Doge 'didn't test' Social Security fraud detection tool at appropriate scale | Hacker News Reader

Doge 'didn't test' Social Security fraud detection tool at appropriate scale

theregister.com

32 pointspseudolus16 comments

Why would they, if they're ideologically opposed to what the social security symbolizes?

Breaking the system with false positives is in their interest. It allows them to demonstrate it's broken, and gives them an excuse to dismantle it.

Because its purpose wasn't to detect fraud it was to disrupt social security payments. Why are any news organizations still presenting their stated motivations in the face of a massive body of evidence demonstrating that they are doing exactly what they mean to.

Du you pay any news organisations to do that? Do you pay any for anything at all?

If you don't pay, your opinion of what they should do does not matter.

The only thing that matters is money. No one should talk about or do anything, or have any opinion, except insofar as they are paid to or pay.

I disagree. But I do think that if you do not pay for your news, you have no standing to complain about its scope or quality.

Paying customers can complain, freeloaders have no standing.

You absolutely have standing because the news affect the people and the world around you. Kind of like how air pollution from a coal plant affects more than just the people buying the energy.

In that case I complain that you personally don't provide the appropriate news coverage. Never mind that nobody pays you to do that work. If you think I've standing to complain about your not doing unpaid work, I complain and you think that's fair — right?

Or if you don't think that's fair, then you ought to explain why someone else has an unpaid duty that you don't have. It can't be just that you think it's their job, because if you have a right to decide what their job is and they/their employers don't have that right, then it would be equally reasonable for me to decide what your job is.

This is a non-sequitur. In the analogy that people who are not paying for a product can be affected by the pollution caused by making that product have standing, does not in any way suggest those people can or should be forced to make pollution themselves. This is what you are suggesting.

I think you're saying "because ① pollution affects bystanders, ② bystanders have standing to complain about pollution, and ③ choosing not to write certain things is like pollution, bystanders also have standing to complain if someone chooses not to write these things". Do I understand that correctly? Can you explain why the choice not to write is like pollution?

I see the problem, its 3. I was being more general in equating "the news" with "stuff released into the environment". But 3 implies "stuff not released into the environment" which is not what I meant.

PS, How did you do those numbers in the circles? I've not seen that in a HN comment before (I like it). I see sometime people switching fonts in comments, but I hadn't figured out how to do that either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

What DOGE is doing to US Social Security should be all over every News Organizations. But it is not because these new orgs are afraid of Trump.

I have said it before, these DOGE people, Musk should all be in Court or on their way to federal prison due to all the data they are illegally mining.

To be fair there are so many stupid and malicious things being done by every part of the administration it is hard to give them all the attention they deserve. Today, Elon's awful actions barely merit a mention compared to destroying the US economy and 80 years of international goodwill.

Of course they didn't. Their code is perfect. It has to be. I'm mean, c'mon, their DOGE. They work for Musk. They've got to be great coders. Don't they???

imagine that. so move fast and break things isn't the greatest motto for government? seems like people starve when government systems break.

Your pain is a sacrifice they are willing to make.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com