The only way to change is either voting, money, or violence. I'm generally lost as what to do.
Voting - already happened.
Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point.
Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them.
It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.
Money - the folks doing this already have a ton of money, and used it in large part to get to this point.
Violence - necessary for change, but against who exactly? anyone trying to be violent against the folks running this will be disavowed by 90% of the rest of the population, and galvanize an outsized violent crackdown against anyone and everyone who even somewhat looks like them.
It’s going to have to get a lot worse before there is appetite to do the things that will actually make it better. people aren’t bleeding enough yet.
Uh, what ever happened to Civil Disobedience? Direct Action? Nonviolent Action?
There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
There are at least as many ways to respond to repression as there are avenues of repression: https://commonslibrary.org/198-methods-of-nonviolent-action/
Whatever happened to it!? We are past that at this point. Nonviolent has been normalized for the last, idk, 80 years, very conveniently for the ones in power. It works if we have a functional government and an educated and engaged populace. We don't have any of that. Hold all the signs you want, vote with your dollar, walkout of work and get fired. If it doesn't scare people in power, you're not doing anything meaningful.
Meeting fascism with nonviolence is a good way to sacrifice your life in a way that's guaranteed to be ineffectual.
What's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, but because it's important I'll deign to enlighten you with some counter-examples:
- In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual.
- In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual.
- In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual.
- In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual.
- In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual.
So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated.
But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power.
Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.
- In Nazi-occupied Europe, during World War II, various groups wielded nonviolent resistance (such as hiding Jews) against the Nazi regime and managed to hamper the regime's efforts, and in some cases saved lives. Not ineffectual.
- In Germany, in 1923, the German population wielded nonviolent non-cooperation and strikes (the Ruhrkampf) against the French and Belgian occupation and managed to gain international sympathy and hinder the occupiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Nazi-occupied countries--Denmark (Engaging in public protest and social boycotting, along with acts of noncooperation and striking), Holland (Developing an underground press network, social boycotting, noncooperation, striking, and hiding and facilitating escapes), Norway (Sending letters of protest, maintaining social boycotts, engaging in cultural resistance, noncooperation and creating alternative institutions such as unofficial sports leagues), France (Stalling and obstruction the forced relocation of Jews, noncooperating, developing clandestine media, and demonstrating open defiance, eg wearing the yellow star in solidarity), and Belgium (Hiding and facilitating escapes, noncooperating, and obstructing authorities protected the lives of Jews, made it harder for the Nazis to enforce their policies, and weakened their ability to maintain order)--during World War II, various populations wielded nonviolent resistance against the German occupiers and managed to present a unique challenge to the Nazi regime, which was more equipped for violent conflict. Not ineffectual.
- In East Germany, in 1953, workers and other citizens wielded strikes and demonstrations against the Communist regime, revealing the extent of public dissatisfaction with the working conditions, inspiring groups such as the Volkseigener Betrieb Industriebau's Block 40 section and the Zeiss factory at Jena to make bolder collective demands such as the release of a fellow worker who had been arbitrarily arrested and even inspiring sympathy from Russian/Polish soviet soldiers. Not ineffectual.
- In Russia, in February 1917, striking workers and other citizens wielded massive strikes and peaceful demonstrations against the Tsarist regime and managed to lead to its disintegration. When troops did fire on demonstrators, as occurred in Znamensky and Kazansky Squares, it backfired. The soldiers who obeyed these orders later felt remorse and questioned why they had shot at the crowds. This resulted in mutinies, such as that of the Volynsky Regiment. These troops then went into the streets to proclaim their support for the people. Not ineffectual.
- In the United States, during the mid-20th century, civil rights activists wielded sit-ins, marches, and boycotts against segregationist authorities and systems and managed to dismantle racial segregation, voter disenfranchisement, and discriminatory employment practices. Not ineffectual.
- In India, during the early to mid-20th century, Gandhi and his followers wielded civil disobedience, boycotts, and strikes against British colonial rule and managed to challenge that rule, demonstrating the power of non-cooperation and willingness to suffer for a cause. They won independence. Not ineffectual.
So, now the burden lies on you, really, to demonstrate that our opponent in this moment is somehow more fascist, more cruel, and also more independent of the consent of the governed than any other fascist administration in history against whom nonviolence prevailed or, at least, mitigated.
But in order for me to even read your response, you would have to open by convincing me that you will do something other than sit on your ass and pull in a SE salary until the next election. Because even if nonviolence were ineffectual--and, again, it's not--you could, at the very least, opt out of participation in the socioeconomic systems from which the fascists draw power.
Because "nothing but violence will work," is a total cop-out from someone who also isn't already training with their local Antifa regiment.
I’m not sure how saying ‘some people succeeded at hiding Jews, didn’t get caught, and somehow survived’ says what you think you’re saying - considering how many millions got on those trains (or were rounded up and put on them!) and got murdered. And how even attempts to just defend themselves (Warsaw Ghetto uprising, among many others) resulted in mass death.
Or all the examples from non-facist regimes, where those regimes were less murderous? Or from pre-Nazi Germany, where it was clearly ineffective at stopping the abuses or the rise of the Nazi regime.
Stalin and the USSR were a huge, murderous problem (Holodomir being just one example), but they also weren’t Nazi germany, yes? And while murderously authoritarian, they were also fundamentally different in many key ways from facists. Notably, they tended to target and destroy ‘their own’ through terrorizing different (and shifting) internal factions, rather than having a more consistent set of ‘out groups’ they were targeting. And for all the problems in the USSR, they were generally pro-labor. It was the intellectuals and property owners they tended to target.
Unlike Nazi germany, where it was more ethnic identity, and willingness to bend a knee to them ideologically. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-night-...].
I don’t think we are at that point. Yet.
But striking against Nazi Germany later in the process was clearly a bad idea. [https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/general-strike-amste...]. A common theme in concentration camps was people being forced to work, often to the death. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camp-...]
Nazi Germany was very good for business (at first), as the State actively supported and provided cheap labor to business, among many other kinds of support. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany]
A key differentiator between Nazi Germany and the USSR was essentially that Nazi Germany was pro-big-business (as long as you’re ‘one of us’), and the USSR was pro-worker (as long as you do/believe what we say).
The biggest danger in Nazi Germany was being one of the ‘others’ - if they found you. And it was often a death sentence for anyone trying to hide one of the ‘others’ too. Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust. [https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689272533/the-invisibles-reve...]
In fact, the holocaust continued up until Hitlers suicide and subsequent German surrender, after the allies had totally obliterated Germany in a war of annihilation they had been forced into, and were literally within shooting distance of his bunker.
Or all the examples from non-facist regimes, where those regimes were less murderous? Or from pre-Nazi Germany, where it was clearly ineffective at stopping the abuses or the rise of the Nazi regime.
Stalin and the USSR were a huge, murderous problem (Holodomir being just one example), but they also weren’t Nazi germany, yes? And while murderously authoritarian, they were also fundamentally different in many key ways from facists. Notably, they tended to target and destroy ‘their own’ through terrorizing different (and shifting) internal factions, rather than having a more consistent set of ‘out groups’ they were targeting. And for all the problems in the USSR, they were generally pro-labor. It was the intellectuals and property owners they tended to target.
Unlike Nazi germany, where it was more ethnic identity, and willingness to bend a knee to them ideologically. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-night-...].
I don’t think we are at that point. Yet.
But striking against Nazi Germany later in the process was clearly a bad idea. [https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/general-strike-amste...]. A common theme in concentration camps was people being forced to work, often to the death. [https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-camp-...]
Nazi Germany was very good for business (at first), as the State actively supported and provided cheap labor to business, among many other kinds of support. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany]
A key differentiator between Nazi Germany and the USSR was essentially that Nazi Germany was pro-big-business (as long as you’re ‘one of us’), and the USSR was pro-worker (as long as you do/believe what we say).
The biggest danger in Nazi Germany was being one of the ‘others’ - if they found you. And it was often a death sentence for anyone trying to hide one of the ‘others’ too. Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust. [https://www.npr.org/2019/01/29/689272533/the-invisibles-reve...]
In fact, the holocaust continued up until Hitlers suicide and subsequent German surrender, after the allies had totally obliterated Germany in a war of annihilation they had been forced into, and were literally within shooting distance of his bunker.
> Hiding people, while it did work for a small number of people, was completely ineffective at stopping the larger holocaust.
Ok, that's somewhat goalpost-shifting, because you said "ineffectual," and I showed effect. It satisfies me enough to extrapolate from there.
Edit: Are we to believe, then, that you are taking up arms? Or just waiting to see if it gets so bad that you must? Or, don't you think an ounce of civil disobedience might be worth a pound of civil war?
Ok, that's somewhat goalpost-shifting, because you said "ineffectual," and I showed effect. It satisfies me enough to extrapolate from there.
Edit: Are we to believe, then, that you are taking up arms? Or just waiting to see if it gets so bad that you must? Or, don't you think an ounce of civil disobedience might be worth a pound of civil war?
It was clearly ineffectual at stopping the Nazis, yes? It was also ineffectual at meaningfully impeding their efforts (near as I can tell).
I did everything I could do in the US without getting arrested. I got large portions of my life destroyed in the process. Talking to people, even people that should know better, was basically just pissing in the wind.
I found out years ago that a distant relative of mine (Jewish) left Germany in the mid ‘20’s to immigrate to the US, leaving his entire life behind. At the time, I wondered how he knew, or what could have happened for him to take such a drastic step.
Now I know. I’ve been taking similar steps for years. At least I can provide a Plan B for myself and others.
Maybe that makes me a coward. I don’t know. But I won’t help evil, and I won’t be a pointless martyr for someone else’s idiocy either.
If I had thought taking up arms at the time (or even now) would have accomplished anything except making them more powerful while getting thrown under the bus by anyone that it in theory would be helping, I would have.
But that isn’t the situation is it? Because I’d be a ‘lone wolf’ because there aren’t enough others would can or would stand with me. Yet. Maybe there never will be. Maybe I’m wrong and everything will be fine, yeah?
We’ll find out. At this point, I just want to give double middle fingers to US society and tell everyone to fuck off.
Productive? Probably not. But I’m only human.
I did everything I could do in the US without getting arrested. I got large portions of my life destroyed in the process. Talking to people, even people that should know better, was basically just pissing in the wind.
I found out years ago that a distant relative of mine (Jewish) left Germany in the mid ‘20’s to immigrate to the US, leaving his entire life behind. At the time, I wondered how he knew, or what could have happened for him to take such a drastic step.
Now I know. I’ve been taking similar steps for years. At least I can provide a Plan B for myself and others.
Maybe that makes me a coward. I don’t know. But I won’t help evil, and I won’t be a pointless martyr for someone else’s idiocy either.
If I had thought taking up arms at the time (or even now) would have accomplished anything except making them more powerful while getting thrown under the bus by anyone that it in theory would be helping, I would have.
But that isn’t the situation is it? Because I’d be a ‘lone wolf’ because there aren’t enough others would can or would stand with me. Yet. Maybe there never will be. Maybe I’m wrong and everything will be fine, yeah?
We’ll find out. At this point, I just want to give double middle fingers to US society and tell everyone to fuck off.
Productive? Probably not. But I’m only human.
My Jewish family, too, left Europe. In the 1890s—from Ukraine, they left to evade the Tsar's pogroms—Kropotkin had not yet penned "Mutual Aid". Why that wasn't enough writing on the wall for my Austrian and Polish family, I don't know.
You're right that Nazi Germany fell to the tanks of Liberalism and Bolshevism.
There are so many strange and, to be, baseless assertions in your replies that fear we're simply not going to discover common ground in this venue.
Godspeed.
You're right that Nazi Germany fell to the tanks of Liberalism and Bolshevism.
There are so many strange and, to be, baseless assertions in your replies that fear we're simply not going to discover common ground in this venue.
Godspeed.
That's kind of my point. We're heading directly into Nazi, USSR, and CCP territory and gotta ride this out until another election (if we even have one), someone with money cares (they don't), or we're all ready for violence (it's all the idiots who have guns).
The issue here is all the ‘opposition’ will do anything but actually fight - or allow anyone else to fight - or allow anyone else to violate the law.
So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.
So anyone actually trying to fight back will be destroyed by their own side. Where the folks doing this, won’t be.
would you participate in a general strike?
You left out rhetoric.
> Where are the protests?
It is quickly being organized for 2/5/2025 at each state capital.
https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/
It is quickly being organized for 2/5/2025 at each state capital.
https://www.reddit.com/r/50501/
We've done the protest thing. In the past decade, millions of people have protested, repeatedly, trying to change parts of this trajectory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_protests_and_demonstra...
A bunch of Americans have been taught that protests only "count" if they don't inconvenience anyone. Laws have been changed to make effective protest impossible. It's legal to ram protesters with your car in Florida, for instance. The cops use force to suppress protests and the media tells everyone your protest was invalid because it broke the law.
If we press the point more aggressively, we'll probably start another civil war. The right holds Rittenhouse up as a hero, and that's not an isolated thing. For decades, average, rank-and-file GOP voters have made jokes and jabs about shooting liberals. It used to be a few tasteless blowhards, but it's commonplace now. See also comments from Kevin Roberts about how the "second American Revolution" will be "bloodless if the left allows it."
There are resistance movements extant and forming, but it's a wicked problem. The size and population of the US requires more resources and participants to make an impact. The speed at which the situation is changing makes it hard to find purchase to do so.
A bunch of Americans have been taught that protests only "count" if they don't inconvenience anyone. Laws have been changed to make effective protest impossible. It's legal to ram protesters with your car in Florida, for instance. The cops use force to suppress protests and the media tells everyone your protest was invalid because it broke the law.
If we press the point more aggressively, we'll probably start another civil war. The right holds Rittenhouse up as a hero, and that's not an isolated thing. For decades, average, rank-and-file GOP voters have made jokes and jabs about shooting liberals. It used to be a few tasteless blowhards, but it's commonplace now. See also comments from Kevin Roberts about how the "second American Revolution" will be "bloodless if the left allows it."
There are resistance movements extant and forming, but it's a wicked problem. The size and population of the US requires more resources and participants to make an impact. The speed at which the situation is changing makes it hard to find purchase to do so.
That's not how that works. The situation is set up to attempt to produce 'wild crazy radicals' who can be acted against super-aggressively. Failing to run about throwing rocks is a refusal to provide the guilty parties with exoneration for their acts. In effect, 'grassroots movements' directed by adversaries is what got us here, and is overwhelmingly unlikely to get us out.
> 'grassroots movements' directed by adversaries is what got us here
This is too pessimistic. Consider successful grass-roots movements: civil rights and maybe anti-war (Vietnam).
> and is overwhelmingly unlikely to get us out.
In the sense that nothing is likely to get us out? Sure. At some point you need to stand up for what you believe is right, though.
This is too pessimistic. Consider successful grass-roots movements: civil rights and maybe anti-war (Vietnam).
> and is overwhelmingly unlikely to get us out.
In the sense that nothing is likely to get us out? Sure. At some point you need to stand up for what you believe is right, though.
And this half of the country that gets their news from exactly one news source will either never hear about these events or see them repackaged as wins.
“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be REDUCED to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.“
The modern paraphrasing could use price of eggs but otherwise have the same structure.
Hilarious that only after the past two weeks do some of you care about grocery prices.
Hilarious that only after the past four years do some of you not care about grocery prices.
To be fair, media consumption is broad and even in the deepest red retirement communities of Darkest Appalachia, no one subsists only on Fox.
In fact there is an active community of very Trumpy libertarians on this very website who pop up in the handful of political threads that make the front page. They seem to be silent here, one hopes maybe they've been given pause.
In fact there is an active community of very Trumpy libertarians on this very website who pop up in the handful of political threads that make the front page. They seem to be silent here, one hopes maybe they've been given pause.
> no one subsists only on Fox
Well, yeah. There’s OAN and Newsmax and the evangelical Christian radio stations when Fox gets too liberal for them.
Well, yeah. There’s OAN and Newsmax and the evangelical Christian radio stations when Fox gets too liberal for them.
I'd add that this playbook is running in many parts of the world. Rich people buying medias to shift the average to the right influencing the masses to stop thinking.
Can we please stop this bit of misinformation?
Trump: 77,168,458 votes (49.9%)
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqne...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-re...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/...
More people voted for Trump, but it wasn't half the country. There were a lot of people that did not vote at all. The most accurate would be to say that nearly half of the votes cast went for Trump. That is not half the country
Trump: 77,168,458 votes (49.9%)
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-ELECTION/RESULTS/zjpqne...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-re...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/...
More people voted for Trump, but it wasn't half the country. There were a lot of people that did not vote at all. The most accurate would be to say that nearly half of the votes cast went for Trump. That is not half the country
It's accurate to say more than half let this happen. You can include the people that didn't vote.
I hear people say this in various forms. No vote is still a vote kind of concept.
If anything it was the 1.6% of votes that went to other candidates that could be seen as a spoiler. You'd have to say that all of that 1.6% would have gone to Harris for it to have been a spoiler though, and I doubt that's the case.
If anything it was the 1.6% of votes that went to other candidates that could be seen as a spoiler. You'd have to say that all of that 1.6% would have gone to Harris for it to have been a spoiler though, and I doubt that's the case.
Those that can vote, but don't, don't count.
what an ignorant comment. you can be upset that voter turn out is low, but to say people don't count is just knee jerk reaction that does not engage the people that didn't vote into positive conversations about voting in future elections.
you are now part of the problem
you are now part of the problem
Not half the country, depending on how you reason about it it's about a 1/3 or 2/3. Just a smidge more than 50% of voters did not vote for Trump. And numerically more than either Trump or Kamala voters, 36% of the US populace didn't vote in 2024.
Interesting to see how quickly the US is going downhill. I’m sure everyone thought “the Roman Empire is too big to fail” yet here we are with a similar mindset about USA.
libertarian1(1)
linuxftw(2)
It's too early to tell, but I would not be surprised if later at least a portion of this is found to be "malicious compliance".
For example, President Truman ordered the US military to be (re)integrated. Through malicious compliance, racist officers put their own spin on the orders.
"Well, he didn't say that black officers would get equal access to the officers club, so we won't let them in."
It too a former 5 star general (President Eisenhower) to stamp out the malicious compliance and make it stick.
There was already a case of malicious compliance with the DEI EO on the part of certain US air force personnel taking down material about the Tuskugee Airmen. The new sec def stomped that out within 4 hours.
For example, President Truman ordered the US military to be (re)integrated. Through malicious compliance, racist officers put their own spin on the orders.
"Well, he didn't say that black officers would get equal access to the officers club, so we won't let them in."
It too a former 5 star general (President Eisenhower) to stamp out the malicious compliance and make it stick.
There was already a case of malicious compliance with the DEI EO on the part of certain US air force personnel taking down material about the Tuskugee Airmen. The new sec def stomped that out within 4 hours.
What? This isn't malicious compliance. This is exactly what Republicans said they were going to do. Destroy everything that doesn't agree with them.
No, it's malicious complaince.
You can read the EO here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...
Beyond a few specific documents, nothing in there requires the CDC to pull down all this data immediately. There is even a section about "progress updates by 120 days".
The CDC is still run by the same people as under Biden. They are the ones that immediately pulled down the data, not Trump hires.
You can read the EO here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...
Beyond a few specific documents, nothing in there requires the CDC to pull down all this data immediately. There is even a section about "progress updates by 120 days".
The CDC is still run by the same people as under Biden. They are the ones that immediately pulled down the data, not Trump hires.
Malicious Compliance is not the right word. But, I thought about it and am slightly hopeful.
Their goal could be obedience such that
A) the Musk cronies don't come through and truly delete the data (vs, just taking it offline)
B) they don't get fired and can take a stand when "bigger" issues happen. I.e another pandemic.
Or y'know,
C) they want to keep their jobs and decided to just obey.
Their goal could be obedience such that
A) the Musk cronies don't come through and truly delete the data (vs, just taking it offline)
B) they don't get fired and can take a stand when "bigger" issues happen. I.e another pandemic.
Or y'know,
C) they want to keep their jobs and decided to just obey.
@dang it's time to throw away the rules and use this site to stand up for what's right.
I would like to see ALL FDA documents on covid-19 vaccine emergency use authorization. Biden's FDA has been fighting court orders tooth and nail for 4 years. Where were all the Trump haters with their outrage... hypocrisy at its best.
Cover up by CDC of their past sins?
Nobody complained about downtimes (at least for Atlas Plus) when they started changing “sex” to “sex or gender” / “gender.” Let’s be honest.
I can’t find a single article about this because it was considered normal—they were simply upgrading their system. The level of dishonesty here is astounding.
Let’s wait three weeks. If Atlas Plus is still down, I’ll post an update here.
I can’t find a single article about this because it was considered normal—they were simply upgrading their system. The level of dishonesty here is astounding.
Let’s wait three weeks. If Atlas Plus is still down, I’ll post an update here.
Please be specific about what you think is dishonest.
It sounds like you are conflating a planned information removal with some unspecified amount of upgrade time? Those aren’t equivalent to me.
It sounds like you are conflating a planned information removal with some unspecified amount of upgrade time? Those aren’t equivalent to me.
The specifics:
The data is not disappearing. The data and the related tools have been temporarily removed to be cleaned and brought into compliance with Trump’s executive order (basically removing “gender” or replacing it with “sex”)
That should be the intellectually honest title and that is what is happening.
So lets check in 3 weeks. If data and tools are not back then we can say and complain about data disappearing.
The data is not disappearing. The data and the related tools have been temporarily removed to be cleaned and brought into compliance with Trump’s executive order (basically removing “gender” or replacing it with “sex”)
That should be the intellectually honest title and that is what is happening.
So lets check in 3 weeks. If data and tools are not back then we can say and complain about data disappearing.
It's The Atlantic. They have no interest in being honest about the topic, telling you why the data is unavailable, or saying when it will be back (once they update the language that bookends the studies). The purpose is to make you angry and think they're burning data because they hate science.
[deleted]
>(basically removing “gender” or replacing it with “sex”)
There's no Gender or Sex component to the CDC's SVI methodology why was that dataset removed?
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/community-stress-resource-center/p...
It's you who is being intellectually dishonest.
There's no Gender or Sex component to the CDC's SVI methodology why was that dataset removed?
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/community-stress-resource-center/p...
It's you who is being intellectually dishonest.
I checked some old data from the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), and it seems likely that it was removed to comply with Trump’s anti-DEI executive order.
I completely agree that SVI becomes less useful if you strip out the “Racial and Ethnic Minority Status” variable. Just wanted to provide an intellectually honest answer about why this page was taken down.
I completely agree that SVI becomes less useful if you strip out the “Racial and Ethnic Minority Status” variable. Just wanted to provide an intellectually honest answer about why this page was taken down.
LLMs have already been trained on all of that data, so it's probably an empty gesture.
Language models, not fact models.
I’m not sure how this isn’t sinking in yet.
I’m not sure how this isn’t sinking in yet.
given the Atlantic's slightly left bias¹ and RFK Jr's stated intentions to shake things up with the FDA and CDC, it makes sense to me that the CDC would be preparing to cover their tracks preemptively.²
¹https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
²https://x.com/i/grok/share/GzB1sfssRnPBQlnQbecpFkWbV
¹https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/
²https://x.com/i/grok/share/GzB1sfssRnPBQlnQbecpFkWbV
Wait a second.
The EO in question doesn't require that all mentions of more than two genders be taken down (beyond a few specific policies).
The CDC immediately pulls down data that went beyond the requirements of the EO.
And now Democrats are saying "this is so scary, data is disappearing!!"
But it was Democrats that took the data down without being required to do so?
The EO in question doesn't require that all mentions of more than two genders be taken down (beyond a few specific policies).
The CDC immediately pulls down data that went beyond the requirements of the EO.
And now Democrats are saying "this is so scary, data is disappearing!!"
But it was Democrats that took the data down without being required to do so?
You're assuming the CDC is democrats? You don't think maybe the CDC staff were just rushed and scared by a rampaging executive?
No, I telling you the CDC people are the same ones who were there under Biden. They haven't been replaced. They might be replaced, but they haven't been replaced yet.
Sure, they might be "scared", but being scared isn't an excuse for going overboard and doing things that aren't required.
They could have just left the data up and complied with the EO through the Director by saying "we are currently reviewing the data and how to comply with the EO, but will leave the existing data up until such time it can be replaced with the updated data".
But they score way more political points by yanking it all down and getting the media to fan the flames.
Sure, they might be "scared", but being scared isn't an excuse for going overboard and doing things that aren't required.
They could have just left the data up and complied with the EO through the Director by saying "we are currently reviewing the data and how to comply with the EO, but will leave the existing data up until such time it can be replaced with the updated data".
But they score way more political points by yanking it all down and getting the media to fan the flames.
How can we know who is deleting the data? How do we know it’s a long time employee, or know it’s one of the newly appointed loyalists?
Well wait, there isn’t evidence to suggest someone is deleting data, the website is just down.
Second, as of last week Trump hasn’t appointed a new Director for the CDC yet.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-who-is-in-charge-trump-admi...
Third, I’m pretty sure Directors don’t manage the department’s website, the employees do.
While the Directors may change, everyone else there is the same as before Trump got elected. They are employed by the Federal government, not appointed.
Update: the message on the website now says the website is down temporarily and will be put back up soon.
Second, as of last week Trump hasn’t appointed a new Director for the CDC yet.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-who-is-in-charge-trump-admi...
Third, I’m pretty sure Directors don’t manage the department’s website, the employees do.
While the Directors may change, everyone else there is the same as before Trump got elected. They are employed by the Federal government, not appointed.
Update: the message on the website now says the website is down temporarily and will be put back up soon.
Brainfart ahead:
Is that maybe to prevent (for example china) from getting the data for AI models, but giving it to the "nice" Stargate?
Is that maybe to prevent (for example china) from getting the data for AI models, but giving it to the "nice" Stargate?
If people really cared they would have stored copies of this data, not just relied on a single source.
That only makes sense if everyone downloads every data set in case they need it one day. I unhappily agree that's the case with private companies' data, because any company's not guaranteed to be around tomorrow. But the government should be a steward of the data it collects.
I also wonder how many of these data sets were required by law.
I also wonder how many of these data sets were required by law.
Would be quite expensive when talking about potential petabytes of data.
I care, but I don’t download everything I care about, that would be a lot.
It's sad to see that data is so politicised. You'd think that empirical data is irrefutable but Mr. Fauci's last-minute pardon ought to put all CDC data produced the last decade under scrutiny. While I agree with the removal of potentially erroneous information, I seriously hope the data is not just removed from the CDC website but remains available for the public (along with who's funds it was produced under) and becomes fact checked by non-pharma sponsored entities. Only this will restore trust and provide a more complete picture.
I recall several heads of the CDC auditioning, their answers to representatives would indicate it is/was (mis) information that undoubtedly the new administration would make sure to "purge".
It is becoming very difficult to distinguish justice from crooks in the U.S.
The CDC had lost all credibility anyway, dismantling it wouldn't be a bad idea, maybe not all of it, so that's what we are (not) seeing there.
It is becoming very difficult to distinguish justice from crooks in the U.S.
The CDC had lost all credibility anyway, dismantling it wouldn't be a bad idea, maybe not all of it, so that's what we are (not) seeing there.
> (d) With respect to information dissemination, each agency shall— (3) provide adequate notice when initiating, substantially modifying, or terminating significant information dissemination products; (4) not, except where specifically authorized by statute— (A) establish an exclusive, restricted, or other distribution arrangement that interferes with timely and equitable availability of public information to the public; (B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or redissemination of public information by the public
If these datasets were actually permanently deleted then the incident should be investigated by NARA [1]. The people responsible could be charged with a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2071: > (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.
1. https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/resources/unauthorized...