Steve Bannon Sought to Infiltrate Facebook Hiring(buzzfeed.com) |
Steve Bannon Sought to Infiltrate Facebook Hiring(buzzfeed.com) |
This article has all of the weight of a gossip column.
[1] Headers can be forged, of course, but it’s at least enough that an external party might be able to corroborate or disprove this story.
I'm fine with raising questions, but we can question everything on that level - nothing is certain. Long, involved scientific studies still have enough flaws and uncertainties to fill many HN threads. Some uncertainty doesn't wipe out all credibility.
Anonymous sources are essential to critical public information; Woodward and Bernstein never revealed their source - should the Washington Post never have published the articles?
> I’m going to guess that they weren’t.
That statement has less credibility than the article's, though at least it's acknowledged that it's a guess.
>The secret attempt to find bias in Facebook’s hiring process reflects longstanding conservative fears that Facebook and the other tech giants are run by liberals who suppress right-wing views both internally and on their dominant platforms.
As someone who considers themselves above the fray, I would say those fears are not unfounded.
2. I've worked at tech companies for almost a decade. The only right wing view I've seen suppressed is "defense of traditional marriage." It's 2017. I think we all know what that means.
Of course they do. Fear is a great motivator to both parties.
>2. I've worked at tech companies for almost a decade. The only right wing view I've seen suppressed is "defense of traditional marriage." It's 2017. I think we all know what that means.
So obviously it happens. Like I said, Bannon's fears aren't unfounded.
Well if views are effectively suppressed then you won't hear them.
If your biggest concern about this is that liberals are suppressing right-wing views in their own company, then you are most certainly not above the fray.
Politics is a game. The prize is to get elected. Most of the stuff we consume has been designed for us to consume. It's not just an article, it an entire string of articles over the course of an entire election cycle. Ever hear of the October surprise? That happens every election and it's an obvious tell of the design.
Snowden revelations? Not by design. NYT wouldn't touch it until the story already broke. Ever wonder why that is?
>here's a clue - there is a well-known correlation between education and liberalism.
Pretty smug. Here's some research that backs your assertion though:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-g...
You'll notice that this reference only applies your conclusion to the "consistently liberal" category. I'm of the opinion that if anyone is either consistently liberal or consistently conservative, they're not really considering issues in and of themselves, but rather attaching themselves emotionally to political movements.
In other words, if you are a liberal and you can't think of a single conservative position you agree with, or if you are a conservative and you can't think of a single liberal position you agree with, you are on the Koolaid.
Wedge issues in the US are a good example of this. They will never get solved, politicians have no intentions to solve them either. They exist as a place to plant a flag every cycle. They also serve as a centerpiece of a campaign so politicians don't have to try to solve the hard, unsolvable problems, like how to improve the economics of the non-coastal areas, criminal justice reform, rolling back the drug war without admitting a Vietnam defeat, how to roll back the Middle East policies without admitting a Vietnam defeat, etc.
We can agree on your last sentence though: "In other words, if you are a liberal and you can't think of a single conservative position you agree with, or if you are a conservative and you can't think of a single liberal position you agree with, you are on the Koolaid." If people can't look beyond party for ANY position, we are in trouble.
Yes, and based on those charts, it looks like we're in trouble. :)