People are going to post for and against this stuff regardless of what we do. It sounds like you have additional reason to feel strongly about it but expressing that this way is inevitably counterproductive.
Things like this are why YC has zero ground to stand on when they attempt to solve "fake news" through investment. YC can start by firing their useless mods and hiring folks with some guts.
FWIW, my strong word choice was to draw specifically YOUR attention to the parent. That you consider me "counterproductive" while allowing HN to become a fake news echo chamber is irresponsible.
An attitude among the gatekeepers of "people are going to post for and against this stuff" is exactly why "fake news" is a problem.
You're commenting on a release that includes CIA guidelines for structuring file metadata specifically to avoid US attribution... And arguing that questioning the integrity of file metadata is a conspiracy theory...
File metadata wasn't my concern. Spreading baseless rumors without concern for grieving family and friends makes Sparkling (and his buddies) grade-A fuckwads in my book.
which is verifiable with google's 2048-bit dkim key.
I am sorry that the subject is sore, but that is not a reason to accept a contrived government narrative or dismiss any otherwise postulation or, in this case, theoretical supposition as conspiracy theory.
I would say that's kind of the point, the manner in which that opinions is expressed aside. There isn't evidence in either direction that's been released to the public. So why respond to a comment with more conjecture?
Where exactly am i spreading rumors? I am pointing out what Assange said in two interviews and linked the source. Whether or not you belive Assange is up to you.
What conspiracy theory? Assange, the person most likely to actually know what happened, has stated that the source for the Podesta emails was a disgruntled "washington insider"
In addition, former British ambassador Craig Murray (a man with a solid reputation and little reason to lie) claims to have personally met the source and insists that the source is definitely a political insider without ties to Russia.
Assange may have said that, but Podesta was hacked by a sloppy organization that used Bitly to attempt a hack on thousands of other accounts worldwide.
Assange has no reason to implicate Russia. It would also be very, very easy to give a disgruntled insider the email trove or help them stumble upon it.
I thought the Podesta emails (at least the ones in the Wikileaks archive that Wikileaks keep tweeting urls to searches of) were from someone sending Podesta a fake gmail password reset email?
I don't think a disgruntled washington insider did that! I could be confused and there's another set of emails that you're referring to. It's impossible to keep up on everything lately.
> I don't think a disgruntled washington insider did that!
Quite the contrary: If I definitely know that my target is too incompetent to check what he clicks on, or that he forgets his password every week, it's waaay easier for me to achieve my goal.
Creating a plausible site that looks like a Google password reset workflow may be a few minutes work for hackernews reading front end wizards, but it's not really the domain of disgruntled washington bureaucrats.
Disgruntled Washington bureaucrats have money. Money can buy you black hat devs. A few minutes work for a chance at $[x-xx],000? Done and done. Payment upon successful phish.
There are plenty of people that value money over morals.
>What conspiracy theory? Assange, the person most likely to actually know what happened
In no way is Assange most likely to know what happened, in the same way that a Tor exit node is not most likely to know who originated a message it delivered. Those with actual intelligence assets are far more likely to know who the ultimate source is.
I support your plea for avoiding hysteria but this stuff passed dismissal as mere conspiracy long ago. All plausible angles must be considered with this stuff. The CIA and FSB are in the business of deniability so it takes more than just a surface level reality check to discredit.
I live in DC, and have a bunch of friends in common with Seth. The crowd of tinfoil-hat-wearing jackasses spreading this bullshit do nothing but continue to cause pain for his family and friends.
Y'all can hide behind your keyboards, but there are real people here. Think about them for a change.
Fair enough, the Seth reference was probably unwise. Wikileaks has responded to these claims saying that they weren't implying that Seth was the leaker or that the murder was in any way related to the publication.
