capote

This does give it a kind of bearded-conspiracy-theorist-ish vibe that puts me off too. But the underlying point in using the word makes sense and hey, maybe it'll deter some people from using Facebook without knowing exactly what they're subjecting themselves to. I can see such a thing sticking in people's minds.

Blocking an entire app store is so consumer-unfriendly--is there a chance of that happening in a reasonable country?

Oh! I didn't realize it worked that way. So they can tell Apple to take something off their App Store because Apple has presence in their country? Would app stores be immune if their company doesn't have a presence in a country?

Couldn't the government ban the company from making the service available? The app depends on the service.

They should've made the EU -> UK border control guy Boris Johnson. Would've been triple as effective.

I wouldn't have been in his situation in Hong Kong because, while I see his actions as positive overall, I do not think they're worth having to run off to a place like Russia (which does what I'm trying to fix on a much larger scale) to escape jail.

Preventing irony in this situation is important, because all the good he is doing is sending a message. If that message is ironic, it's not a very productive message—in comparison to the surveillance activity of Russia, the NSA surveillance looks like less of a big deal (and, in my opinion, is less of a big deal).

"an unworkable, unjustifiable violation of rights" in Russia? Shocking.

But seriously, will anyone relevant hear him? This type of thing is common in Russia and has been for a while. Snowden ran to hide in the mother of all government surveillance after blowing the whistle on government surveillance.

I'm not belittling Snowden; I'm belittling the amount of attention and respect he gets relative to the action and help he provides. He just sort of says things… that are unimpressive… from hiding… in Russia.

Based on nothing or anything. It's just reality.

It's definitely the case that remainers are better informed.

I'm a US citizen and want to move to Australia for good. How can I find someone like you in Australia to get advice from on how to proceed? (I'd just be looking for a normal software/managerial job kind of like the one I have now)

I spend much of my time in unuseful ways, and so do you.

Outright ignorance is definitely pushing it. It's a guess, but very much an educated guess that it's mostly Brexiters who are googling it. Bremainers tend to be better informed, so they are less likely to be doing last minute (or in this case post-last minute) googling about the issue.

I recognize bias, and I recognize that I myself am biased. But I also maintain that the title is accurate, and the implications of the bias are reasonable to draw. Whether or not this speaks to the quality of the publication is up to anyone, and I might agree with you if I had read more from the WP in the past.

It's a truth that a lot of people are googling things like this inside the UK and the adverb "frantically" I believe reasonably addresses how large the amount of searches is.

I also believe that the implication stands solid, that a lot of the Brexit voters had no idea what they voted on, what the implications of a Brexit are, and were largely motivated by things like fear of immigrants, which intellectuals seem to agree is a... not so smart fear to have.

Are you saying it's categorically wrong to use subjective adverbs in headlines?

I don't. But if Bremainers were googling it it's inconsequential. It's the Brexiters who google it that tell us something about the vote.

The title is a pretty clear and accurate summary of what's happening.

You didn't. All of this is based on implication and what meaning you draw from the information, so it's not such a solid thing.

Do you disagree there's a big implication here?

Normally I'd agree with you.

Gut feeling after reading the article I suppose?

Would you really be surprised if many voters didn't know what they were voting for? Especially if the outcome is one agreed upon by most intellectuals to be the worse outcome.

Wanting to know and in many cases regretting it. It seems obvious many had no idea what they were doing, and many were just "mucking about".

And it seems many of the leave voters are regretting their choice now.

With all the attention they got, roughly 30 downvotes, flagging, your attention, you'd think I posted the most substantive posts this site has ever seen.

Why? Getting a bit political here, and I'm sorry, I just need to answer the question then I'll cut it out with the strong political views:

Because I couldn't bear to be a citizen of a country that elects Donald Trump as president. I'd be too embarrassed in the face of my peers around the world. I already get made fun of enough for my country by my German, Swiss, and Korean friends for just the prospect of Trump winning. I couldn't live here anymore or represent this country when I travel. The people who surround me, my compatriots, would be too stupid, bigoted, and hateful in my view for me to continue living here.

For any other election, I'd happily agree with you and might even try to change the status quo. But the risk of a Trump presidency has my insides sinking.

But right now, I'm going to vote for anything to stop that guy from winning. Even if it means voting for a crook.

I want to listen to you (I'd write in Bernie to be honest) but unfortunately it's not realistic. I've come to this conclusion by observation of reality, not from the media. I don't even consume much American media.

My comment was mainly aimed at people who agree with me that Trump would be a disaster and Hillary would simply be the continuation of the not-so-great status quo. To those people, I plead to stop making the both-sides-are-evil argument.

You seem to be a Trump supporter, so there you go, you're not on the both-sides-are-evil boat. I have no qualms with you other than the obvious political differences.

A myth? We literally only have two choices. There is not a single chance that someone else will be elected unless someone within either of the parties does something.

What do you seriously suggest the people do to get another person besides these two?

Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that those who vote for a third party have always been a tiny minority and have ultimately caused elections to be lost to people even they think is the worse evil. Unless of course you respond with what your plan of action is and how it will work.

I'm a little bit put off by the mentality of "both sides are bad" that a lot of people seem to have in both of these issues.

Yeah, both sides have massive flaws, but isn't it stifling to keep insisting on this fact and to keep preaching it? Shouldn't we all just accept the lesser evil, by however small a margin it's less evil?

As good a point as you may have, isn't it more important to avoid a Donald Trump presidency/a brexit/a ridiculous fear of immigrants and Islam than to say what is technically correct so loudly and prominently?

I feel like if we wind up with the worse cases, people might regret having made both sides seem bad. Plus, less intelligent people might avoid voting altogether rather than voting for the lesser evil because they keep hearing intellectuals say how bad both sides are.

Thanks for the level-headed verbal answer. I guess I just feel like a downvote is a slap, rather than a more appropriate simple response that states the issue, or just being ignored. Slaps should be for when people are offensive/racist/rude/wrong--I understand my comment contributed nothing, but why would I get the same treatment as someone who contributes negatively?

Shouldn't we be aiming for positivity => upvote, negativity => downvote, neutrality => no vote?

What a bummer considering the BBC is one of the greatest.

Something makes me feel like HN readers are aware enough to put together that a front-page HN post on some referendum happening today that has something to do with the EU is the Brexit one.

If in doubt, a simple click will solve any ambiguity which could arise with the Elderberry Unicorn referendum happening in Patagonia also today.

I think many other countries have a TV 'tax' as well. I had to pay one living in Germany just for owning a computer.

Makes for great public media in many cases.