Ackshully's comments

I was going to ask what country with mainstream medicine has no profit motive, but then I saw your strawman where you equate herbal tea with chopping down phone masts.

Word of advice - pull your head out yer arse.

I don't know who you're trying to fool, this thread was scrubbed from the front page. Anyway:

He gave evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 15th and 16th of July, and was found dead on the 17th.

...

> One of the witnesses who gave evidence to Hutton was David Broucher, the UK's permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament. In 2002 or 2003 he had asked Kelly what would happen if Iraq were invaded; Kelly had replied "I will probably be found dead in the woods".

Don't remember BBC making much of a deal of that quote.

His wife was probably scared shitless and in no space to fight. And there were many who didn't find the official line credible including doctors, the former leader of the Conservative Party, and MP Norman Baker, among many others. Try checking your own facts before calling people wrong.

Anyone got an idea why this story was scrubbed from the front page so fast?

Seconds story I've seen wiped without reason just today and I haven't even been on here much.

The Guardian presents itself as Britain's establishment left newspaper, but undermined Labour's leader, the most effective left wing leader in the country, constantly and consistently for years.

The Guardian being fake left wing might not be the view of the average Briton, but Chomsky and Klein would agree. The average Briton voted for Brexit then Googled what it meant after they won. Also, I'm not British.

Yeah - they sure shut the fuck up about that inquiry when David Kelly showed up dead in a field two days later didn't they. They called it a suicide and never brought it up again.

Much like how the BBC has "covered" torture, collateral murder, and the likes which Assange and Snowden revealed - better than the tabloids, and not nearly good enough.

Corbyn was smeared as an anti-semite with "evidence" every bit as good as Vice's "evidence" on Stallman.

BoJo had his gaffes covered with kid gloves, the BBC going so far as to pass off obviously fake footage to make him look competent. Despite his talk of "watermelon smiles" and "picaninnies", or the horror Tory policies had inflicted on Britain's vulnerable, or the srious, international lies Johnson was caught in, the BBC gushed on how affable and charming his persona was.

I would love a quantitative analysis, but I don't need one to see the truth. They can't be trusted much more than the Daily Mail or The Sun.

Today's BBC is as connected to Monty Python as Fox News today is to season 4 of the Simpsons. Probably less.

Seriously, that was ridiculous. Their bias is practically worn on the sleeve.

I will never forget the way the BBC "covered" Corbyn, with the heavy handed propaganda techniques and constant repetition of patently ridiculous smears. Meanwhile, that BoJo prick had his gaffes covered over, such as [1].

I'll never forget how the BBC "covered" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - and David Kelly.

The original article mentions ever so briefly how the BBC "covered" the troubles - it was a constant stream of one sided filth for decades. To this day, coverage of those years remains sheer propaganda, though with less naked venom and foaming at the mouth.

So, when people write articles like this implying the BBC walks a tight rope of bias, my stomach churns. Like the Guardian, they never deserved their reputation and have gotten tremendously worse in the last decades.

[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bbc-boris-joh...

In fact they delete posts about the fact they delete posts.

Psst - Hacker News deletes posts too.

Thank you - I think you've managed to point directly to the heart of the hypocrisy I am seeing.

America put the lady who ran a torture center and deleted evidence meant for Congress in charge of the mass surveillance revealed by Assange and Snowden.

If that's off topic, then Assange and Snowden ought have been too. As you say, who could we trust to moderate or set rules for discussions like that. At the moment, we are supposedly trusting dang, and I don't. And I can't say that here because it's "off-topic / meta"... Because dang said so.

The logic is circular.

And while solutions could exist (you mention blockchain logs), and HN is supposedly the community for those very people who would be able to create / understand those solutions (techy hacker entrepeneurs), talking about those solutions :here: is off topic. Is that not a glaring double standard?

Thanks. As an example, as I mentioned above, stories about Gina Haspel were unceremoniously dumped directly from the front page while under active discussion, at least three times in a single day.

Any conversations here about mass surveillance, Snowden, Assange etc are chock full of misinformation and smears. Those comments are rarely removed, so I don't buy the 'that story doesn't fit in HN's remit' narrative.

My major gripe is more general though: How can we call ourselves a community of hackers and entrepreneurs if there is no space whatsoever for critiquing the forum itself?

There is currently absolutely no accountability here whatsoever. If this community were healthy I don't think it would be tolerated - instead people don't even see the problem.

Thank you for your perspective. I strongly disagree that important truths are not being silenced, because I saw :multiple: stories about Gina Haspel get removed while under heavy discussion on the front page. I don't have any idea what other important stuff got removed, because there is no way to know.

I would have thought that a community of so called tech hackers and entepreneurs could demand some form of logs to know that censorship :really: isn't a problem.

> If you want to criticize HN, I suggest that you do it outside of HN.

That's truly awful advice. Disallowing criticism is step 1 of bad shit happening. At a minimum it stifles any possible improvement. And it's :always: step 1 of fascism.