Hacker News Reader

Comment by orlp | Hacker News Reader

> KABAS: If I understand correctly, some of the 28 people fired were not actually involved in the sit in. Is that right?

> IBRAHEEM: Yeah, this was retaliation, like completely indiscriminate—people who had just walked by just to say hello and maybe talk to us for a little bit. They were fired. People who aren't affiliated with No Tech For Apartheid at all, who just showed up and were interested in what was going on. And then security asked to see their badge and they were among the 28 fired.

So is this a lie?

View on HN

"Lie", "incorrect", and "incomplete information" are very different things. Ibraheem clearly believes this to be true, but that is not the same as it being so.

It would be incumbent on Google to disprove that, imo. There have to be like 8,000 security or phone videos of it, many of them likely on corporate devices.

It would be precisely in Google’s data-gathering wheelhouse to disprove that.

It seems like you are implying it is incorrect or incomplete - do you have any evidence to the contrary or context to add?

I'm not implying anything of the sort. My point is that an unsupported assertion should not be treated as a well-supported truth. All we know right now is what a single person believes.

I am not questioning what Ibraheem believes. I'm saying that statements of fact require support.

Ok, but why question only the "statement of fact" made in response to the "statement of fact" that "they locked themselves in the CTO's office and this is why they were fired?"

Why value a random HN stranger's account over the account of an employee who sacrificed a lucrative career to bring attention to this? Is it perhaps because you ideologically agree with one "statement of fact" over the other? Or is it more self interested?

I think a discourse that runs:

> Assertion one

> Assertion two, claiming assertion one requires asserter two to be a liar

is one that can benefit from being grounded a bit.

On a personal level, I do not believe that the magnitude of a person's sacrifice empowers their beliefs with any particular level of truth, accuracy, or moral imperative. The magnitude of a person's sacrifice is, in my mind, a statement only and strictly on the depths of their conviction and willingness to sacrifice. History is replete with examples of people who have sacrificed much for reasons good, bad, or just plain weird to our eyes.

This person did not bring up the lack of proof for the claim unprompted, they responded to somebody asking about the truth of the statement:

> So is this a lie?

They were responding to this, and my interpretation of what they said is: "It doesn't appear to be a lie, but we do not know if is true, as somebody can be incorrect without lying".

Do you have any evidence that Google's version is incorrect or incomplete? We are just hearing two sides of the story.

There were people who showed up to Washington DC on Jan 6, who were not affiliated with Proud Boys. Who saw the shattered windows and open doors, and decided to go for a stroll through the Capitol building. I think they just showed up and were interested in what was going on too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com