←back to thread

763 points tartoran | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hirvi74 ◴[] No.45682294[source]
Not that I agree with this decision, but is there any evidence that these reports yielded any consequences? Or rather, was it one of those, "After conducting an internal investigation, we have determined we did nothing wrong" kind of things?
replies(6): >>45682326 #>>45682397 #>>45682559 #>>45682834 #>>45683342 #>>45684098 #
sschueller ◴[] No.45682326[source]
Yes, I would think the 'smart evil' thing to do would be keeping it running and just ignoring what you don't like but now people will just send the stuff to WikiLeaks.
replies(4): >>45682376 #>>45682427 #>>45682467 #>>45682545 #
1. dfee ◴[] No.45682427[source]
They wouldn’t send to WikiLeaks before - also, or instead?

Do we have any evidence this initiative was ever staffed and effective?

We’ve extended a lot of credit to a vested institution to police itself. That’s not worked out in other matters, such as warrantless wiretapping, so why do you think this is effective here?

And why would you discredit third parties - especially those designed to be watchdogs?

I can see this initiative being an embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. And, I’d imagine closing this reporting portal won’t deter journalists - especially those on the frontline like WikiLeaks - from reporting on incidents.