[HN Gopher] Inside CECOT - 60 Minutes [video]
___________________________________________________________________
Inside CECOT - 60 Minutes [video]
https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2025/12/23/6...
Author : lawlessone
Score : 1456 points
Date : 2025-12-23 00:36 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (archive.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (archive.org)
| kg wrote:
| For context, this report was suppressed by CBS News' new
| leadership, most likely to appease the US government.
| owlninja wrote:
| A little more context if needed (free link):
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/21/business/60-minutes-trump...
| scratchyone wrote:
| I have a feeling this will get DMCA-ed off of Internet Archive in
| an attempt to suppress it. Here's the infohash of the archive.org
| torrent download for future reference, this should allow the file
| to be retrieved in any torrent client as long as someone in the
| world is seeding it still.
|
| 8105370ed7dba50dc7ec659fd67550569b4dd8a0
| evil-olive wrote:
| here it is, in magnet link form: magnet:?xt=u
| rn:btih:734abc77f48d11c78543c52004b6f57db71d6d92&dn=60minutes-c
| ecotsegment&xl=1483256352&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt1.archive.org%3A696
| 9%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt2.archive.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&
| ws=http://ia601703.us.archive.org/32/items/&ws=http://ia801703.
| us.archive.org/32/items/&ws=https://archive.org/download/
|
| (exported from my currently-seeding torrent client, then pasted
| into a separate torrent client, to verify that it works
| correctly)
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| Hey there _seed buddy_... I 'm about to become the fourth web
| seed.
|
| We're not going anywhere.
|
| --Hydra
| JakeStone wrote:
| It's ridiculous that this has to be done.
|
| I'm honestly speechless. But thanks for the magnet link.
| vlachen wrote:
| I left the high seas many years ago, but I'm down to seed for
| a cause.
|
| What's the best torrent client nowadays?
| josh_p wrote:
| qbittorrent is still regarded as independent and safe, I
| think.
|
| https://www.qbittorrent.org/
|
| I'm still using it happily on windows/linux.
|
| Don't forget your vpn!
| vlachen wrote:
| That brings me to the next thing: Taking VPN suggestions.
| What's the best? I like secure.
|
| Edited to remove being a moron.
| x13 wrote:
| proton
| rpdillon wrote:
| Mullvad. The only VPN company I actually trust.
| utrack wrote:
| It's important though that Mullvad doesn't do port
| forwarding; you won't be able to seed effectively
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Then you probably don't want a free service that costs
| money to run where they can only make money by converting
| most users to paid or monetizing your information in a
| country where you are unlikely to have an attorney whilst
| operating what amounts to a honeypot for every government
| on earth.
|
| That said protonvpn seems reputable
| vlachen wrote:
| That's a fair point that I arrived at once I put half a
| second of thought into what I was actually asking.
| theblazehen wrote:
| Mullvad
| josh_p wrote:
| I pay for proton. It works. I'm not as security conscious
| as I should be but it's pretty much a set and forget
| thing aside from changing ports.
| immibis wrote:
| qBittorrent
| squarefoot wrote:
| Qbittorrent, Transmission etc. The Transmission daemon can
| be installed headless with negligible system load on a vast
| number of devices, from Raspberry Pi-like and smaller SBCs
| to Linux/BSD NASes, then operated from remote through the
| web interface or a phone app.
| Modified3019 wrote:
| I'm of the opinion that would be mullvad.
|
| RTings recently updated their reviews and seems to agree:
|
| https://www.rtings.com/vpn/reviews/best/privacy
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i_BB2uFYYA
| mrjay42 wrote:
| Seeding :3
| chakintosh wrote:
| r/DataHoarder is already on it
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Yup, reddit subreddit sure seems like a good place for "anti-
| american" discussions.
|
| Where are the independent and non-VC fueled discussion forums
| when you need them?
| blast wrote:
| It will be a second dose of Streisand if they do.
| mistersquid wrote:
| Senator Corey Booker's YouTube channel posted the archived
| video about 9am EST.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiehEMlNiCI
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| There are other links here as well:
| https://www.404media.co/archivists-posted-the-60-minutes-cec...
| tastyface wrote:
| 404media is shadowbanned from HN for nebulous reasons. The mods
| should really revisit this policy: they've been doing some
| great reporting recently.
| pyvpx wrote:
| Has there been any mention of reasoning behind it?
| snowwrestler wrote:
| I asked last year and was told 404 is the source of too
| many copycat low quality posts and they have a paywall. In
| the year since, a bunch of their original reporting has hit
| the front page and driven interesting discussions.
| abraham wrote:
| Just to clarify for anyone reading. 404 does not have a
| paywall. They have an account wall. Some articles require
| you to be signed into a free account to read.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| For comparison, the Wall Street Journal does have a
| paywall but is not a banned site.
| metadope wrote:
| And 404 is also _not_ banned, right?
|
| As a noob here on HN, that's what I gathered from your
| previous comment:
|
| > In the year since, a bunch of their original reporting
| has hit the front page
|
| So, a year ago, before my time, 404 media was moderated
| in a way that seemed like a ban, but now it no longer
| appears to be shadowbanned, is that what I'm learning?
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Don't forget that complaining about paywalls is actually
| against the rules. So how did the site get that ban in
| the first place?
| NaOH wrote:
| There's nothing nebulous; there's no workaround for
| 404media's articles.
|
| _Tell HN: Paywalls with workarounds are OK; paywall
| complaints are off topic_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989 - Sept 2015
| (160 comments)
| scratchyone wrote:
| It seems to work for me? https://archive.ph/sr0sd
| NaOH wrote:
| Maybe that's new? Either way, great to know.
| defrost wrote:
| _A16z-backed Doublespeed hacked, revealing what its AI-
| generated accounts promote_ (404media.co) 289
| points by grahamlee 5 days ago | flag | past | 171 comments
|
| so some slip through.
|
| But: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=404media.co sure
| has a _lot_ of [dead]
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Don't forget that the mods tried to remove the reference to
| a16z from the title on that one.
| tomhow wrote:
| I tried to make the title fit the guidelines and the
| character limit, then changed it when the community
| explained why it was important for A16Z to be in the
| title.
|
| Why do people think we're motivated to "suppress"
| negative stories about A16Z? They've been criticized
| forever here and we've never had a problem with it. All
| we care about is whether a topic makes for an interesting
| discussion on HN.
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| que...
|
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&
| que...
| QuadmasterXLII wrote:
| To answer your literal question of "why do people
| think..."
|
| For a while there was a widespread standing principle to
| not assume malice for actions that could be explained as
| a simple mistake. If only one person follows this policy,
| it's great. However, so many people were following this
| policy that it created massive incentives to disguise
| profit motivated malice as explainable accidents. We're
| in the midst of a massive backswing against this.
|
| So, there is very little taste for patience when agents
| of ycombinator make mistakes that benefit a16z such as
| accidentally removing them from the title of a negative
| article, due to the billions of dollars entangling
| ycombinator with the reputation of a16z. This is not
| because it wasn't an accident- it's because any culture
| of patience with this will lead (and has led) to an
| explosion of copycat whoopsies.
| Teever wrote:
| > Why do people think we're motivated to "suppress"
| negative stories about A16Z?
|
| I think a more charitable interpretation of this kind of
| argument is that the money and power that entities like
| A16Z have make the possibility of corruption of
| endeavours like HN trivial.
|
| In light of the ease in which a wealthy entity like A16Z
| can exert influence over an entity like HN and the track
| records of various A16Z adjacent/similar people doing
| similar things to other HN-like entities it's very
| natural that people are concerned about the possibility
| of similar things happening here.
|
| Like it or not as an editor at HN you're in a position of
| power and influence and others with far greater power
| would certainly leverage what you have here if suited
| their interests.
|
| Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is no easy
| task especially in this medium and I don't envy you in
| taking it on, but it's an essential part of something
| like HN. If the users in aggregate don't trust the
| moderation process or the administrators then this all
| sort of falls apart and the interesting discussion
| suffers.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| And I believe that the mods thinking that a16z was the
| least critical part of the headline such that it could be
| cut for space reasons is a _huge_ concern. I 'm glad that
| you changed your mind. But the fact that it was needed
| worries me and the fact that you can't understand why
| people were upset is worse.
|
| There doesn't need to be an explicit effort to protect vc
| firms for your blind spots to shape conversation on this
| website away from criticizing them.
| tastyface wrote:
| I believe they all start out dead, and enough people have
| to vouch to make the article visible and commentable.
| drweevil wrote:
| My own experience is that they've been solid throughout.
| Certainly better than many other options, at a time when the
| technical press has been generally disappointing.
| esseph wrote:
| Because they've literally been creating stories about A16Z.
|
| I've posted about some and they just get instaflagged or
| hidden.
| slg wrote:
| I'm reminded of the Letter on Justice and Open Debate[1] that
| Bari Weiss signed only a few years ago, now she's spiking stories
| like this one on CECOT for showing the current administration in
| a negative light.
|
| I also wonder if this story will get the type of leeway to stay
| on HN to collect the 200+ upvotes and 300+ comments of that
| previous example or if it will be flagged off the front page
| within minutes like so many other similar stories.
|
| EDIT: No idea how long this post actually lasted, but checking in
| an hour later to see this has been flagged completely off the
| first 10 pages of HN despite getting close to that 200 point
| total.
|
| [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23759283
| cdrnsf wrote:
| She was hired following the acquisition of Paramount to do
| things exactly like this. She's not a journalist.
| dralley wrote:
| Literally not a journalist. She went from the opinion pages
| to writing opinion on substack. And for "some reason" was put
| in charge of a news organization.
| derektank wrote:
| She has worked as a staff editor in newsrooms, most notably
| at Tablet. It's not accurate to say her career has solely
| been in the opinion section.
|
| Also, it's not unheard of for people working on the op-ed
| side of the house to become editors in chief. Most notable
| example I can think of would be Katharine Viner at the
| Guardian. And in the reverse, James Bennet went from being
| editor in chief at the Atlantic to running the op-ed page
| at the NYT.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| I wouldn't exactly use James Bennet as a _successful_
| example here.
| skywhopper wrote:
| Are you actually arguing that she was a qualified choice
| for this role at CBS?
| criddell wrote:
| You'd have to know the qualifying criteria to know for
| sure.
|
| I suspect she was hired at least in part because she
| would be willing to take the heat for stuff like this,
| SmirkingRevenge wrote:
| Her upward trajectory has been facilitated mainly through
| pleasing select silicon valley billionaires by echoing
| their views back to them in her ironically named The Free
| Press outlet, which they also helped found.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| This really is the future of journalism. Just make
| content that a few deranged billionaires like and rise up
| and up and up and up. CBS doesn't have to care whether
| ordinary people like it. What matters is the asshole with
| billions of dollars.
| woooooo wrote:
| Ok, so with charity she's a marginally qualified 150
| million dollar aquihire? In journalism?
| justin66 wrote:
| She's never been a reporter, and even in the kindest
| interpretation of her actions, it's starting to show.
| aksnsbba wrote:
| > most notably at Tablet
|
| She is more or less an Israeli propaganda agent. She was
| hired at CBS because, after purchasing CBS from Zionist
| Shari Redstone, Zionist Larry Ellison and his son needed
| a reliable Zionist editor in chief. Weiss' primary
| qualifications are her extremely pro Israeli career path.
|
| Larry Ellison needed a woman like Weiss because he's
| invested in Israel's success. He's both a close personal
| friend of Netanyahu and the number one private donor to
| the IDF. Netanyahu has declared US public perception of
| Israel as the 8th front of their war, and Ellison (with
| the help of Trump) is doing his part stateside.
|
| Why we have so many powerful "Americans" exercising their
| power on behalf of a foreign country is the real
| discussion here.
| diogenescynic wrote:
| Hundreds of comments and the only one speaking the truth
| is downvoted. Bari Weiss is unqualified and the only
| reason she was put into this position is to be a useful
| idiot for Israel.
| empath75 wrote:
| Everyone who signed that letter was either a dupe or a fraud.
| timcobb wrote:
| You gotta give us more than that
| UncleMeat wrote:
| The signatories have spent years attacking free expression.
| A particularly acute case is when it comes to things like
| advocating for the end of israeli occupation in palestine,
| but there are many others. Whining about BLM is a
| particularly common approach for Thomas Chatterton
| Williams.
|
| The signatories have generally _continued_ to complain
| about censoriousness from the left even while the right
| wing is detaining people for their speech, insisting that
| media personalities be fired for their speech, insisting
| that people (including naturalized citizens) be deported
| for their speech, cancelling grants because they are too
| "woke", and straight up passing laws banning the teaching
| of certain topics in secondary and postsecondary school.
|
| Weiss herself is a participant with UATX, a expressly right
| wing university that has fired people for not being
| sufficiently critical of DEI efforts.
|
| Weiss also has a long history of efforts to stifle the
| public debate that the signatories claim to support. The
| _first_ thing that got her notoriety was an effort to get
| various professors at Columbia fired for their speech.
| djl0 wrote:
| I think you're really off base. A quick search about what
| Williams has said about censorship on the right seems to
| undermine your one non-weiss example [1]. There were more
| than a hundred signatories from across a fairly wide
| political spectrum (and the letter itself was anti-
| Trump). The handful of signatories that I follow have
| squarely denounced right wing censoriousness - I'm open
| to hearing that I'm seeing a non-representative sample,
| but you didn't provide any useful info on that front.
|
| [1]
| https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/02/woke-
| right...
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Notice how this article frames the entire thing as caused
| by the left and happily ignores the fact that what is
| happening under Trump is not new. Were the excesses of
| the left the cause of the Stop Woke Act in Florida? The
| right has been screaming about firing professors since
| God and Man at Yale was published. In my opinion, this is
| not anything resembling a serious accounting of the
| threats to speech from the right.
|
| And you can compare this article against the _entire
| book_ that he published about the left 's flaws this
| year. On one hand we've got an article critical of the
| right that finds the need to smuggle criticisms of the
| left in constantly and on the other hand we have a
| complete manuscript. You tell me where Williams is
| focusing his attention.
| djl0 wrote:
| In terms of the actual topic, I would be shocked if
| Williams approved of spiking the CECOT 60 mins story, if
| it is in fact politically motivated as many suspect. And
| I'm not particularly a "fan" of Williams or anything,
| though I've heard him on a couple of podcasts.
|
| But you're also making this point about all signatories
| being hypocrites because you seemingly have a big bone to
| pick with the amount of blame Thomas Chatterton Williams
| portions to each side.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| So, can we see him writing about how this was a bad
| thing?
|
| Williams is a public intellectual. What goes on in his
| mind is of much less importance to public discourse than
| what he writes.
|
| Let me be clear. I believe that Williams is a hypocrite
| and I believe that the large majority of the signatories
| on the harpers letter are hypocrites. I mention him
| specifically because he was one of the people who
| actually wrote a lot of its text rather than just signing
| it, which makes him of particular interest for this
| discussion.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Weiss got her _start_ screaming about how various college
| professors should be fired. There has never once been a moment
| in her career where she seriously cared about open debate.
| drewbeck wrote:
| Or journalistic principles.
| spankibalt wrote:
| Indeed. Weiss came up as conservative troll and engagement
| farmer, and was hired as such by Ellison.
| martythemaniak wrote:
| You can't understand technology without understanding the
| people behind it. I always wonder about all these non-bot
| people who support her: is it that they're in on the grift and
| everyone understands that she's just there as a wink-wink-
| totaly-not state censor, or do they genuinely fall for her
| schtick? Is there something else? I never quite get it.
|
| A once-reasonable friend of mine genuinely thinks RJK is just
| some dude who tries his best, and doesn't consider him a crazy
| anti-vaxxer. Crazy
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| > just some dude who tries his best, and doesn't consider him
| a crazy anti-vaxxer
|
| As much as it would be comforting for all dudes who're trying
| their best to pretend otherwise, the two are _not_ mutually
| exclusive. (No opinion on whether RFK Jr is in the
| intersection--I'm not in the US and couldn't affect his
| actions if I tried.)
| joncrane wrote:
| >is it that they're in on the grift and everyone understands
| that she's just there as a wink-wink-totaly-not state censor,
| or do they genuinely fall for her schtick?
|
| It's both. That's one of the things that's difficult to suss
| out and therefore have a plan to engage. There's plausible
| deniability on both ends of that spectrum. Even in the high
| positions in the administration, there's a smattering of True
| Believers in amongst the grifters.
| lostlogin wrote:
| A similar post with comments linking to this thread just got
| marked as a duplicate, taking it off the front page.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46361571
| tastyface wrote:
| As a companion piece, here is ProPublica's recent report trying
| to determine who exactly was sent to this torture camp:
| https://projects.propublica.org/venezuelan-immigrants-trump-...
| estearum wrote:
| Another good piece from right-leaning Cato Institute:
| https://www.cato.org/blog/50-venezuelans-imprisoned-el-salva...
| cdrnsf wrote:
| Additional context:
|
| > The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that the men
| sent to El Salvador were overwhelmingly violent criminals; Pro
| Publica reported that the administration knew at least 197 of the
| men had not been convicted of crimes in the United States, and
| six had been convicted of violent offenses.
|
| https://www.404media.co/archivists-posted-the-60-minutes-cec...
| LarsDu88 wrote:
| How long before Hackernews takes this one down?
| scratchyone wrote:
| It's wiped from the front page already
| oliwarner wrote:
| And it's back.
| JeremyNT wrote:
| * * *
| ProllyInfamous wrote:
| <https://www.muellershewrote.com/p/watch-the-60-minutes-cecot...>
|
| This is disgraceful [0], whatever your opinion on illegal
| immigration.
|
| [0] deporting non-citizens to 3rd-party countries/prisons
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _[0] deporting non-citizens to 3rd-party countries /prisons_
|
| See perhaps United States Declaration of Independence:
|
| > _" For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended
| offenses:"_
|
| *
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_State...
| saagarjha wrote:
| Ah, but you see, they're not _us_. They 're _them_.
| dzdt wrote:
| In this case there wasn't even any trial, here or abroad.
| Just sent to the torture gulag with zero process whatsoever.
| So its even worse than that.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _In this case there wasn 't even any trial, here or
| abroad._
|
| Above is #19; see #18:
|
| > _" For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Jury
| trial:"_
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievances_of_the_United_St
| ate...
| justin66 wrote:
| Even calling it "deportation" is far too charitable towards
| what they've done. Deportation involves sending them back to
| their home countries or, if that's unsafe, to another country.
| These people were rendered to a prison where they're meant to
| spend the rest of their lives, without any of the due process
| even a foreigner who had committed a crime would normally be
| accorded in the United States under our constitution.
| estearum wrote:
| Great point and I'll add, by "would normally be accorded" you
| of course mean "is legally entitled to by our nation's
| foundational document."
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Just to clarify - a prison without due process is more
| accurately called a "concentration camp".
|
| "Prison" is for people convicted of crimes.
| empath75 wrote:
| People in the US now have to use VPN's to get access to domestic
| news from a foreign country. I think it's fair to say that the
| wheels have come off democracy and things are badly broken.
| ikamm wrote:
| There was a PBS doc about it too, CBS is just comprised
| immibis wrote:
| PBS funding has been cancelled.
| ikamm wrote:
| Federal funding has been canceled for now. PBS still lives
| on and who knows what will happen with the next
| administration.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Frontline: https://youtu.be/Lku5h9xjrqc
| wwweston wrote:
| Things are bad, but the worst part isn't hidden/missing
| principled reporting, it's that a significant number of people
| don't care to attend to it where it exists, domestically or
| internationally. And a majority of US voters cast their ballot
| for this outcome, so in a sense it's democracy working as
| intended, however horrifying any problems or outcomes.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| Plurality of voters, narrowly, but still it's enough.
|
| How many just vote Republican without thought as they have
| always done, how many are in the fox news cult? So many
| people just thought they didn't want a female president or
| Trump would lower inflation. It's hard for me to accept that
| Trump represents America, but he represents enough of it.
| drstewart wrote:
| It's fair to say that, but first please verify your age to
| access these sites if you're located in the UK
| jmward01 wrote:
| This is why we need archive.org.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Just wish it was distributed instead of such a US-centric
| organization. For survival, I hope they're thinking about how
| to make it more decentralized, because eventually the arm of
| the law is gonna come after them (again), and probably with
| less mercy this time.
|
| Still a proud supporter of archive.org for many, many years.
| Their work is invaluable and I hope it stays around forever.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Archive links are all good in the comments, but let's make the
| submission url one of the story links with context:
|
| _CBS defends pulling 60 Minutes segment about Trump
| deportations_
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdrnv3keeneo
|
| or
|
| _'60 Minutes' Pulled a Segment. A Correspondent Calls It
| 'Political.'_
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/21/business/60-minutes-trump...
| g-b-r wrote:
| The story is exactly that you can watch it on archive.org, most
| people already heard that it was pulled
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Funny how it leaked out by sending it off to their Canadian
| distributor
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Just another data point in the 'fascists are incompetent'
| trend. It's pretty lucky that one bug in the human firmware is
| moderated by another.
| morkalork wrote:
| Sadly, that's the kind of mistake that only happens once.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| What, me worry? Plenty more creative mistakes still to be
| made...
| Scoundreller wrote:
| They're going to increase intern pay? Surely you're joking.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| Maybe not - ordinary people have been known to sabotage
| fascist regimes by making "mistakes". There's also the issue
| that incompetent people may be promoted well beyond their
| abilities due to them being "loyal".
| dripdry45 wrote:
| Funny how this is timed with the Susie Wiles "I'm an insider
| trying to do good" nonsense in vanity fair. That coont has been
| instrumental in so much bad stuff since Reagan...
|
| Looks to me like it's all damage control/pressure valve release
| stuff designed to distract from any real change. Because SURELY
| we will get some real change finally, right?? /s
| g-b-r wrote:
| Something I hadn't heard yet about CECOT:
| https://www.lemkininstitute.com/single-post/mass-grave-compl...
| dust4brekky wrote:
| It's worth noting that the founders of the Lemkin Institute
| have, between them, held multiple leadership roles in reputable
| academic departments devoted to the study of genocide, and have
| also both been on the ground during or shortly after genocides
| or other crimes against humanity as part of international teams
| tasked with figuring out what happened and how to hold
| perpetrators accountable. These are not some lightweight
| bloggers.
|
| The US government, in particular Kristi Noem, Donald Trump, and
| Marco Rubio, are, by the logic of the legal power they
| themselves invoked, war criminals who rightly belong in the
| Hague.
| bgbntty2 wrote:
| I found this quite interesting, but I don't understand how the
| articles claims we can see flesh.
|
| And the author's Substack has 2 videos of Trump kissing and
| patting Bill Clinton's groin area (through pants). They are
| likely AI because I couldn't find anything online about how
| they're real besides the original photo. And if they were real,
| why is no one talking about it? He claims for one of the videos
| that it's real. So it kind of reduced the author's
| trustworthiness a bit.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Using the torrent, you should be able to pull it down in a few
| minutes.
| why-o-why wrote:
| Too bad the only people that will watch this are people who
| already understand the terror of what is happening. It might have
| helped a little if it had aired. My MAGA dad still watches 60
| Minutes (no idea why, habit?) This _might_ have penetrated his
| TDS-addled skull if it had aired. But the takeover of CBS by
| Trump and Ellison (and his 1980 's-college-villain son) with
| Weiss is complete, and vile.
| suzdude wrote:
| Maybe suggest he watch? Maybe he's interested in what CBS's
| leadership refused to tell him.
|
| Streisand Effect and all.
| why-o-why wrote:
| I debated asking, but I talk to him only a few times a year
| and we both work really hard to avoid politics. I realize it
| is my responsibility if I want to see change, but I just lack
| the skills.
| mlrtime wrote:
| Your (positive) relationship with him is way more important
| than trying to change his mind politically.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| This parental situation is sadly repeated endlessly in
| the US. My dad is a wealthy retired tech executive whose
| mind was seemingly taken over by Fox News. He's kind of
| now in an anti democratic cult and he gets angry if he is
| even exposed to other news sources.
| kristopolous wrote:
| In any media, people only see what they want. There's a
| psychological term for this, Motivated Reasoning.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
|
| If you want to break this you have to know the person and ask
| key questions afterwards. Their distortion field is held
| together by beliefs and principles, not empirical analysis.
|
| For instance, for my father, the question "how is this treating
| people responsibly? How can we expect the behavior of those
| guards to be held accountable?" would pierce this ... but
| really you have to know how the person doing motivated
| reasoning thinks.
| why-o-why wrote:
| So does this apply to every single person all the time?
| kristopolous wrote:
| Nothing does.
|
| It's about successful communication of authorial intent.
|
| 60 Minutes is not trying to say "Justice Served!" and shake
| pom-poms here. But, someone could read it that way, and it
| would be unintended.
| mlrtime wrote:
| His Dad will be smart enough to know these questions are
| trying to set him up. Maybe try having a real conversation
| and not trying to change his mind. After all, there is a good
| chance you will be that Dad in the future (no matter how hard
| you tell yourself you won't be). Tell me how I now.
| kristopolous wrote:
| I'm almost 50. I won't be. I have friends who are becoming
| grandparents now, still no interest.
|
| I have half a century of talking with my father. If you
| think this is my first strategy as opposed to one that took
| years of therapy and personal struggle, I dunno what to
| tell you.
|
| There's a wide body of social and psychological research on
| this stuff including multiple university departments
| (communication, psychology, sociology, management,
| teaching, etc) because "simply talking to people" doesn't
| actually work.
| why-o-why wrote:
| Thanks kristopolous. We have a very similar story (I'm a
| few years older). I think I'm at the "I've given up
| point" because his glee at others' suffering is just too
| painful to even address. So: he get's hellos at holidays
| and that's it.
| cafard wrote:
| Real conversations cannot involve one or more persons
| trying to change another's mind?
| lostlogin wrote:
| I wasn't aware that CBS's Ellison is Oracle Ellison's son.
|
| TIL
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ellison
| nutjob2 wrote:
| The oligarchy is in full effect. This is exactly how it works, ie
| you scratch my back I scratch yours. Ellison kills this CBS
| report, he gets approval on buying WBS, or more to the point
| NetFlix doesn't. Same with Musk, Middle East dictators and all
| the others lining up for favors from Trump. Also he and his
| family is enriched in various ways by all the pardons he hands
| out.
|
| It's nauseating, but this is where Republicans live these days.
| The midterms can't come soon enough.
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| Corruption is not merely something someone in power enacts in
| their choices; it is a rot that eats out the society from the
| inside.
|
| As individuals realize that nakedly appeasing the autocrat wins
| favor, they voluntarily corrupt themselves and others in hopes of
| advantage.
|
| More and more of the society enters the grip of this force and
| weakens until the truly valuable things--its resources, minds,
| institutions--are annihilated, stolen, and displaced by a
| hierarchy of criminals or warlords. This is how nations sink.
| It's the story of many in Africa, South America, Russia--and now
| it is our own.
| frumplestlatz wrote:
| If you had a corrupt state like that, one in which the
| bureaucracy, the media, and the institutions were controlled by
| a uniparty, what would it look like if they were challenged?
|
| How thoroughly would they unite to destroy that challenger?
| Would you perhaps see apocalyptic and apoplectic stories
| published across the media, in sync with the press conferences
| of the political class?
|
| Would they try to get people like you riled up and angry, and
| saying exactly the kind of things you're saying here?
| ordinaryradical wrote:
| An all-powerful uniparty can do things like this:
| - deport or jail you without due process - ignore the
| law in service of its own ends - punish its enemies,
| pardon its allies - ignore the constitution -
| install loyalists in centers of power, oust dissenters
| - suppress media which challenges its hold on power -
| commit crimes - enrich its friends - declare
| its "plenary authority" to do the above
|
| Brother, you are looking for the deep state under every rock
| and it is out in the sunshine, smiling at you.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Yeah, just look at Hungary or Slovakia how that can happen.
| bulbar wrote:
| They would start to pardon criminals that conducted acts they
| like and fire the people that investigated those crimes. They
| would try to bring everybody to jail that oppose or upset
| them or have opposed them.
|
| They win when challengers become too rare because others are
| afraid of the consequences to oppose.
|
| What the Trump administration did regarding the Capitol
| storming on January 6th tells you everything you need to
| know. They strive for power and nothing else.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| I believe you're trying to say the real oppressors were
| liberals and ideas like people having civil rights that were
| enforced were somehow oppressing others. Look at what
| Republicans are doing in reality right now that they're in
| charge in the us, they're doing all the things that you're
| worried about.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| > As individuals realize that nakedly appeasing the autocrat
| wins favor, they voluntarily corrupt themselves and others in
| hopes of advantage.
|
| When I pointed out that this is the work culture in most
| American corporations, I was told that is a feature, not a bug,
| because US government and most big tech at the time preached
| values in line with average white middle-class Californian. Now
| that this is no longer the case, the mindset of appeasing the
| leader is suddenly a problem.
|
| The whole situation was preventable, but everyone was too high
| on ZIRP to notice. We could've used the good times to establish
| good cultural values, but we didn't. Freedom of speech and
| other foundations of democracy were already rotting long ago
| but nobody cared. We could've used the good times to allow
| better dialogue between different political fractions, but we
| didn't. At some point democrats honestly believed they would
| simply never lose power again, making it seem pointless to talk
| to republicans. Now that the money dried out, people suddenly
| start asking questions and talking about "muh big values".
|
| I have zero empathy.
| benterix wrote:
| > When I pointed out that this is the work culture in most
| American corporations, I was told that is a feature, not a
| bug, because US government and most big tech at the time
| preached values in line with average white middle-class
| Californian.
|
| It is a bit analogous to many of us worrying about Google and
| others getting so much power. The arguments were quickly
| dismissed with: "But these folks are responsible, don't be
| paranoid". The problem with this kind of thinking is, once
| the power balance changes, you find yourself in a situation
| you'd never put yourself now. You cannot make Google unlearn
| what they know about you. You cannot unsend the photos you
| privately shared on Messenger and force Meta to untrain their
| facial recognition models. Now all these things you
| considered a convenience given to you for free can be used
| against you, and the extend and direction of the abuse is
| correlated with who is in power.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| I'm curious which specific problematic values do you think
| were being adhered to and preached in the past, that was
| comparable to what's happening in CECOT, and wasn't opposed?
| the_gastropod wrote:
| "Both sides!" guys should be taken about as seriously as
| Homer Simpson. Their political commentary is completely
| vibes based. No basis in reality.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| It's not that it's comparable, but it's rather direct
| evolution of. US social contract has a huge grey area where
| you can get royally screwed even though you've done nothing
| illegal. For example, in most places in the US employees
| can be fired for expressing political opinions, and most
| people have their entire lifehoods tied to their employers.
| As in, saying "I think there are two genders"* was
| literally a fireable offense in many companies, and you'd
| be left without income, without medical insurance. So
| naturally there were a lot of topics that people simply
| chose not to talk about, effectively voiding freedom of
| speech unless you're so rich you don't need a job.
|
| This issue was not addressed when democrats were in power.
| They could've passed laws that protect freedom of speech,
| but they chose not to, because it allowed them to get rid
| of problematic republicans.
|
| Now that the machine has turned against democrats and
| you're not allowed to talk about certain topics important
| to democrats like climate change or CECOT, it's somehow a
| big fucking problem.
|
| * I purposefully chose a statement that is highly
| controversial. It would be really cool if we could have
| social dialogue about controversial things in order to
| reach a widespread social consensus, instead of having
| extremist opinions boil in people.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| If I'm understanding your example correctly, these types
| of firings are possible thanks to Right-to-work laws.
| Which political party introduced and continues to
| advocate for Right-to-work? Which has generally opposed
| Right-to-work and has supported workers unions, which
| would protect workers from arbitrary firings?
| pseudalopex wrote:
| You meant at will employment? So called right to work
| laws are about relations of unions and non members.
| throwway262515 wrote:
| Expanded and unbleakified:
|
| Corruption is not just the immoral acts of an elite few; it is
| a parasite that hollows out society from within.
|
| When the mainstream realizes that sycophancy toward the
| autocrat is rewarded, some willingly sacrifice their principles
| for short-term benefits, burrowing into the system like worms
| in an apple.
|
| Yet, parasites cannot survive without a compliant host. To kill
| the infestation, we must cut off the food source: our
| passiveness. This begins with everyday refusals--denying the
| petty bribe, rejecting the convenient lie, and defending the
| honest colleague. By maintaining high ethical standards in our
| own spheres of influence, we starve the corrupt hierarchy of
| the dead matter it needs to grow.
|
| We must also make the terrain uninhabitable for them. These
| organisms thrive in the dark, protected by silence. Therefore,
| we must actively expose them: documenting abuses, funding media
| samaritans, and organizing locally to demand transparency. When
| integrity becomes the standard again, the host becomes hostile
| to the parasite, isolating the invaders rather than letting
| them multiply.
|
| Without this resistance however, the society weakens until its
| greatest assets--its resources, minds, and institutions--are
| cannibalized by a regime of criminals. This is how nations
| collapse. We have seen this story in Africa, South America, and
| Russia. This plague is now upon us. But history is not destiny.
| We possess the power to stop it. We only need the will to use
| it.
| hshdhdhj4444 wrote:
| Well said.
|
| America isn't used to corruption. It hasn't seen societal
| level rot that corruption can bring since at least WW2.
|
| It's a deeply damaging phenomenon.
| r721 wrote:
| >Here is Sharyn Alfonsi's email to her '60 Minutes' colleagues in
| full:
|
| https://x.com/grynbaum/status/2002943084322287815
| r721 wrote:
| Some more details:
|
| https://x.com/grynbaum/status/2003109023705387478
|
| https://x.com/grynbaum/status/2003209942057255073
| xenophonf wrote:
| For those of us without Twitter accounts:
|
| https://xcancel.com/grynbaum/status/2002943084322287815
|
| https://xcancel.com/grynbaum/status/2003109023705387478
|
| https://xcancel.com/grynbaum/status/2003209942057255073
| mrjay42 wrote:
| Why all those articles on HN are "flagged"? And by WHOM?
|
| I've been watching this 60min piece, and there's nothing wrong
| with is. It's journalism well done.
|
| Do Trumpist minions have their ways on HN?
| krapp wrote:
| It only takes a few flags to be effective and there are
| definitely more than a few Trumpists on HN so theoretically
| yes. Could also be the likely much larger contingent of people
| who flag all "political" and "non-technical" content by
| default.
|
| Like it or not Hacker News has never been (and will never be) a
| platform for free and open debate. It's designed around
| aggressive curation for quality over quantity and that makes it
| very easy to brigade by design.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| > Could also be the likely much larger contingent of people
| who flag all "political" and "non-technical" content by
| default.
|
| It could, but that'd be odd. We've seen oodles of
| structurally similar posts hang out on the front page
| unflagged before. There are even past examples of major posts
| _criticizing the journalistic integrity of 60 Minutes_. Only
| once the material becomes critical of the regime does it
| become flagged.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| I upvoted the story itself, but the endless comments
| discussing flags on HN are a bigger nuisance than the
| occasional community-flagged story.
|
| I am tempted to go over each such complaint on this page
| (there must be a couple dozen so far) and reply _" Quiet,
| please! People are reading."_
| UltraSane wrote:
| Marc Andreessen is a strong supporter of Trump.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Lets be more accurate: none of the powerful & rich are strong
| supporters OF trump; they support him strongLY because of the
| direct pay-offs they personally gain. I think it's important
| to differentiate between the Andreessens and your core MAGA
| supporter who I actually believe he is a god, because
| strategies for defeating them are very different.
| evan_ wrote:
| > none of the powerful & rich are strong supporters OF
| trump; they support him strongLY because of the direct pay-
| offs they personally gain.
|
| A distinction without a difference.
|
| "I stabbed you in the back because I wanted to steal your
| watch, not because I disliked you _personally_. "
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Nah, I genuinely believe that Andreessen believes much of
| what Trump believes.
| smileson2 wrote:
| Shut up or they will send you there ( by mistake for a year
| or two )
| idiotsecant wrote:
| There is a strong ideological lean on HN towards not
| necessarily the trump ethos, but more toward the
| technofeudalist ideal, which is currently broadly aligned with
| trump on many issues. It's also trumpisim in a more
| sophisticated hat, but it's adherents don't seem to think so.
| estearum wrote:
| It's even more craven and intellectually bankrupt than
| Trumpism, which at least has the simple honesty of "say good
| thing make good thing happen" and is broadly believed by
| people too stupid to know better.
| ikamm wrote:
| Everyone here tries way too hard to emulate the Musks of the
| world as if their political beliefs were the reason those
| guys initially got so rich and successful.
| prh8 wrote:
| and unsurprisingly, this is getting downvoted, despite being
| extremely accurate
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Don't forget the very right wing fake "free speech"
| insistence, where speech you agree with is free and speech
| that criticizes your failures is "An attack".
|
| Or the huge cohort who insist that Joe Rogan talking to
| another guy about how it's not that big a deal that the very
| existence of gay people is yet again under attack is "Two
| people having a calm debate of their difference in beliefs"
| despite that not being true.
|
| There are tons of people on HN that would have done better to
| spend more time in English class learning about persuasive
| writing and the pillars of rhetoric and media literacy and
| all that "critical thinking" they claim school didn't teach
| them and are currently angry when people rightly call out
| their poorly supported arguments, and they don't actually
| seem to know what an "argument" even is.
|
| It's so frustrating their faux "debate" beliefs. It's worse
| than a decade ago when they thought "debate" was screaming at
| your ideological opponents a hundred outright false claims
| that can't be countered in a reasonable time frame.
|
| Nevermind that we HAD calm debate about most of this shit
| decades ago. But these people only believe a "debate"
| happened when their beliefs are validated. Otherwise it's
| "canceling" that thing they still scream about despite doing
| it all the time.
|
| Also the idea that we should have "calm debate" about the
| government sending you to another country's prison without
| trial is insane when that was specifically one of the exact
| reasons the founding fathers decided to start shooting people
| over. Thomas Jefferson would not be calm in his rhetoric.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> I've been watching this 60min piece, and there's nothing
| wrong with is
|
| It's not even that good of a story IMO; leading to full-on
| Streisand effect when it's easier than ever to find things on
| the interwebs, and double-impossible to suppress them. About
| all this has done is prevented the 60 minutes demo from viewing
| a story they would have immediately forgotten, and prompted a
| far more dangerous to the status quo & resourceful segment to
| go find & view a show they never watch.
| spopejoy wrote:
| It's almost assuredly paid actors, the kind who brigade every
| single comment section no matter how piddly the outlet anytime
| there's a peep of pro-Palestinian, pro-abortion or whatever the
| culture-war generals are focusing their troops on.
|
| Tbh HN does a _lot_ better dealing with this than pretty much
| anywhere. Yes HN has the flagging feature so of course it will
| get abused but as evidenced by this article sitting now at the
| top of HN, it gets addressed by moderator intervention,
| regularly.
| evan_ wrote:
| Why do you think "paid"? These people are acting on their
| honestly-held ideological beliefs. Don't give them the out.
| vkou wrote:
| It's not paid actors.
|
| It's partisan hacks who are somewhere on the spectrum between
| full support of this barbarity, and finding all the other
| shit that's being done useful enough to them to be worth
| compromising their values.
|
| The latter can be identified by 'Well I don't agree with
| everything this administration does, but I will throw my full
| support behind <one of the many wedges they are using to turn
| this country into a corrupt single-party autocracy>.'
|
| (They won't push you onto the tracks because they hate you,
| they'll push you because it means they'll see a 0.7% drop in
| their expected tax rate. They are in most ways, worse than
| the former, because they can tell the difference between
| right and wrong, and still carry water for the latter,
| because they see personal benefit in it.)
| UltraSane wrote:
| This should NOT be flagged.
| vdupras wrote:
| This, and Larry Ellison buying all news outlets in America.
| Things should be happening quickly enough so that it's obvious
| where this is all going, right?
|
| Whoever writes the next "Inglorious Basterds" should have a lot
| of fun parodying Larry...
| tl wrote:
| I recommend everyone bookmark the archive.org link or download
| via the magnet link since HN is disappearing these.
|
| Also, any recommendations for a news site that doesn't suppress
| news? Asking for a friend.
| r721 wrote:
| It looks like mods manually removed flags for this one (it was
| flagged).
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| It's still already low on the front-page, when usually posts
| with that amount of upvotes would stay at the top for
| multiple days in a row.
| bmacho wrote:
| > Also, any recommendations for a news site that does suppress
| news? Asking for a friend.
|
| HN?
| immibis wrote:
| HN regularly suppresses news, including this news.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| It doesn't feel like it's suppressing the news. Can you
| give examples of suppression? I'd say hacker news is very
| open to contrary ideas and disagreements.
| array_key_first wrote:
| If it's political, there's a good chance it gets flagged.
| The problem is pretty much everything is political when
| you have a government that sticks it's grubby little
| fingers where it shouldn't.
| kgwxd wrote:
| From what I've seen, they let the important stuff stay.
| just use reddit for the rest. i'd rather it be more
| focused here.
| immibis wrote:
| Reddit is even worse at this.
| mdhb wrote:
| Have you actually ever browsed the secret "active" page
| where you can see what people are actually voting for
| without the mods putting their thumbs on the scale? It's
| constantly filled with dead posts because someone said
| something that was vaguely unflattering towards Israel,
| venture capital, capitalism in general, the United States
| or Apple. Literally happens dozens of times every single
| day.
| dang wrote:
| It's hardly secret--it's on the /lists page which is
| referenced in the footer of every page on HN.
|
| It simply isn't the frontpage, for reasons that ought to
| be obvious to anyone who has read
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. How you
| guys turn this into sinister suppression continues to
| escape me.
|
| Edit: perhaps this will help:
|
| _HN is designed to downweight sensational-indignant
| stories, internet dramas, and riler-uppers, for the
| obvious reason that if we didn 't, then they would
| dominate HN's frontpage like they dominate the rest of
| the internet. Anyone who spends time here (or has read
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) knows
| that this is not what the site is for. The vast majority
| of HN readers like HN for just this reason. It is not
| some arbitrary switch that we could just flip, if only we
| would stop being censoriously sinister. It's essential to
| the operation of the site._
|
| (copied from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46366656)
| mdhb wrote:
| The level of discrepancy between the rules as they are
| written and how things work in reality is miles apart.
| Every day.
|
| Edit: since I can't reply because my account was
| throttled for "posting too past" with a whopping 5
| comments in the last 24 hours. Allow me to paste it
| here...
|
| It would probably help if I were to bring a bit more
| specificity to my accusations here so we aren't just
| talking about an abstract concept.
|
| I'm making the claim:
|
| 1. The active page (what people are actually engaging
| with) and the front page (mods choice) regularly are
| regularly out of sync not just in general but in very
| specific and consistent ways.
|
| 2. There is a small group of people who intentionally use
| the flagging functionality in ways that have absolutely
| zero to do with the rules as they are written. People are
| incredibly open about this on a regular basis.
|
| 3. We are left with a de facto situation where that same
| small group are able to effectively censor what the rest
| of the community is allowed to talk about.
|
| 4. The moderation team seems to operate on the idea that
| everyone is just acting in good faith despite evidence to
| the contrary.
|
| 5. When the discrepancies between the rules as they are
| written and how things work in reality occur they are
| very rarely corrected by the moderation team and I don't
| know what other conclusion to draw other than you seem to
| think that things are going great as they are and there's
| no need to change anything.
|
| 6. You say the active page isn't a secret but people are
| always saying they had no idea it existed. Surely you
| have some actual hard analytics numbers to show what
| percentage of logged in users visit the active page? I
| presume it's in the single digits percentage wise but I'm
| open to being told otherwise.
| dang wrote:
| That's inevitable, because consistency is impossible: htt
| ps://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que
| .... How to interpret the inconsistency is a different
| question, of course. I'm curious what you see that seems
| most discrepant to you?
|
| The closest I can give to an account of "how things work
| in reality" is the 80,000+ moderation comments I've
| posted over the last 10+ years: https://hn.algolia.com/?q
| uery=by:dang&type=comment&dateRange.... You're free to
| decide it's all lies, of course, but if you (or anyone)
| randomly scroll back through that feed, I doubt you'll
| find much that's miles apart from the rules as they are
| written. As a matter of fact I'd be surprised if you
| found _anything_ that could be fairly be described that
| way, because trying to apply the rules as they are
| written is a matter of integrity for us. If it weren 't,
| we'd change the rules until it were.
| mdhb wrote:
| I had to rely inline above because of some questionable
| circumstances but not here to debate that part at all.
|
| But on the topic of this active page I do find it rather
| poetic that in this exact thread we have people asking
| what is this page they've never heard of.
|
| When I call it secret, I don't mean it's necessarily a
| coverup or something I mean that nobody seems to know
| that it exists or that the front page doesn't actually
| represent what people vote for.
| dang wrote:
| You might want to use a more accurate word like 'obscure'
| in that case.
|
| At this point I'm not sure what you're accusing us of,
| other than HN not being a different kind of site. The
| mandate of this place is clear
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html), and
| it simply isn't primarily to feature
| political/sensational/outrage stories. That's the root
| issue. The mechanics of voting, flagging, etc., are in
| service of that.
|
| From my perspective, you're arguing for a health food
| store to devote its shelf space to chocolates and
| pastries. Or, if you prefer the other way round, for a
| confectionery to devote itself to turnips.
| mdhb wrote:
| I don't think that actually engages with literally any of
| the points I've made but sure, I wasn't expecting
| anything else. Like I said earlier it seems from where
| you're sitting everything is going great and there's
| nothing to answer for.
|
| I was hoping however you could at least shine some light
| on the active page question... what percentage of users
| actually visit in on any given day? We can play semantic
| games about secret vs obscure but it's not a debate about
| semantics.
| dang wrote:
| If you knew how bad HN regularly makes me feel, you would
| be attributing very different sentiments than those.
|
| The point isn't that HN is perfect or even very good.
| It's that your objections are ignoring what the site is
| for. Improving the site means making it better fulfill
| its mandate, but you're not arguing from that place at
| all, and in fact are (implicitly) arguing that we rip out
| that mandate and replace it with a different one.
|
| I haven't looked up the number of users who visit the
| /active page because I don't accept the premise of your
| question. Of course fewer users look at it than the
| frontpage; otherwise it would _be_ the frontpage. This is
| just another variation of the mandate argument.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| I had never really looked at the /lists page, which one
| is the one that you were thinking is secret actives page,
| best or probably active?
| bmacho wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/active
| chakintosh wrote:
| Lemmy.zip
| root_axis wrote:
| > _Also, any recommendations for a news site that doesn 't
| suppress news_
|
| No such thing.
| rubyfan wrote:
| The timing of this might lead one to believe Paramount's hostile
| takeover bid for Warner Brothers Discovery is a consideration in
| their editorial decisions. They and their competitor (Netflix)
| need regulatory approval for such a merger and the administration
| has already inserted itself into the deal.
| pavlov wrote:
| It goes deeper. The Ellisons want to replace Murdoch as the
| state media for Republican administrations.
| smt88 wrote:
| I'm sympathetic to this idea but Larry Ellison will likely be
| dead in under 10 years and David Ellison has only ever been a
| Democrat.
|
| It seems more plausible that David Ellison will bend in
| whatever direction the wind is blowing.
| xoa wrote:
| Hard to imagine that's the a core part of it, and pretty
| naturally in America the clear ongoing and unprecedented (in
| modern times anyway) corruption on that front is the focus. But
| it probably doesn't hurt that she appears to just be a really
| big fan of that particular dictator and torture prison
| specifically. Earlier this year her site "the Free Press" was
| all over them [0]:
|
| >"The hottest campaign stop is this Salvadoran supermax: House
| Republican Riley Moore went to the super maximum security
| prison in El Salvador to take some photos in front of the
| inmates. "I just toured the CECOT prison in El Salvador," he
| writes, with pictures of him giving a thumbs-up, shirtless
| inmates standing at attention behind him. Moore gave a double
| thumbs-up in front of the men, densely packed in their cold
| metal bunk. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem took the
| same tour recently, posting a fun video in front of caged,
| tatted men."
|
| >"After Bukele left the White House, he thirstily tweeted, "I
| miss you already, President T." Trump returned the favor,
| learning to say MAGA in Spanish: "!America grande, otra vez!""
|
| Etc. And she's been very positive on Bukele personally as well.
| Might be multiple reasons she'd gleefully want to spike such a
| story even if the commands of her owners take precedent.
|
| Edit: whew, this one sure triggered the technofeudalists and
| Baristans! From 3 to -3 for her own publication's and her
| statements.
|
| ----
|
| 0: https://archive.md/dcPkJ
| huhkerrf wrote:
| I'm not sure how you can read that and think it is speaking
| favorably about the prison.
|
| Here are some parts you left out:
|
| > The El Salvador supermax prison is becoming the new Ohio
| Diner. It's the new Iowa State Fair. It's the new Jeffrey
| Epstein jet: It's where every political leader needs to
| visit, the place to see and be seen if you're ambitious and
| in politics today.
|
| > They agreed that there was nothing to be done about the
| mistakenly deported Maryland man, now in Salvadoran custody.
| Two leaders of two great countries simply cannot find that
| one random wrongly deported man, and everyone should move
| along (I'm assuming that means he's dead, right?).
| kardianos wrote:
| Bari Weiss had editorial comments that forced a delay. If you
| want to read her comments, look for them:
|
| https://x.com/thesimonetti/status/2003142908854313225
|
| They seem reasonable. The person doing this 60 minute segment has
| also pushed false stories in the past, which make her concern
| more relevant.
| runako wrote:
| The arguments are nonsense. A summary is Weiss wants to make a
| case for the administration, which already has the largest
| platform in the world. If the administration wants to make a
| case for itself, it has (and has had) ample time to do so. As
| it stands, there is already a lengthy paper trail of arguments
| the administration has made in court. These arguments should
| take precedence over throwaway statements an admin rep might
| make to a news program.
|
| Briefly, on a couple of them:
|
| - "We then say that only 8 of the 252 have been sentenced in
| America for violent offenses. But what about charged?" In the
| US, those people are known as "innocent," whether or not Weiss
| likes that fact.
|
| - Holding a story until the administration is willing to go on
| record is exactly the same as giving the administration a veto
| over a story. We would not have adversarial journalism under
| these circumstances.
|
| - "The admin has argued in court that detainees are due
| "judicial review" --and we should explain this" These men were
| sent for indefinite detention to a concentration camp outside
| the US borders, and then the administration argued in court
| that it could not affect any change in their status. This
| argument from Weiss is transparently false.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Reasonable? They ALL boil down to "we need to get official
| comments, rationale and explanations from the administration".
| They refused to comment on the story, so you wait because if
| they CHOOSE not to participate you don't get to publish? That's
| never been how reporting works. Her comments about a lack of
| detail regarding the criminal records & charges? The
| administration is the party that refuses to share this! They
| are not even forthcoming with WHO EXACTLY has been deported.
|
| Bari Weiss bending over backwards to accomodate an
| administration that has never shown any sort of honesty or
| humanity is exactly why she was rewarded so handsomely. "They
| seem reasonable" is not even remotely close, when comparing
| "evidence-based truth" reporting with the president's "I speak
| the truth".
| afavour wrote:
| They aren't reasonable.
|
| If you wait for the administration to comment on a story before
| you publish it you're effectively giving them the right to veto
| it. You ask, give them a deadline. If they don't respond or say
| no comment (as they did in this case) then you publish.
|
| > The person doing this 60 minute segment has also pushed false
| stories in the past
|
| You're going to need to elaborate on that. If it were true why
| wouldn't Weiss just fire them?
| pjc50 wrote:
| > The person doing this 60 minute segment has also pushed false
| stories
|
| [citation needed]
| umanwizard wrote:
| Bari Weiss is not a stupid person. She knows she can't just
| openly say "I killed this because it's critical to Trump"; she
| has to come up with some plausible fig leaf, which is what
| you're posting here.
| sans_souse wrote:
| Direct Download link if anyone needs it is
| https://archive.org/download/insidececot/60minutesCECOTsegme...
| paulvnickerson wrote:
| Here's why Bari Weiss delayed the story:
|
| Hi all,
|
| I'm writing with specific guidance on what I'd like for us to do
| to advance the CECOT story. I know you'd all like to see this run
| as soon as possible; I feel the same way. But if we run the piece
| as is, we'd be doing our viewers a disservice.
|
| Last month many outlets, most notably The New York Times, exposed
| the horrific conditions at CECOT. Our story presents more of
| these powerful testimonies--and putting those accounts into the
| public record is valuable in and of itself. But if we're going to
| run another story about a topic that has by now been much-covered
| we need to advance it. Among the ways to do so: does anyone in
| the administration or anyone prominent who defended the use of
| the Alien Enemies Act now regret it in light of what these
| Venezuelans endured at CECOT? That's a question I'd like to see
| asked and answered.
|
| - At present, we do not present the administration's argument for
| why it sent 252 Venezuelans to CECOT. What we have is Karoline
| Leavitt's soundbite claiming they are evildoers in America
| (rapists, murderers, etc.). But isn't there much more to ask in
| light of the torture that we are revealing? Tom Homan and Stephen
| Miller don't tend to be shy. I realize we've emailed the DHS
| spox, but we need to push much harder to get these principals on
| the record.
|
| - The data we present paints an incongruent picture. Of the 252
| Venezuelans sent to CECOT, we say nearly half have no criminal
| histories. In other words, more than half do have criminal
| histories. We should spend a beat explaining this. We then say
| that only 8 of the 252 have been sentenced in America for violent
| offenses. But what about charged? My point is that we should
| include as much as we can possibly know and understand about
| these individuals.
|
| - Secretary Noem's trip to CECOT. We report that she took
| pictures and video there with MS-13 gang members, not TdA
| members, with no comment from her or her staff about what her
| goal on that trip was, or what she saw there, or if she had or
| has concerns about the treatment of detainees like the ones in
| our piece. I also think that the ensuing analysis from the
| Berkeley students is strange. The pictures are alarming; we
| should include them. But what does the analysis add?
|
| - We need to do a better job of explaining the legal rationale by
| which the administration detained and deported these 252
| Venezuelans to CECOT. It's not as simple as Trump invoking the
| Alien Enemies Act and being able to deport them immediately. And
| that isn't the administration's argument. The admin has argued in
| court that detainees are due "judicial review"--and we should
| explain this, with a voice arguing that Trump is exceeding his
| authority under the relevant statute, and another arguing that
| he's operating within the bounds of his authority. There's a
| genuine debate here. If we cut down Kristi Noem analysis we'd
| have the time.
|
| My general view here is that we do our viewers the best service
| by presenting them with the full context they need to assess the
| story. In other words, I believe we need to do more reporting
| here.
|
| I am eager and available to help. I tracked down cell numbers for
| Homan and Miller and sent those along. Please let me know how I
| can support you.
|
| Yours,
|
| Bari
| estearum wrote:
| TLDR:
|
| Bari thinks the government should be able to quash any story it
| wants by simply refusing to "present the administration's
| argument."
| stvltvs wrote:
| Exactly. You give people a reasonable chance to comment, but
| you can't let them veto your story if they decline. That
| would be a naive way to be fair and balanced.
| afavour wrote:
| Here are the _excuses_ Bari Weiss gave to _bury_ the story.
|
| The reporters reached out to the govt for comment. They chose
| not to respond. If you insist on holding off publishing until
| you have a comment you've just given the government the ability
| to block the story by endlessly delaying comment.
|
| More broadly the problem here is simply that Weiss has no
| legitimate authority to make calls like this. She's never
| worked as a reporter. The 60 Minutes staff have decades of
| reporting experience. The only reason she has the job is
| because a billionaire who is trying to curry favor with the
| administration installed her there. That context hangs over
| every decision she makes.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > The reporters reached out to the govt for comment. They
| chose not to respond.
|
| According to the video itself (just finished watching it),
| that's not true. US officials did respond, telling them to
| ask El Salvador officials instead, so basically redirecting,
| rather than "no response". If that's worse or not I guess is
| left as an exercise to the reader.
| evan_ wrote:
| The whole thing is poorly-conceived and obviously false but I
| just have to call this out-
|
| > Of the 252 Venezuelans sent to CECOT, we say nearly half have
| no criminal histories. In other words, more than half do have
| criminal histories. We should spend a beat explaining this.
|
| The story isn't that people found guilty of crimes went to
| jail, the story is that half weren't even charged with crimes!
| That's the whole point of the story! We should not be aiming
| for a balanced diet of criminals and not-criminals in our
| government-sponsored foreign death camps!
|
| The fact that they exist at all is an affront to humanity, but
| to say "it's OK because a slim majority _deserve_ it "- I just
| don't know what to say.
|
| > We then say that only 8 of the 252 have been sentenced in
| America for violent offenses. But what about charged?
|
| What about charged? What does charged with a crime have to do
| with anything? Why bring that up at all? Do we send people to
| prison because they were charged with a crime? Is Bari Weiss a
| newborn baby who has never heard about the presumption of
| innocence?
|
| I feel sick.
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| It's not just that, it's that the administration _knew_ they
| weren't guilty of any crimes and sent them to be tortured
| anyway.
|
| If you can stomach it, propublica has been covering stories
| like this since the summer [1].
|
| Meanwhile, the MS13 has been cutting sweetheart deals with
| Bukele [2] and we have been releasing actual gang members for
| the privilege of sending innocent people to the torture
| facilities [3, 4], even in the face of reports of USAID being
| diverted to the gang for a money-for-votes scheme for Bukele
| [5].
|
| [1]https://www.propublica.org/article/venezuelan-men-cecot-
| inte...
|
| [2]https://www.propublica.org/article/ambassador-ronald-
| johnson...
|
| [3]https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-
| releases/ran...
|
| [4]https://www.npr.org/2025/10/21/nx-s1-5580555/why-the-
| state-d...
|
| [5]https://www.propublica.org/article/bukele-trump-el-
| salvador-...
| tastyface wrote:
| And Bukele joked about it on TV, even as he knew these
| innocent men were being beaten, raped, and tortured.
| p_j_w wrote:
| Her own excuse is either a complete lie or betrays the fact
| that she doesn't understand the story. I invite her
| apologists here to choose which interpretation they prefer.
| hluska wrote:
| I'm into the full meal deal theory. Her own excuse is a
| complete lie, she doesn't understand the story and somehow
| doesn't even understand journalism. In this case, 60
| Minutes asked the White House for comment and they refused.
| If a party to a story can kill the story by not being
| involved, that's not journalism it's PR.
| vkou wrote:
| People who don't understand the press don't get
| handpicked to run the press by the billionaires who own
| it.
|
| She understands that she's full of shit, and she's paid
| to be full of shit. The Ellisons aren't spending billions
| of dollars on this because they want _you_ to be well-
| informed.
| mindslight wrote:
| It's worth highlighting that continually driving focus onto a
| few spectacular examples of criminal histories is exactly how
| this regime has been justifying its actions.
| qingcharles wrote:
| We do unfortunately send people to long times in jail
| (sometimes over a decade) before their cases come to trial in
| the USA. And jails in the USA generally have vastly worse
| conditions than prisons (as they are "short term"
| facilities).
|
| CECOT is a whole different beast altogether, though :(
| michaelmrose wrote:
| You have to waive your right to a speedy trial. You cannot
| be held for years without trial
| qingcharles wrote:
| Sure, that's true. Let's say you file a motion, though.
| Say the cops beat a false confession out of you. You file
| a motion to suppress. Now you've stopped the speedy trial
| clock for a year, maybe two, while the motion is
| responded to, witnesses and discovery are sought,
| hearings are had, etc. You're stuck in jail that whole
| time.
| throwforfeds wrote:
| Yes, but it does happen a lot. The case of Kalief Browder
| was one of the reasons for all the reforms around bail.
| [1][2]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
|
| [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/nyregion/kalief-
| browder-c...
| AngryData wrote:
| Just like in theory the cops can't steal your stuff. But
| in reality there are more than enough ways around such
| little restrictions unless you are backed up by an
| expensive and powerful legal team.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Just fyi, this is from 2021, not could, but did, some up
| until the day they were pardoned never had a trial.
|
| https://www.newsweek.com/accused-capitol-rioters-could-
| spend...
|
| Or, does this not count for ideological reasons? There
| are at least some people out there that may be consistent
| despite tribalism, I suppose.
| kagakuninja wrote:
| I was a jurist on a murder trial. The defendant had spent
| 1.5 years in jail awaiting his trial. Then went back to
| jail after the hung jury did not deliver a verdict.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Even the people who _were_ convicted of crimes don 't deserve
| this. There's this sick belief in parts of society that
| criminals (which becomes a permanent state of being) are
| valid targets for unlimited suffering.
|
| People should not be sent to torture camps where they have no
| hope of every leaving for the rest of their lives for
| committing crimes.
| germandiago wrote:
| I would ask you if you know the case El Salvador in enough
| detail.
|
| If Bukele had not reached power, innocents would still be
| killed and dying in the streets.
|
| They gangs were extorting business systematically, if you
| sold outside of your place they would kill you. You had to
| ask for permission to enter and leave your colonia to the
| gangs.
|
| If a gang pointed at your sister and said "at 18:00 at my
| place" she'd better go or you do not know what would happen
| next, including revenge to relatives. I mean, yes, raping,
| and yes, killing.
|
| None of these things I said are made up. There are lots of
| cases.
|
| It is very easy to talk in the abstract but there is a
| reason why Bukele gets massively voted.
|
| Nothing is perfect but before the exception state the gangs
| killed almost 80 people in a weekend to show Bukele who
| they were. Random innocent people.
|
| No, El Salvador, unfortunately, did not have an option.
|
| It will take one generation to make it a permanently safe
| place at least. In 30 years almost 80,000 people were
| killed in the streets.
|
| It was a real horror. That is why Salvadoreans support
| Bukele. I think it os easy to complain from far but one
| must be there to really understand it.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I understand your argument, but the problem with Bukele
| is that he is a bad human being, too. A gang leader with
| slightly less proclivity for torture and rape than the
| other gangs.
|
| He knows that he has many innocent people locked up in
| those jails. He knows that his deal with Trump is immoral
| and unnecessary for the safety of El Salvador, but does
| it anyway. His social media savvy relishes in his
| authoritarianism, rather than explains it.
|
| Unfortunately, the dire situation you describe is how
| Authoritarians gain power: desperate populations
| struggling for multiple years with widespread societal
| problems that government has seemed too inept or corrupt
| to fix. 1930s Germany, 2020s Trump, El Salvador.
| kacesensitive wrote:
| bringing down the murder rate doesn't excuse the torture
| of innocent people (or anyone for that matter)
| estearum wrote:
| Sooooo... why are we sending people there?
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Maybe someday you'll have a chance to torture me to
| death.
| jama211 wrote:
| Well said, absolutely ridiculous framing keeps happening and
| you kept it grounded.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| > The fact that they exist at all is an affront to humanity,
| but to say "it's OK because a slim majority deserve it"- I
| just don't know what to say.
|
| I think you don't understand MAGA mentality. Honestly, that's
| probably a good thing, but understanding MAGA would help
| understanding this whole situation.
| evan_ wrote:
| That's why I don't know what to say.
| kenjackson wrote:
| This is an embarrassing response.
|
| You don't hold a story because you want to push the government
| harder to respond, especially when you have the executive's
| official spokesperson giving a reason on the record already.
|
| And what does she mean that we should spend a beat explaining
| that half do have criminal histories? She wants them to give a
| cookie for that? And why is being charged relevant? You don't
| send someone to prison for life for being charged.
|
| Lastly she misstates the administrations legal justification
| for deportation. She doesn't appear to be an unbiased actor
| here.
|
| The fact she sent that out publicly is a good indication of how
| prejudiced she will be with editorial content.
|
| You had a good run 60 Minutes.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > And why is being charged relevant? You don't send someone
| to prison for life for being charged.
|
| Yup. I was charged with a felony of which I was materially
| innocent.
|
| But this is the right's spin on things, the "well even if you
| weren't found guilty, there was enough of an issue to arrest
| you and charge you".
|
| I was watching a Zoom meeting of one of our local Superior
| Court hearings - was a motion to revoke or modify bail
| conditions.
|
| The Judge actually rebuked the prosecutor, who had tried to
| explain why the motion should go their way. "Blah blah, in
| addition, the defendant has shown no signs of remorse or
| regret for the situation..."
|
| Judge: "I'm going to stop you there. The defendant pled not
| guilty and at this moment no verdict has been determined. In
| the eyes of the law and this court, they have zero obligation
| or requirement to show remorse or regret for their _alleged_
| actions. "
| fumeux_fume wrote:
| Bari wisely points out that if the deportees are being
| tortured, then there must be a secretly good reason why if they
| dig a little deeper. Suggests asking Stephen Miller.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Thanks for posting.
|
| For those not familiar: there were five screenings in the prior
| week that journalists attended to discuss it. She was aware of
| those and did not attend.
|
| When she did look at it, her feedback was minor, and they made
| adjustments.
|
| Then she killed it a day after her delayed feedback, on the
| weekend it was to air.
|
| That context, combined with the response above, is telling.
|
| She is at absolute best, entirely unfit and amateur for this
| role combined with dangerous arrogance.
|
| More likely, she is the malevolent puppet of a billionaire ally
| of the current corrupt administration.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Having watched the documentary yesterday, the questions Bari
| raises are suitable for a follow-up. There is nothing wrong
| with the piece as it stands.
| saubeidl wrote:
| See also: _Gleichschaltung_.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| This seems dishonest, she couldn't possibly think the
| administration is going to share more useful information here,
| and if they did it would have no value. These people were
| illegally sent to life in prison at a brutal torture camp with
| no charges or trial, at the expense of US taxpayers. There is
| no possible excuse or rationale that would make it anything but
| extremely illegal and unethical, and a betrayal of all of the
| values our country purports to stand for. It doesn't matter
| what crimes someone is accused of or not.
| sgnelson wrote:
| A CYA letter full of illogical rationalization.
| opello wrote:
| > The pictures are alarming; we should include them. But what
| does the analysis add?
|
| The analysis shows another way in which the government is
| trying to be secretive about how it's treating people that were
| within its borders and subject to its laws and protections. I
| can only hope someone pointed this out because the question
| suggests a baffling level of ignorance despite the message
| overall sounding like some reasonable feedback on the story,
| despite coming far too late in the process to be considered
| reasonable.
| wildzzz wrote:
| Basically saying that because the administration isn't
| cooperating with judicial reviews or even bothering to comment
| (let alone display a difference in opinions), the story should
| be shelved. So as long as the government is united in its
| desire to commit horrible acts and stall justice, I guess we
| shouldn't bother reporting them? Not sure where the logic is
| there. And I guess since it's possible some bad apples exist,
| then we should just take the word of the government that
| everyone there is a gang member? I wouldn't ever call 60
| Minutes cutting edge journalism, it's quality for sure but they
| are never the first on the scene. Who cares if other media
| companies have covered CECOT? 60 Minutes got first hand
| interviews with detainees that have good backgrounds. That's
| important, it lets viewers empathize with "good" immigrants
| just trying to create a better life for their families. This
| letter is weak.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Basically saying that because the administration isn't
| cooperating with judicial reviews or even bothering to
| comment (let alone display a difference in opinions), the
| story should be shelved.
|
| Which is ironic, considering the actual video that Canadian
| broadcasters manage to send, it ends with basically "We
| requested a comment from US officials, but they referred us
| to speak with El Salvador instead", so even the finish video
| that got broadcast, acknowledges this basic fact that you
| need to carry on even if both sides don't want to be
| interviewed on camera.
| jimt1234 wrote:
| Honestly, the argument that CBS buried the piece to protect
| Trump is difficult to accept because, well, watching brown
| people being treated like shit or even tortured is MAGA porn.
| Innocence or guilt is meaningless - Dear Leader said they're
| all enemies!
|
| All the MAGAs I know on Facebook are posting about how the
| video is great ("It's about time someone does something!"), so
| I would think Trump would _want_ the piece to air.
| ajross wrote:
| That explanation is days late, though. It's attested that she
| didn't even take a call from the episode producer before
| killing it. I mean, sure, if you put a bunch of people in a
| room and ask them to retcon a reasonable-sounding explanation
| for why you did something embarassing, you can do it! The world
| is a complicated place.
|
| It's _abundantly_ clear why she spiked it. I know it. You know
| it. We all know it. She was brought in as a clearly partisan
| voice to put exactly this finger on exactly these levers at
| CBS. We all saw it when she was hired and we all warned about
| this. And she did.
|
| I mean, why bother stenographising the excuse? No one is
| fooled. "Partisan hack does partisan hackery" is like the least
| surprising line in this story.
| reubenswartz wrote:
| > Here's why Bari Weiss delayed the story:
|
| That is not accurate. It's her excuse for spiking the story.
| SilverElfin wrote:
| This isn't the real "why". Holding the release back is a
| political decision. Why hold the story specially? Why not just
| issue any corrections later? It's already gone through the same
| approval process other stories would. The choice to do
| something different here and treat Trump-damaging stories
| differently is by definition, biased.
|
| To me, Bari's response is a manufactured cover up. I've
| followed Bari for years and seen the progression from someone
| who was a balanced moderate to someone who is slowly developing
| a strong bias and letting the mask off a little bit at a time.
| The recent Turning Point townhall was the first big revelation
| of her bias to the public. But as someone who subscribed to her
| for years, I've seen the progression over time. And the
| language in here feels less like her usual journalism and more
| like something carefully put together to deflect.
|
| As for the actual reason - here is what was shared by
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Stelter
|
| https://x.com/brianstelter/status/2002943384499925159
| pwthornton wrote:
| Fascinating how this got leaked. A TV station in Canada
| accidentally ran the original episode version, implying that this
| was pulled super late and the episode was completely in the can.
| stvltvs wrote:
| Was it an accident?
| dripdry45 wrote:
| Narrator: It wasn't
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Probably as accidental as the people doing the censorship of
| the latest Epstein files released today that had "accidents"
| about how they censured stuff.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| It was completely finished. There's an article out today that
| says the main reporter on the story complained that the censor
| Bari Weiss had not bothered to appear at the previous five
| earlier screenings and reviews by the editorial team.
| czottmann wrote:
| Here's the magnet URL to the torrent, can't hurt:
| magnet:?xt=urn:btih:734abc77f48d11c78543c52004b6f57db71d6d92&dn=6
| 0minutes-cecotsegment&xl=1483256352&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt1.archive.o
| rg%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt2.archive.org%3A6969%2Fann
| ounce&ws=http://ia601703.us.archive.org/32/items/&ws=http://ia801
| 703.us.archive.org/32/items/&ws=https://archive.org/download/
| anonym29 wrote:
| I believe information wants to be free, and should be free, even
| when I don't unanimously agree with the information, so I will
| start by re-sharing the torrent magnet link for the video, which
| I am also seeding right now, and will continue to do so until at
| least a full month passes with zero activity: mag
| net:?xt=urn:btih:734abc77f48d11c78543c52004b6f57db71d6d92&dn=60mi
| nutes-cecotsegment&xl=1483256352&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt1.archive.org%
| 3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt2.archive.org%3A6969%2Fannoun
| ce&ws=http://ia601703.us.archive.org/32/items/&ws=http://ia801703
| .us.archive.org/32/items/&ws=https://archive.org/download/
|
| That said, there seems to be lots of conspiracy-adjacent talk in
| here. Has anyone considered the impact of the previous Trump
| lawsuit against CBS over the Kamala Harris edits, or the Trump-
| BBC lawsuit, whereby CBS made a business risk decision to avoid a
| story that might have some individual aspects of questionable
| factual accuracy that could come back to bite CBS in a courtroom,
| like how BBC's selective edits of Trump came back to bite them?
| Paramount/CBS settled Trump's lawsuit over the Kamala Harris "60
| Minutes" edit for $16 million in July. BBC is getting sued for
| $10 billion. It's not economically irrational for an organization
| that has already settled lawsuits for selective presentation of
| political information in the past to be more worried about $10b
| lawsuits than $16m lawsuits.
| Alive-in-2025 wrote:
| Resisting these economic threats, these lawsuits, is something
| that major media needs to do, otherwise they just get
| compromised step by step by the wealthy oligarchs.
| kenjackson wrote:
| Ironically, this might end up being more widely watched now
| (Streisand). I've seen multiple people on my Facebook link to
| different sources hosting the video. People who never would've
| heard about the story are now watching it through the lens of
| Trump and CBS trying to kill the story.
| cmxch wrote:
| But who will believe it? Or just mass report it off the
| platform?
| burkaman wrote:
| I doubt it, around ten million people watch 60 minutes live
| every week. Maybe that many will hear about the cancellation,
| but I don't think most will then seek out the full segment
| online, even if it's easy to find.
| _moof wrote:
| I didn't even know 60 Minutes is still on the air, but you
| better believe I watched the shit out of this segment.
| _3u10 wrote:
| It's saved so over 15,000 lives and protected the human rights of
| millions of Salvadorans. Truly a great accomplishment.
|
| I'm excited to see what positive coverage CBS has of this great
| development in human rights in El Salvador.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5:
|
| No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
| degrading treatment or punishment.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Don't expect anyone to care about that angle. Let them virtue
| signal like somehow human right concerns of violent criminals
| is more important then the safety of the entire population of
| el salvador. Safely insulated from the consequences of their
| misplaced humanity of course. To be clear i saw a documentary
| of CECOT and it looks terribly oppressive, but i see no
| evidence of human rights abuses, even though most of the
| inmates there have forfeited theirs through their actions imo.
| manuelmoreale wrote:
| How about caring for both? How about that as an idea? It's
| impossible for you to accept that you can arrest and jail all
| those people to protect the lives of regular citizens but
| also not torture them while they are in jail?
| doganugurlu wrote:
| Sigh... there is no such thing as forfeiting your human
| rights by committing a crime. You only forfeit your freedom
| temporarily.
|
| And why mention that inmates have forfeited their human
| rights if you see no evidence of abuse? Weird thing to pre-
| argue.
| gmd63 wrote:
| Larry Ellison is using his bags to purchase lies and silence.
|
| No economy can be in true equilibrium when the consumers send
| profits to be spent in unforeseen and unrelated ways like this.
| Every purchase carries potentially immense future costs that are
| almost completely opaque.
|
| Free market maximalists need to confront this fact before praying
| at the altar of complete deregulation, and every consumer should
| pay more attention to who they are buying from.
| jaredklewis wrote:
| Sorry what regulation in particular are you thinking about
| here? There's no logical anti-trust angle I can think of.
|
| I mean of course I think the outcome here is bad, but I'm
| struggling to think of a kind of regulation that could have
| prevented it that isn't completely insane.
|
| Edit: Listen everyone, it sucks, but there's no "one weird
| trick" where you can have a congress, judiciary, and executive
| branch dominated by Republicans, that then governs like
| Democrats. This isn't a "regulation" problem. It's a "roughly
| half the country wanted this" problem. Adding more regulations
| is not going to suddenly make the FTC act right; we have
| thousands of regulations already on the books and if they
| wanted to do something, they could.
| tantalor wrote:
| In July 2025, the Ellisons bought CBS (Paramount) through
| Skydance. This was approved by Trump's FTC.
|
| The FTC is responsible for enforcing regulations that would
| prevent mergers that negatively impact the quality of
| services and innovation. They aren't doing their job.
| vunderba wrote:
| Agreed. Let's also not forget that a large part of the
| reason that the Skydance/Paramount merger likely went
| through in the first place was because Paramount paid off
| Trump to the tune of 16 million USD by settling a lawsuit
| in which he alleged deliberate deception during his Kamala
| Harris interview on 60 Minutes.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5290171/trump-
| lawsuit-p...
| jaredklewis wrote:
| What existing regulation are you accusing the FTC of not
| enforcing? Is it illegal for a rich person to buy a
| company? It's not like he's cornering TV news or something.
| He's a minority player by any measurement (revenue,
| viewers, etc..).
|
| Not a fan of Trump, Ellison, or obviously this expose being
| buried, but I am just trying to understand what the FTC did
| wrong.
|
| > The FTC is responsible for enforcing regulations that
| would prevent mergers that negatively impact the quality of
| services and innovation.
|
| I don't think this is the best summary of either the FTC's
| mandate from congress nor the antitrust laws in the US.
|
| But whatever, it just seems like what you want is not more
| regulation (Trump is adding lots of regulation on solar and
| wind, that's good right?), but different regulators.
|
| It sucks, but there's no "one weird trick" where you can
| have a congress, judiciary, and executive branch dominated
| by Republicans, that then makes them governs like
| Democrats. This isn't a "regulation" problem. It's a
| "roughly half the country wanted this" problem.
| tantalor wrote:
| > I don't think this is the best summary of either the
| FTC's mandate from congress nor the antitrust laws in the
| US.
|
| Okay well I basically copy/pasted from ftc.gov:
|
| _The FTC's Bureau of Competition enforces the nation 's
| antitrust laws, which form the foundation of our free
| market economy. The antitrust laws promote the interests
| of consumers; they support unfettered markets and result
| in lower prices and more choices._
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/bureaus-offices/bureau-
| competi...
|
| _The Bureau of Competition is committed to preventing
| mergers and acquisitions that are likely to reduce
| competition and lead to higher prices, lower quality
| goods or services, or less innovation_
|
| https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/merger-review
| burningChrome wrote:
| Were you saying the same thing in 2014 and 2015 too?
|
| _According to data from Thomson Reuters, 2015 is set to be
| the biggest year ever (once the planned deals close) in
| worldwide dealmaking, with $4.7 trillion in announced
| mergers and acquisitions--up 42 percent from 2014, and
| beating the previous record of $4.4 trillion in 2007._
|
| _The year stands out, not just for the total value of the
| deals but for the number of so-called mega-deals, which
| refers to any deal that exceeds $5 billion. Just in the
| last three months, notable mega-deals include AB Inbev's
| acquisition of SABMiller, creating a $104 billion beverage
| company; Pfizer and Allergan's announced a $160 billion
| merger; and the chemical companies DuPont and Dow Chemical
| Company's plans to unite as a $130 billion company. Thomson
| Reuters counted 137 mega-deals last year, which accounted
| for 52 percent of the year's overall M &A value._
| tantalor wrote:
| whataboutism
| maxerickson wrote:
| The whole point of granting limited liability is that it
| enables things that benefit society.
|
| So if something doesn't benefit society, don't extend that
| grant to it.
| ajross wrote:
| Your prior seems to be that the Trump administration is
| operating in good faith and that they would naturally be
| predisposed to allow the merger, being free market
| republicans and all.
|
| That's not the accusation at hand. The contention is that the
| Trump administration is _threatening to block the merger_
| (corruptly, in opposition to their republican proclivities)
| unless the news arm of the merged company is operated in a
| partisan way.
|
| And the evidence for that is that Ellison walked in, threw
| out CBS News's pre-existing leadership, and brought in a
| reasonably-well-known-but-still-not-celebrity-enough-to-be-
| independent partisan republican voice to run it. And now that
| she's there, _she 's clearly operating the news room in a
| partisan way_.
|
| Seems like a pretty convincing theory to me.
| api wrote:
| What's free market about total state regulatory capture,
| calling the President when your bids get rejected, or setting
| up wars and domestic police actions to enrich yourself with
| contracts using taxpayer funds?
|
| There are legitimate criticisms of a pure free market, but this
| is "state capitalism" not a free market.
|
| The Trump administration is absolutely not pro free market.
| They're putting fingers on the scale all over the place, taking
| Federal positions in private companies, taking literal bribes
| for regulatory favors, influencing the selection of executives
| and board members, and using the power of the state to attack
| privately owned companies for platforming speech they don't
| like (like this 60 Minutes segment, made by a private company).
| Trump/MAGA looks a lot more like the CCP than anything else.
|
| Of course if you pay attention to the discourse, MAGA and
| national conservatism are an explicit repudiation of
| Reagan/Clinton "neoliberalism" and "libertarian conservatism."
| They explicitly support a large administrative state that
| centrally plans the economy and culture, just one they run and
| use to push right wing and nationalist agendas.
|
| I remember saying back during the Bush years: if the right is
| forced to choose between liberty and cultural conservatism,
| they will throw out liberty. The right only supports the
| freedom to do what they think people should be doing. (Yes,
| there are similar attitudes in some parts of the left too.
| There are not many principled defenders of individual liberty.)
|
| Edit: I'm really just arguing that we should call things what
| they are. Calling MAGA's CCP-like state capitalism a free
| market is like calling Bernie Sanders or Mamdani communism
| (they're socialists, not communists, these are not the same) or
| calling old school conservative republicans fascists. Words
| mean things.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| I think you're missing the implied cause and effect here.
| Lighthanded regulations allow for ridiculous amounts of
| wealth to be acquired in the U.S. Larry Ellison, Elon Musk,
| etc. are so unfathomably rich (and therefore powerful), they
| can now trivially bend government to their will.
| api wrote:
| I don't entirely disagree, but also note that the _extreme_
| wealth of both these guys is at least partly a result of
| state spending not pure private market forces.
|
| Oracle has always had a huge presence in government. Large
| companies too, but Federal use has really helped keep them
| afloat as open source and competing products that are far
| cheaper have eaten their lunch.
|
| For Musk the case is even more extreme. Tesla's early
| growth was bankrolled by EV credits and carbon offsets,
| which were state programs, and SpaceX is a result of both
| Federal funding and direct R&D transfer from NASA to
| SpaceX. The latter was mostly uncompensated. NASA just
| handed over decades of publicly funded R&D.
|
| These two would probably be rich without the state, but
| would they be this rich?
|
| The same was true back in the original Gilded Age. The
| "robber barons" were built by railroad and other
| infrastructure subsidies.
|
| However I do agree that private wealth beyond a certain
| point begins to pose a risk to democracy and the rule of
| law. It's a major weakness in libertarian schemes that call
| for a "separation of economy and state." That's a much,
| much harder wall to maintain than separation of church and
| state. Enough money can buy politicians and elections.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| Let's remember: Musk _bought_ Tesla. He was already
| ridiculously wealthy in order to get himself into this
| position of basically robbing the U.S. government.
| api wrote:
| This is true but he was nowhere near as wealthy as he is
| now, not even close.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| Of course. That was also my point, as I think it is
| yours. There is an event horizon after which an
| individual can corrupt government and really accelerate
| their wealth accumulation even faster.
| raw_anon_1111 wrote:
| As much as I don't like Musk and think Tesla is
| overvalued meme stock and the cars suck compared to other
| EVs (I have driven a lot of EVs during the year that we
| went without a car on purpose - long story), SpaceX did
| something that the government couldn't do - have a lot of
| failures before it had a success. Politics wouldn't let
| it happen.
| hypeatei wrote:
| Peel it back even more: how does any State not fall victim
| to monied interests? This is usually handwaved away by
| socalists in the sense that everything is handled by
| "independent commissions" that can totally not be
| corrupted.
|
| The solution is really to keep the scope of government
| small so that any corruption isn't detrimental to the
| populace, and they can handle it in the next election.
| ModernMech wrote:
| That's not a solution, that just removes an opponent of
| monied interests from the table entirely, it's exactly
| what they want. The only thing these people want more
| than a government they can capture is a government so
| small they can replace it entirely.
| dpark wrote:
| > The solution is really to keep the scope of government
| small
|
| Of course. Politically active billionaires are always
| famously lobbying for large government and more
| regulations.
| nielsbot wrote:
| Small government leads to big capitalism which is its own
| kind of tyranny. Our current problems are not because
| government is too big.
|
| Powerful regulation which answers to the people is the
| answer.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| Small government goes against the original and deepest
| Capitalist thinkers, who all pushed that strong
| government oversight was a REQUIRED part of Capitalism to
| keep it healthy and in balance.
| the_gastropod wrote:
| Which countries on the planet do you think are the least
| corrupt? What does their system of government look like?
| RajT88 wrote:
| There's a lot of these lists, but it's interesting the
| differences in who tops the list:
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/least-
| cor...
| overfeed wrote:
| > Peel it back even more: how does any State not fall
| victim to monied interests?
|
| Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate), or the CCP
| route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who fly too high).
|
| Edit: if the above are too extreme, another approach
| would be firm and consistent application of anti-
| competitive laws, resurrecting the fairness doctrine, and
| stop pretending that artificial constructs have human
| rights.
| SR2Z wrote:
| > or the CCP route (clip the wings of the Icaruses who
| fly too high).
|
| This seems like a great way for the monied interests from
| WITHIN the party to just take full control.
|
| > Go with either the FDR route (94% tax rate)
|
| The reason why this worked is because FDR oversaw the US
| during a period of incredible change and after the Great
| Depression. It's not like the tax rate was responsible
| for his successes.
| RajT88 wrote:
| That's _a_ solution. Another would be to enshrine in law
| independent watchdog agencies whose goal is to win
| trophies for rooting out corruption, reducing waste,
| preventing or breaking up harmful monopolies, etc.
| jdietrich wrote:
| How valuable are those trophies compared to bribes, or
| the tacit bribes of cushy "consultancy" roles? How do you
| stop lobbyists from gutting those regulators - what use
| is a fiercely independent regulator that has no
| resources?
|
| Good governance is _hard_.
| RajT88 wrote:
| Getting money out of politics is the hardest part.
|
| I am not sure how the US will find the political will
| short of getting burned badly enough for partisans to
| align on reform. How bad does it have to get?
| dpark wrote:
| > win trophies for rooting out corruption
|
| Many a corrupt government has touted their anti-
| corruption activities that inexplicably seem to snare
| almost exclusively their political opponents.
| TFYS wrote:
| That's no solution, since once someone has corrupted said
| small government, the obvious next step is to use the
| influence to increase its size and power.
| Teever wrote:
| But theres a balance to be struck there -- keep the
| government too small and weak and it is susceptible to
| corruptive forces from domestic and foreign enemies
| alike.
|
| So imho it isn't enough to simply keep government 'small'
| --it is also important to keep it the size proportionate
| to other potential threats.
|
| It's also important to keep in mind that size is but one
| dimension and is only being used as a proxy for power
| which is the ultimate factor that matters -- a government
| of one person with control of WMDs can be much more of a
| threat than a large government without WMDs.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| This solution is anti-capitalist.
|
| Capitalism by it's design, and as outlined by it's
| original and deepest thought leaders requires strong and
| decisive government oversight to keep it in check and
| keep it healthy. Being against strong government
| oversight is to be against a working, Capitalist system
| and against traditional Capitalist thought.
| websiteapi wrote:
| Isn't the cause that people just happened to elect someone
| who doesn't care and is corrupt? Are you implying money
| decided the election? How do you reconcile this with the
| fact that trump was outspent?
| steveBK123 wrote:
| The tariffs are at least partially about crony capitalism if
| you look how they have repeatedly played out. Announce big,
| broad, sweeping industry & country level tariffs. Talk to Big
| Tech execs, quietly delay/rescind specific sub-components or
| even companies from said tariffs. Rinse & repeat.
|
| The companies left fully paying tariffs are the ones that
| aren't big enough to have the orange mans ear / "donate" to
| the ballroom construction.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Trump forced the UAE to buy $2 billion of his stable coin
| in order to avoid tariffs. He is making $80 million a year
| farming yields off that. The tariff nonsense was 100% just
| a backdoor for corruption.
|
| Edit: and I forgot he pardoned the binance guy for
| facilitating this corruption too. Trumps pardons are the
| most corrupt in american history but MAGA is still yelling
| about the hunter biden pardon even though Joe was
| absolutely right that trump would maliciously prosecute him
| steveBK123 wrote:
| It's actually a lot of small to midsize manufacturers
| importing subcomponents that are getting hurt in the
| heartland. They can't lobby for exemptions & don't have
| the supplier negotiating power of the megacaps.
| DarknessFalls wrote:
| I've said this before, but Trump's form of tariffs are
| basically a firewall and paying tribute opens specific
| ports and addresses.
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Tariffs are not free market. A true free market would have
| zero tariffs.
| tw04 wrote:
| And it would quickly be destroyed by competing
| governments that don't believe in free markets and
| actively subsidize their industries to capture market
| share.
| vmg12 wrote:
| The US has been largely tariff free since the 1900s and
| it's the largest economy in the world.
| tw04 wrote:
| Remind me where I can buy a Chinese EV?
|
| And I assume there's no government subsidies to allow US
| private sectors to compete globally because free market
| right?
|
| Right?
| vmg12 wrote:
| I forgot to put in my comment "until recently". And the
| US auto industry does such so using that as your argument
| in favor of tariffs doesn't really work.
| ambicapter wrote:
| > There are legitimate criticisms of a pure free market, but
| this is "state capitalism" not a free market.
|
| Yeah, that's what OP said. I hate these sort of comments
| where the poster acts like they vehemently disagree with what
| was said, but then just restate what was said in a slightly
| different way.
| jama211 wrote:
| This should be higher, absolutely right
| SilverElfin wrote:
| The recent defense bill is evidence of this. Who has access
| to these contracts and massive spending increases? Is it any
| random startup that is building a good product? Nope. It's
| the incumbent companies that are big donors and the various
| defense tech companies from the Peter Thiel and Joe Lonsdale
| ecosystem, who are ideologically aligned to the
| administration and support them vocally. Same with the new
| ICE and border agency funding. They're tripling these
| agencies budgets. Who's getting contracts to hire thousands
| of new agents or to build software profiling the millions
| they want to deport in 2026? Their friends like Palantir
| probably.
| lbrito wrote:
| Thanks for sharing. The way things are here, this will soon be
| censored - sorry, I meant flagged - here as well.
| dang wrote:
| Attentive readers will note how often the "this will be
| censored" comments appear in threads that spend many hours on
| HN's frontpage.
| lbrito wrote:
| I get the irony, but its a bit meaningless since we can't
| compare the quantity of these (yet) uncensored posts with
| those that have been taken down, and thus aren't visible.
|
| More importantly, other commentors here have already admitted
| to flagging this entry. The way flagging exists now rewards
| one-sideism and partisan behaviour - all it takes is a
| relatively small group of discontented people to take down a
| story that is otherwise interesting to the vast majority of
| posters. A counter-flag option would balance things.
| dang wrote:
| > _all it takes is a relatively small group of discontented
| people to take down a story that is otherwise interesting
| to the vast majority of posters._
|
| That's not accurate, because if a story is interesting to
| the vast majority of users, it will get lots of upvotes--
| and lots of upvotes is enough to defeat a small number of
| flags. In that sense, we already have the counter-flag
| option you're arguing for.
| wswope wrote:
| What was the ratio of upvotes to flags when this thread
| was taken down last night?
| dang wrote:
| What do you mean by taken down?
| lbrito wrote:
| That's good to know, thank you for the explanation.
|
| Stories don't always get the chance to gather the
| sufficient amount of up votes before being nipped in the
| bud by dissatisfied flaggers though, depending on the
| time of day. Some of them, like
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46357887, clearly
| had great interest here and got a large number of upvotes
| that was, nonetheless, insufficient to prevent the
| flagging.
| dang wrote:
| That's true. Then again, however, if a story is important
| enough to the community, it will get reposted--sometimes
| many times, either with the same URL or a different one.
| It's not so easy as people assume for flags to suppress
| that kind of story.
|
| The submission you linked to
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46357887), however,
| was not that kind of story (i.e. one which the majority
| of users want to see on the frontpage). Rather, it was
| the kind of story that _some_ users want to see on the
| front page, but not the majority of users*.
|
| It's the latter class of story which is more vulnerable
| to flags. That's generally what we want in a flagging
| system, and I think most HN users would agree with that
| in principle (though not of course in specific cases
| where the story is something that one personally finds
| interesting).
|
| This is predictable from its skeleton, btw: "person X
| says provocative thing Y about divisive topic Z" is
| usually not significant new information (https://hn.algol
| ia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...)
| pjdesno wrote:
| Bryan Cantrill, "Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing
| Larry Ellison" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886728
|
| The specific lines about Ellison and a lawnmower start at 38:28
| in the linked video; the entire Oracle rant starts at about
| 34:00.
| nielsbot wrote:
| We shouldn't anthropomorphize any billionaires. They're not
| even people at that point, just destructive aliens who
| undemocratically ruin everyone's good time.
|
| We need confiscatory taxation for a better future.
| smashah wrote:
| The Ellison Cabal represent the primary enemies of freedom
| all over this earth. It's imperative to defeat them.
| jama211 wrote:
| Whilst true, it's important to focus on the worst ones first,
| as with everything there is a scale.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| It's kind of saying we should only focus on the #1 mass-
| murdering dictator in the world, so while many of them are
| actively slaying people, lets just focus on #1 for now.
|
| No, we can have many targets. People who hoard money for
| the benefit of themselves with the detriment of society and
| the population at large are all "destructive aliens who
| undemocratically ruin everyone's good time" to borrow the
| words of parent commentator. If just 10% were slightly less
| evil and egoistic, it would lead to huge improvements, and
| only a slight reduction to their own lifestyles. That they
| don't, is a stain on the legacy of humanity.
| Sindisil wrote:
| Nope.
|
| We need to bring the entire extraction class to heel. They
| are degrading, even destroying, society.
| paulvnickerson wrote:
| Don't tell that to Paul Graham.
| belter wrote:
| Every time I see this video, I feel a strange tenderness for
| the new generations watching it.
|
| They do not really understand how bad Oracle used to be. This
| is us, old combat veterans, sitting by the fire, describing
| unspeakable battles to the youth...knowing full well that they
| think we are exaggerating. :-)
|
| And the most disturbing part is the realization that the
| Frankenstein monster itself, Larry Ellison, is still out there.
| Still roaming free. Still very much alive... An eternal,
| terrifying, lawnmower wielding zombie of enterprise software
| and government corrupting rent extraction.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Much is being made of the revelations of the segment. I didn't
| see any.
|
| Footage of CECOT is widely available as are interviews with
| former inmates. They allege effectively the same thing as what
| was claimed here by the accused TdA member. The Salvadoran
| administration is proud of CECOT and gleefully shows it off,
| including (as was shown in the segment) the solitary confinement
| cells.
|
| There were no secrets revealed, nothing particularly new, and
| most importantly, nothing novel about the case of the accused TdA
| member. HN is acting like this segment revealed particularly
| damaging facts and therefore will be urgently scrubbed, but I'm
| not seeing anything new at all. I think the sentiment that the
| segment will be censored and we all have to run out and seed it
| is a bit hyperbolic. You can't try to hide CECOT's conditions
| when the people who run the prison happily give tours and show
| off what one might think they'd hide (punishment cells, for
| example).
|
| There is no smoking gun, but more importantly there's nothing new
| in the segment that you can't already see in segments on Youtube.
| In fact, 60 Minutes used other people's footage of CECOT, not
| their own. Seed this all you want, but I don't think there's
| going to be a big push to make it go away. It reveals nothing
| that hasn't already been widely seen.
| morkalork wrote:
| The difference is the show's audience and its perceived weight
| and impact. I, a millennial, will watch stuff on youtube and
| already know about what's happening. That's not relevant. This
| is about the boomer generation who watches sixy minutes and
| what they see and perceive.
| lawlessone wrote:
| He's a bad faith actor.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46296733
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| That is extremely rude. I am not posting in bad faith and
| I'd ask you to apologize if I thought you'd do it in a
| meaningful way.
| lawlessone wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45999854
|
| >Look, you asked 'is my life better?' and the answer is
| yes. I haven't seen any of these supposed innocent people
| being deported everyone keeps bringing up.
|
| >That is extremely rude. I am not posting in bad faith
| and I'd ask you to apologize if I thought you'd do it in
| a meaningful way.
|
| I'd never apologize to you, you aren't owed one. You
| might think i'm being rude, but i'm being more polite
| than i'd like to be you.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| Great job, you've driven a(nother) user away from HN.
|
| I used to love this site, but nonsense like this is
| Reddit-tier. You win, goodbye.
| lawlessone wrote:
| >Great job, you've driven a(nother) user away from HN. I
| used to love this site, but nonsense like this is Reddit-
| tier. You win, goodbye.
|
| awesome, you promise?
| ProofHouse wrote:
| It is a total propaganda both ways and if you don't see that,
| you're not looking clearly. Of course it's absolutely
| unacceptable to be sending nonviolent illegal immigrants to a
| terrorist detention center. But then you watch the episode and of
| course 60 minutes decides to spoil it and not do real reporting
| by having an immigration lawyer say they are all nonviolent
| criminals, which is obviously also total bullshit
| beej71 wrote:
| The report did not say they were all non-violent criminals. It
| explicitly said some of them were violent criminals.
| Psillisp wrote:
| "propaganda both ways"
|
| Yuuuuuuup sure is no reason this is happening on archive.org
| and torrent.
|
| Nooooooo reason the story was Epstein Filed.
|
| No reason at all...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Why don't we round up every single person in America then? Many
| are violent criminals afterall! /s
|
| The lack of due process is what's at issue here.
| doganugurlu wrote:
| And some of them are nonviolent legal immigrants.
| postflopclarity wrote:
| everybody involved is evil.
| bparsons wrote:
| No matter what your politics are, this is a pretty dark turn for
| the United States.
| doganugurlu wrote:
| I'd bet $40 that no conservative will agree with that, and $60
| that very few conservatives will agree with that.
| engineer_22 wrote:
| I expected a piece titled "Inside CECOT" to have a part where the
| principal journalist actually goes there.
| bakies wrote:
| Don't think she could
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-23 23:01 UTC)