Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlbertCory | Hacker News Reader

Here's a shorthand way of knowing when a bad actor got caught:

They say "taken out of context, leading to our work being mischaracterized" or words very similar.

This statement seems overly broad.

I suspect you would object if someone took your words out of context, for example. Would that therefore mean you are a bad actor?

Salute the simple wisdom. Only that todays media indeed likes clickbaity missquotes taken out of context.

But good actors can also have words/actions taken out of context, no?

To everyone jumping on this: Yes, good actors can have words taken out of context.

FFRefresh had an example of, not so much "taking out of context" as "selective reframing." An entire document or posting pretty much IS "the context." A few words out of a sentence, coupled with writer-provided context, is something entirely different.

I think the giveaway is when they say something is "untrue and taken out of context" without providing any further details. It's kinda like the lawyer's boilerplate statement "the allegations are without merit and we look forward to vigorously defending ourselves in court." It means nothing.

If FB had said "we have robust debate and the leaked documents show ONE opinion, but that doesn't represent what we ultimately decided." then I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it.

Lastly, I've had personal experience with journalists, and most of them really are honorable people. The scum at BuzzFeed or Gawker or CNN who only care about advancing their agenda, rather than reporting the news, are the ones dragging down the reputation of the media.

AlbertCory said recently, regarding a piece on Zuckerberg,

[He] was a "bad actor" who "got caught".

It's funny that trying to mischaractarize you managed to express the exact thing that Albert said.

Thus proving his point

When someone says that a story "took that out of context", we should always ask "what 'context' would lead us to view that differently?"

Or is it just that they don't like the story?

(this is not a personal attack on you, but merely an attempt to use journalistic tactics (such as taking things out of context) with your words to fit meta-narratives that many news consumers like to read.)

The alleged suspect, AlbertCory, has been associated with internet hacking sites (hackernews.com), which feature many posts from Russian sources. On these hacking sites, AlbertCory has boasted about his knowledge of other 'bad actors', rising suspicions amongst the sources we talked to that he is a member of a Russian operative group.

In a likely recent disinformation campaign, AlbertCory sought to discredit vaccine confidence for Americans by claiming "Fauci has done more damage to "science" than any 100 religious authorities ever did."[1]

AlbertCory has not denied the allegations and declined to comment when we reached out to them.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=28856201&goto=threads%...

I don't recall when anyone "reached out" to me for comment.

Perhaps my hypothetical news organization sent you an email minutes before posting the hypothetical article, or we sent an email to an address you were unlikely to use, or we called you at a time we knew you wouldn't pick up? Or maybe it went to spam?

All we know is that we did reach out, and you didn't respond, so we standby the statement in the article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com