Maybe because you didn't provide any context? Cherry-picking one sentence from an email doesn't seem like a good faith attempt to discuss the issues.
(The same applies for Trump quotes! We should give him the benefit of doubt and make a reasonable attempt to understand the proper context of his bizarre but extremely quotable statements... But in his case, it's often difficult or meaningless to determine context because he rambles off the cuff all the time -- often it seems like many of the quotes just surface from his subconscious, and there's nothing else in the surrounding thought stream that could explain it.)
You comment his actions, but haven't even bothered to check the submission he complains about, have you?
He provided a link to the full content of email he cited. I thought that this is a preferred approach: provide just facts, without adding own subjective context and interpretation to them.
Actually I did look at the Schmidt email, and I didn't see what the fuss is about. The same advice could have been given by any other number of people.
That's why I wish the poster would have given some context: why is this worthy of being on HN? Just because it's a private email from Eric Schmidt?
This is news about a tech giant suggesting a database be created based on voting habits that includes additional metadata about individuals.
The fact that Schmidt obviously has ties to Google brings up the question of whether or not Google resources and user data would be used to help create such a thing.
Honestly, the political aspect is quite minor compared to the the tech aspect.
On another note, my original post included the suggestion that the Clinton campaign hire low wage workers. Implying their political passion would allow them to pay low wages. In my opinion, that manipulation is horrible.
Both of those topics seem like something the hn community would like to discuss. Unfortunately, it seems mods/admin/whoever are letting their political biased rise up above login and quality conversation.
Comments
Maybe because you didn't provide any context? Cherry-picking one sentence from an email doesn't seem like a good faith attempt to discuss the issues.
(The same applies for Trump quotes! We should give him the benefit of doubt and make a reasonable attempt to understand the proper context of his bizarre but extremely quotable statements... But in his case, it's often difficult or meaningless to determine context because he rambles off the cuff all the time -- often it seems like many of the quotes just surface from his subconscious, and there's nothing else in the surrounding thought stream that could explain it.)
You comment his actions, but haven't even bothered to check the submission he complains about, have you?
He provided a link to the full content of email he cited. I thought that this is a preferred approach: provide just facts, without adding own subjective context and interpretation to them.
Actually I did look at the Schmidt email, and I didn't see what the fuss is about. The same advice could have been given by any other number of people.
That's why I wish the poster would have given some context: why is this worthy of being on HN? Just because it's a private email from Eric Schmidt?
This is news about a tech giant suggesting a database be created based on voting habits that includes additional metadata about individuals.
The fact that Schmidt obviously has ties to Google brings up the question of whether or not Google resources and user data would be used to help create such a thing.
Honestly, the political aspect is quite minor compared to the the tech aspect.
On another note, my original post included the suggestion that the Clinton campaign hire low wage workers. Implying their political passion would allow them to pay low wages. In my opinion, that manipulation is horrible.
Both of those topics seem like something the hn community would like to discuss. Unfortunately, it seems mods/admin/whoever are letting their political biased rise up above login and quality conversation.