Ever since Snowden (though also before) Hacker News has become increasingly irrational whenever it comes to anything involving "The Government", and I'm long past sick of it. Your post pointed out the logical impossibility of the original account being true, and everyone shot you down because they wanted it to be true.
Yes, there are very, extremely legitimate reasons to be concerned. But that doesn't mean we should abandon all logic and assume every story is true because it fits a narrative.
We found out through the Suffolk Police Department that the searches involved also things my husband looked up at his old job. We were not made aware of this at the time of questioning and were led to believe it was solely from searches from within our house.
The reason she thought "the Government" was monitoring her searches was because "the Government" told them they were looking at their searches. They clearly did not communicate that well, but I don't see how that's terribly irrational.
Note that her wording was chosen to avoid refuting her original claim, which was that the government was monitoring her searches (read carefully, noting that she discussed searches made by every member of her family).
Comments
Kudos for sticking by your original statement.
Ever since Snowden (though also before) Hacker News has become increasingly irrational whenever it comes to anything involving "The Government", and I'm long past sick of it. Your post pointed out the logical impossibility of the original account being true, and everyone shot you down because they wanted it to be true.
Yes, there are very, extremely legitimate reasons to be concerned. But that doesn't mean we should abandon all logic and assume every story is true because it fits a narrative.
Well said. At least there are a few islands of sanity on HN.
Here's the original post, with an added update: https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724
The reason she thought "the Government" was monitoring her searches was because "the Government" told them they were looking at their searches. They clearly did not communicate that well, but I don't see how that's terribly irrational.
Note that her wording was chosen to avoid refuting her original claim, which was that the government was monitoring her searches (read carefully, noting that she discussed searches made by every member of her family).