Yaa101's sentiment is that I sound pro-NSA. That's a joke. Why would you agree with that?
I strongly agree with you about astroturfing though, and I think it's depressing and reprehensible.
And, in case I haven't made this disclosure in a place where you've read it, I am at this time gainfully employed by Google, and I'm sure this distorts my thinking. I really really want to believe that Google is not evil, because if Google is evil than I have to decide if I quit this awesome job, etc etc, and that desire probably has some effect on my judgement. I encourage everyone to be cautious about everything everyone says, including me.
I don't think there's a lot of astroturfing on HN, though, if any. (For one thing, HN is pretty fringe). But also, the comments never say "don't worry it's all okay". Most of the comments raise crazy conspiracy theories, and other ones point out actual holes in crazy conspiracy theories. Hmn, though there are also people jumping on every most-recent theory that makes things look okay, actually... and that would be good astroturfing, so maybe I take it back. Actually, upon consideration, if I was the NSA, I'd post more theories like yours. Not that I'm accusing you personally. (Again, to protect against Poe's Law: this paragraph was sincere, not parody.)
What I'd like to see more of, in these discussions about surveillance, is theories putting the facts together in ways that make sense, and theories that are actually consistent with the facts we have. When you said that that PCWorld link backed up claims of Google-NSA backroom deals, that made no sense. Just read it. When you said (in a more-recent comment) that the CIA is invested in many SiVa companies... well, I don't agree with your conclusions, but your pattern of reasoning is a lot more plausible. Partly because you didn't go too far, like saying "this proves that Google is just a CIA front company". Because it doesn't prove much of anything... but it IS part of the set of facts that are interesting.
I am perpetually disappointed at how everyone seems to read one or two articles, and feel they have enough facts to stop reading and form an opinion.
I strongly agree with you about astroturfing though, and I think it's depressing and reprehensible.
And, in case I haven't made this disclosure in a place where you've read it, I am at this time gainfully employed by Google, and I'm sure this distorts my thinking. I really really want to believe that Google is not evil, because if Google is evil than I have to decide if I quit this awesome job, etc etc, and that desire probably has some effect on my judgement. I encourage everyone to be cautious about everything everyone says, including me.
I don't think there's a lot of astroturfing on HN, though, if any. (For one thing, HN is pretty fringe). But also, the comments never say "don't worry it's all okay". Most of the comments raise crazy conspiracy theories, and other ones point out actual holes in crazy conspiracy theories. Hmn, though there are also people jumping on every most-recent theory that makes things look okay, actually... and that would be good astroturfing, so maybe I take it back. Actually, upon consideration, if I was the NSA, I'd post more theories like yours. Not that I'm accusing you personally. (Again, to protect against Poe's Law: this paragraph was sincere, not parody.)
What I'd like to see more of, in these discussions about surveillance, is theories putting the facts together in ways that make sense, and theories that are actually consistent with the facts we have. When you said that that PCWorld link backed up claims of Google-NSA backroom deals, that made no sense. Just read it. When you said (in a more-recent comment) that the CIA is invested in many SiVa companies... well, I don't agree with your conclusions, but your pattern of reasoning is a lot more plausible. Partly because you didn't go too far, like saying "this proves that Google is just a CIA front company". Because it doesn't prove much of anything... but it IS part of the set of facts that are interesting.
I am perpetually disappointed at how everyone seems to read one or two articles, and feel they have enough facts to stop reading and form an opinion.