211 pointsby jjwiseman4 hours ago23 comments
  • giancarlostoro3 hours ago
    I'm old enough to remember that time the Obama administration requested Edward Snowdens private SSL keys from Lavabit, because it would have opened up every email from every single user. So the owner nuked everything and was held in contempt of court. He was forbidden from talking about it for months too. Don't give too much unprecedented power to the government. It doesn't matter who the president is. They've all done some net-evil that feeds power to the next guy, and the next guy, until it's too late.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/03/lavabit-ladar-...

    • softwaredoug3 hours ago
      One difference, this was in response to an actual search warrant granted by a judge.

      What DHS is doing are administrative warrants, with no judicial overview (unless you sue to stop them).

      • Terr_3 hours ago
        We shouldn't dignify their schemes with their jargon: They are generating internal memos and submitting complaint/threat letters.
      • charcircuit3 hours ago
        Both types of warrants are just as valid.
        • Gud3 hours ago
          No they aren’t.
          • charcircuit3 hours ago
            Coming from a different branch of government does not make one any more or less valid than another.
            • chomp2 hours ago
              I think you’re confused on the difference between these, and what an administrative warrant is in particular.
              • rayiner2 hours ago
                Trying to draw a distinction between the secret FISA court and administrative warrants from DHS is shaving the baloney a little thin.
            • Terr_3 hours ago
              Ah, you must not be American. At least over here--the subject of the news post--that belief would be considered pro-dictatorship nonsense.

              The US Federal government has different branches, and only certain branches have certain powers. This is widely known because we teach this to US children before they are 14 years old, sometimes aided by literal cartoons.

              These "warrants" are not at all equivalent, the same way that a President cannot dream up and declare a "law" (even if he calls it that) because only Congress may make those.

              • charcircuit2 hours ago
                The constitution does not give the judicial branch the exclusive power of issuing warrants. Having certain exclusive powers doing mean every action can only be exclusively done by them. Each branch has an obligation to adhere to the constitution.
              • PearlRiver2 hours ago
                Wait until you find out judges are appointed by the president...

                It is actually amazing America managed to function as well as it has been to be honest.

                • OutOfHere2 hours ago
                  Yes. It's incredible that:

                  1. The loopholes were not exploited sooner.

                  2. No one cares about patching them, not before real-world identification, and not even after identification. They only keep increasing.

                  The only saving grace has been the two term limit of the President.

            • plorkyeran2 hours ago
              The entire point of having multiple branches of government is that they have different powers.
              • charcircuit2 hours ago
                There are both different powers and similar powers between the different branches.
        • 2 hours ago
          undefined
        • softwaredoug2 hours ago
          Do you understand the difference between an administrative warrant and a judicial warrant?
      • 3 hours ago
        undefined
    • helterskelter3 hours ago
      I had an account at the time! He gave the govt the key, handwritten on paper, to stall for time so he could delete everything. I wish every admin had that sort of integrity.

      He had a followup project, magma (https://github.com/lavabit/magma), that was supposed to be a secure email alternative. It's a shame it never took off.

    • dymk3 hours ago
      Sounds like a whole bunch of “both sides!!”

      This ain’t the same

    • hypeatei2 hours ago
      > It doesn't matter who the president is

      It clearly does as your comment was very pointed towards Obama but fails to mention Trump once. I'm curious as to why that would be? Are you ignoring the massive amount of funding that ICE/DHS has received to invade cities of the President's opponents to crush dissent? Or maybe the threats of face scanning to be put on a "domestic terrorist" list? I don't recall Obama doing those things. A common pattern I'm seeing during this admin is: good things are attributed directly to Trump, but bad things are the government having too much power that his predecessors can be blamed for.

      "Good tsar, bad boyars"

    • webdoodle3 hours ago
      You are a 100% right, and that is just one example of Obama's subservience to a future totalitarian government he started, and handed off to Trump, who has continued too increase the dystopian fascist state.

      Obama did these things as well:

      1) Got a Nobel peace prize after ordering the killing a U.S. citizen by Drone, without a trial or conviction.

      2) He failed to renew the Smith-Mundt Act, which only took his signature, unleashing the restriction on the U.S. military of conducting PSYOPS on U.S. citizens and residents.

      3) He created the U.S. Global Engagement Center which allows the coordination of the above mentioned PSYOPs and censorship.

      4) He gave NSA Prism mass-surveillance access too 16 law enforcement agencies, including ICE.

      He did the last three, AFTER Trump was already President elect. Clearly doing the needful for the fascists state Trump would later continue to swell. Biden wasn't even a speed bump, he used the U.S. GEC too censor and muzzle any dissent about COVID, where it came from, how it was funded, etc.

    • throwawayq34233 hours ago
      Edward Snowden had stolen the most sensitive classified secrets from The United States Intelligence Community and Donald Trump is looking to squash dissent of his attempts to nullify the Constitution and establish a dictatorship.

      I get what you're saying, but please have some perspective. the two things are not even remotely similar.

      • monocasa3 hours ago
        To be fair, those sensitive secrets included secret, unconstitutional, dragnet surveillance programs targeting american citizens, and the fact that the director of national intelligence had perjured himself during congressional hearings on those programs.
        • throwawayq34233 hours ago
          Less than 1% of what Snowden took and leaked pertained to domestic surveillance programs, The rest was intelligence capabilities and sources and methods.

          But that's besides the point. There is a real argument that the U.S. government, in trying to catch Snowden, was protecting national security. There is no such argument with Trump.

      • tehjoker3 hours ago
        What they did to snowden was illegitimate but at least they had the cover that he was an insider that had signed a contract with the government. They are going after random ass people expressing a 1A opinion now. Legally very different ballgames even though both dissenters are correct to voice their opinions and knowledge and should not have been pursued for objecting to extravagant government wrongdoing.
      • iugtmkbdfil8343 hours ago
        Friend, if you followed Snowden's saga at all, you would know that those events don't need to be similar to be relevant to the discussion at hand. In other words, just because you have a problem with Trump, does not mean the two issues are not connected.
        • throwawayq34233 hours ago
          Who was imprisoned for their speech against the US president by Obama and how did Snowden stop that?

          Because that is exactly what we're talking about here. And if you don't have a like-for-like comparison, then we have nothing to discuss.

          • iugtmkbdfil8343 hours ago
            If you think for a moment of arguing that throwing people in jail is the only way to impede someone's liberty, you are in for a world of a surprise.
  • softwaredoug4 hours ago
    Basically they are issuing (administrative) subpoenas. When they go to court (at the expense of the account holder) they back down so they don't get ruled against / told to stop issuing these subpoenas.

    Noted in the article, when this happened in 2017 twitter denied the governments request. Now Meta, etc are rolling over for the government.

    • rtkwe3 hours ago
      I hope courts find a way and the spine to tell them they're not valid. The government usually has a strong presumption of regularity but more and more courts are recognizing they're no longer a fair participant and will abuse the courts to get their way and are dropping that presumption.
      • JoshTriplett3 hours ago
        > I hope courts find a way and the spine to tell them they're not valid.

        I hope courts go further and find them in contempt, or engaging in something akin to barratry, or otherwise abusing the legal system.

        • rtkwe3 hours ago
          I mean more is better here for sure.
      • throwawayq34233 hours ago
        Good faith by the federal government can no longer be assumed.

        Donald Trump's real legacy is not any single action, but a complete inversion of trust of the US government by its citizens.

        And the world.

        • salawat3 hours ago
          When Europeans wonder why the U.S. is so backwards and barbaric about not implementing a National ID scheme. Look no further, ladies and gents, because at least once every 200 years, the population has a day of supreme brain off and puts someone like Trump in office. Once that happens, you too will appreciate why it should be hard for the government to do things.
        • GaryBluto3 hours ago
          [flagged]
          • throwaway1737383 hours ago
            Because for all of the issues I take with Obama over Snowden, there were also attempts to keep promises and maintain stability and order within the country. Say what you will but there were no literal masked thugs kidnapping people at gunpoint under Obama. With many things you have to weigh a person’s actions in balance, and in balance Trump is way way way way way way worse than Obama.
          • mindslight3 hours ago
            I lost faith that the government would respect my right to privacy with Binney, Klein, and Snowden. I then lost faith that the government wouldn't go out of its way to openly attack and subjugate me with Turmp. A pattern of escalation is still escalation.

            But to anybody only just waking up to this unaccountable surveillance-industrial complex now: Welcome! While I wish you had been with us after Snowden, I am glad you are here now.

          • malcolmgreaves3 hours ago
            Wrong. Stop both sides-ing this. What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans: Nixon, Regan, Bush, and now Trump.
            • deaux3 hours ago
              Wrong. Stop being so brainwashed by party politics.

              Corporate dems - which are all of them in the last two decades - doing little for the average citizen, protecting megacorps, accelerating wealth concentration, protecting the billionaires, have also played a big role in maling the average citizen distrust their government.

              Do you really think not a single one of them knew about the Epstein files? You can't be taken seriously if you do. And if you don't, their participation in keeping it hidden too builds distrust, even if 20 times more reps were involved. The dem candidate of only 10 years ago must have known. The chance she didn't is so small.

              Snowden's revelations built distrust. Everything he revealed was absolutely "both sides". You can say "one side has been much worse", and sure, that's fair. But pretending that the other has been squeaky clean and that their own actions haven't played a huge role in the current situation is just sticking your hand in the sand.

              People are tired of having to choose between "awful A" and "even worse B". If the dems stopped nominating "awful A" and replaced then with "decent A" then it'd be a landslide. But they won't. They haven't changed one bit. Mamdani, finally an example of "decent A", was hindered. They didn't want to see him win at all, and only started cheering for him when he finally did. By a huge margin, because he's a "decent A".

              Until this changes, until the day that decent candidates of Mamdani are universally cheered on and given the full first choice backing by that party, not a single thing will get better, and it will only get worse, because it means the inevitable next rep winner will be even worse.

              I'm not sure how you got this mindset, but it's not great, and I'm sure deep down you're smarter than this. These aren't football teams to cheer for.

              • malcolmgreaves3 hours ago
                Corporate dems has suck. They are slightly better than the corporate republicans of the 90s and early 2000s.

                Why? Because they knew that stability and economic prosperity were things people wanted. They of course never went far enough and didn’t ever want to rock the boat.

                But, importantly, what you’re trying to do is wrong. Trump is not like corporate dems. It’s significantly worse. There’s not a single redeeming thing about this regime.

                And all republicans are 100% behind trump. That means the entire Republican Party is guilty and responsible for what trump does.

                So yes, it is appropriate to paint the entire group with one broad stroke. They’re all guilty of enabling a criminal to shred the constitution and destroy the entire fabric of US society for the next few generations. (The US has backslid to the late 1800s - blatant corruption everywhere).

                • deaux2 hours ago
                  > All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans

                  I've clearly shown why this is blatantly false, and your comment does nothing to argue against it.

                  > Why? Because they knew that stability and economic prosperity were things people wanted.

                  This is laughable. Ah yes, in 2014 the average American definitely wouldn't have wanted the Epstein files to be published, sure.

                  You can't say this with a straight face. The capital class wouldn't have wanted it, the average person absolutely would have.

            • GaryBluto3 hours ago
              The concept of "both-sidesism" is a thought-terminating cliché that attempts to be a more reasonable sounding way of saying that one side is holy and the other is sinful that was invented on social media platforms for propaganda purposes.

              > What the republicans have been doing is nothing at all like what the democrats have done. All of the work of making Americans distrust their government from the executive in the last 60 years have come from Republicans

              Many examples have been given in this post's comments alone and are already well-known by the average HN user, such as:

              1. The Snowden Leaks (Obama)

              2. The Pentagon Papers (exposed under Nixon, describes actions under Kennedy and Johnson administration)

              3. The IRS Targeting Controversy (Obama)

              4. DOJ Surveillance of Journalists (Obama)

              • throwaway1737383 hours ago
                No, it’s an attempt to weigh the actions of either side in aggregate. What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother. I’ve seen numerous examples of one group acting well-meaning and sincere, and numerous examples of the other group taking advantage and sewing chaos. If you think they’re both the same you’re either not paying attention to everything or you only care about a very few things. Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got.
                • GaryBluto3 hours ago
                  > What you’re doing is trying to argue that everything is awful and so why bother.

                  I don't know how that could be construed from my comments.

                  > Either way it’s going to be impossible for me to find common ground with you as long as you refuse to try to work with what you’ve got.

                  If I don't agree with you you won't agree with me? This isn't a revelation.

              • malcolmgreaves3 hours ago
                To the three points you list:

                Number 1 was Bush. The republicans crated the NSA surveillance machine.

                Number 2 — know your US history. The democratic and republican parties flipped philosophies in 68. Their dems went pro integration and the southern dems went to the Republican Party, which remained segregationist. Nixon was closer to Kennedy and LBJ than Humphrey.

                Number 3 is nothing - it wasn’t active targeting. They implemented rules to check all organizations. The republican affiliates ones were skirting the rules. They looked at orgs with certain things in their name, but it was an investigation. No government action came of it. It was not abuse. This is another lie by the republicans.

                • GaryBluto3 hours ago
                  1. If I give you a loaded gun you're still responsible for shooting somebody.

                  2. It is an oversimplified view to suggest that Democratic and Republican parties completely flipped during the late 60s but they certainly did reverse views on race.

                  3. They put extra scrutiny organizations with "Tea Party" or "patriots" in their names and admitted as much. Unless the Obama administration was secretly Republican and put out this "lie" to negatively impact themselves as part of some grand reptilian conspiracy.

  • Aeolun3 hours ago
    I just recently played “The Last of Us” for the first time, and I feel like the US is going full steam ahead towards establishing that FEDRA service they had. Or at least, turn ICE/DHS into the same damn thing.
    • PearlRiver2 hours ago
      I played Deus Ex and the FEMA camps are now ICE camps.

      Empires do not fall with dignity or grace I suppose.

  • notepad0x904 hours ago
    twitter, Tiktok, threads, facebook, instagram -> they're all maga now. it's more of a policy directive than a request.

    What is not owned/subjugated to the current admin? reddit, bluesky, lemmy, mastodon. People use reddit quite a bit but nowhere near as much as the maga ones.

    I don't even know which is worse: if these people control social media and influence society to their nefarious ends, or if they don't and america starts resisting and real conflicts arise from that. No good ends left.

    • whynotmaybe4 hours ago
      The good old choice between plague or cholera.
  • infotainment4 hours ago
    This is such an entirely predictable outcome that people were warning about ever since the Patriot Act days and the creation of DHS.

    Unfortunate, but the inevitable consequence of granting the kinds of powers that DHS was given.

    • throwawayq34233 hours ago
      just to be clear trump administration is not using Patriot Act era standards. They're going far beyond what any previous administration has done and openly breaking the law.

      I have a feeling they would have gotten here even if Obama didn't expand the surveillance state.

  • reaperducer3 hours ago
    It makes one wonder how long until dang is forced to turn over logs of who responds in certain ways to certain messages on HN, and who upvotes prohibited thought.
    • nxobject3 hours ago
      I'll need to look this up, but IIRC HN is one of the sources included in a fairly popular LEO market "online media presence" aggregation tool.
    • Terr_3 hours ago
      Hmmm, how many of our past account email-settings are kept?
    • viraptor2 hours ago
      You know this is all public and almost every person here has zero opsec, right? There's no point even asking YC for the data, unless you want to target that one very specific person.
    • sneak2 hours ago
      You should assume that the IP address used for any online service (which for most people maps with timestamp to their home address and credit card for the cable bill) is not secret.

      I use a VPN router that sends all of my traffic to a public VPN; if you don’t want HN having your location and identity, stop giving it to them.

  • hodgehog114 hours ago
    This is the point where most of the public would probably acknowledge that digital privacy is worth seeking. If you're in a fascist or communist state, announcing your political opinions online without anonymity is generally not advisable.
    • iugtmkbdfil8343 hours ago
      The interesting thing is that the time to oppose it these encroachments was somewhere between 2001 and say.. 2015 ( some events, but nothing in particular other than general acceptance by general populace ). And now the masses are crying foul? Now is absolutely not the time to try to get online invisibility cloak.
    • jazz9k3 hours ago
      Kind of like when protestors on J6, who only walked near the capital, were thrown in prison for years based on Google GPS data?

      How about when Amazon engineers colluded with the federal government to shutdown Parler? It would be like Trump working with hosting servers for Blue sky and getting it shutdown.

      Twitter and Facebook were caught colluding with the Biden administration to censor Americans. There weren't 10 posts a day on HN about it, and it was pretty quickly ignored and forgotten.

      Until all of these things are addressed, I certainly won't support the freedom of speech for people that won't support mine.

      The problem is that I don't think many people even see this behavior as a problem.

      It has shown me that many people are willing to support the murder, censorship, and other political violence of people they don't like. I'm not talking about the right.

      • sneak2 hours ago
        > Until all of these things are addressed, I certainly won't support the freedom of speech for people that won't support mine.

        That means you don’t support freedom of speech. But we already knew that because you already explained your authoritarian views.

        What I don’t understand is why authoritarians such as yourself (as well as many of the what I call “blue MAGA” authoritarian counterparts on the left) still pay lip service to concepts such as free speech and the rule of law. These concepts fundamentally encapsulate that they are applied equally. If you don’t support them for your enemies (and criminals, and immigrants, and trans people, etc), then you simply don’t support them, period. “Free speech for my side” simply isn’t. “The rule of law (but only for citizens)” isn’t support for the rule of law.

        I find all forms of government censorship to be abhorrent, regardless of which party is in power. I support free speech and freedom from government interference for the MAGA crowd as I do for everyone else, despite their active and continued efforts to curtail my legal rights to same (as Trump has repeatedly said out loud).

        • mindslight26 minutes ago
          Republican propagandists were quite successful at spinning the emergent corporate infringement of natural rights as a bona fide illegal government action led by "the left", to fool enough useful idiots into supporting their "alternative" of a wannabe-dictator who was aiming to directly attack our rights.
  • keernan2 hours ago
    The Trump administration has demanded fealty to Trump, the man, not the office holder. Any Executive Branch employee who refuses to issue a subpoena that the Trump administration wants issued will lose their job in seconds.

    The subpoenas are intended as part of the database the Trump administration is building identifying American citizens with anti-Trump views.

    There can be only one reason for such a database: to punish and terrorize the citizenry of this county.

  • Herring4 hours ago
    Reminder that the most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance. Support for such measures (eg welfare, healthcare, unionization, redistribution etc) is usually low among Americans.
    • rayiner4 hours ago
      How’s that working in Germany, the UK, Italy, etc? The only way that actually works is for left wing parties to adopt restrictive immigration policies, like Denmark did: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo
      • Herring3 hours ago
        Those three examples all implemented some kind of austerity, which reduced safety nets and increased economic insecurity.

        Western societies are aging. If you don't take in immigrants (which is basically the government becoming the far right), you're on a timer. Your economy will slow, insecurity will rise, and the far right will surge anyway. It's happening to Japan.

        • rayiner3 hours ago
          The idea that there's been meaningful austerity isn't borne out by the data: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/social-spending-oecd-long.... There was a dip after the financial crisis and a blip that returned to normal after COVID. But Germany, Italy, and the UK all spend a slightly greater share of their GDP on social welfare now than they did in 2000.

          And while the U.S. has less social spending overall, the trend shows the opposite of your story. In 2000, when the U.S. elected pro-immigration George W. Bush, social spending was 14.1%. In 2024, when people voted for "mass deportations" Trump, social spending was 19.8% of GDP. The U.S. was spending more of its economy on social welfare in 2024 than Australia, Canada, and the U.K. were spending back in the early 2000s--but the far right is much stronger today than it was back then.

          • Herring3 hours ago
            That graph is really deceptive. Eg the Greece curve is going up (!!), which can make you think there was no austerity. Probably the GDP in the denominator shrunk faster than the govt could cut pensions.
            • rayiner2 hours ago
              No, real GDP (inflation adjusted) grew considerably in Germany and the U.K. over that time, and was stable in Italy: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1RMz0.

              All three countries spend a slightly greater share of an overall larger economy on social welfare than they did in 2000.

              • Herring2 hours ago
                Well how much have the countries aged? In that case you should expect it to go up, maybe it's still a lot less than it should be.

                I'm a statistician. That (first) graph is a case study in how to lie with statistics. They should teach it in class.

                I'm out, I recommend you spend some time reading about this issue. Inequality and welfare cuts leading to the rise in the far right is fairly well established. One (misleading) graph doesn't disprove it. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/welfare-cuts...

    • 3 hours ago
      undefined
    • mrtesthah3 hours ago
      I would counter that a majority of Americans are actually in favor of these things, but our supreme court has been corrupted by billionaires and is stymying any real progress along these lines. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/12/10/most-amer...
    • idle_zealot4 hours ago
      Apparently something like 30% of Democrats (voters, not representatives) now identify as "Democratic Socialists." I assume this is because it's what Bernie and Mamdani call themselves while advocating for the above mentioned measures. The establishment Democrats will fight like hell to stem the tide, but there does seem to be increasing support for these populist policies among liberals.
      • metabagel2 hours ago
        I think it's because the Democratic Party has moved away from socialist policies, e.g., Medicare For All.
  • yanhangyhy3 hours ago
    oh boy, ICE will mess up with the mid-term selection and make sure Trump get another 4 years.
  • phendrenad23 hours ago
    MAGA should oppose this, for their own sake. When Democrats sweep the floor in the midterms and then the presidency in 2028, because Trump wanted to pretend that the Epstein Files were "fake news", this will be precedent for them to send MAGA to gulags for being pro-Nazi.
  • 3 hours ago
    undefined
  • KnuthIsGod4 hours ago
    How long before they come for Hacker News ?

    Folks, it is now time to delete anything you posted here that might be construed as remotely critical of ICE or Trump.

    A court order will not help you if ICE have already shot you dead.

    • lokar4 hours ago
      Or, adjust your priorities and resist more. Authoritarians win when people let them.
      • jmclnx4 hours ago
        Plus in Nov or 2026, get out and vote, no matter how hard it is to get to the polls. This happened because people sat on their behinds and did nothing in Nov 2024,
        • assimpleaspossi3 hours ago
          Nah. People who sit on social media would rather stand on street corners and yell at people.
    • mikestew4 hours ago
      Let ‘em come. Even if I could delete my posts (you can’t, BTW), I’m not deleting shit. And I’m sure not obeying in advance.
    • GaryBluto4 hours ago
      I hope that this is hyperbolic satire and not a genuine viewpoint because it is incredibly unrealistic to the point of being almost fantastical. The US government aren't going to "go after" or interfere with Hacker News at any time in the future unless it suddenly, inexplicably becomes a popular hotbed of political activism (which it shouldn't become anyway).
      • Terr_3 hours ago
        Why do you think these folks operate in a rational and proportional manner?

        All it takes is one "wrong" thing to go viral and anybody goes in the retribution list.

      • AnimalMuppet3 hours ago
        It is highly illegal - unconstitutional - for them to go after HN, even if it becomes a popular hotbed of political activism.
      • malcolmgreaves3 hours ago
        Wrong. They are kidnapping American citizens and exiling them. They’re imprisoning people that criticize the government.

        It’s a totalitarian regime. With enough time, will come after all dissenters.

        > popular hotbed of political activism

        First, it is unbelievably illegal for the government to do this.

        Second, pain is their objective. Republicans have had no principles since they elected Trump in 2016. Their only objective is to hurt whomever they consider the enemy.

        And everyone that isn’t screaming “I love the orange dictator!” is an enemy.

      • reaperducer3 hours ago
        unless it suddenly, inexplicably becomes a popular hotbed of political activism

        That's the thing about AI and scale. You don't have to only target the big fish. You can cast a wide net and scoop up data on people in every nook and cranny of the internet.

        The concentration camps were loaded with people who thought their town was too small for the Nazis to bother with.

        • sroussey3 hours ago
          You don’t even need AI, just data brokers. And no warrant needed, only cash.
    • DavidSJ4 hours ago
      I don’t think we should preemptively surrender our free speech to the authoritarians.
    • asdff4 hours ago
      Let them come for us. If it comes to that, trolling social media to arrest american citizens en masse, people are going to be forming militias and I'll join up the local outfit. I don't care anymore. I'm ready to take a stand if it comes to it and take back our country and I'm sure I'm not alone on that either.
      • endemic4 hours ago
        I feel like this is the inevitable end result. Ironic that we’ll finally get well-regulated militias.
    • marysminefnuf4 hours ago
      I want the government to know how i feel. I want them to see my posts and comments. If this anonymous surveilance without warrants is the only way to be acknowledged then thats a form of protest to me and it has made me want to be more outspoken knowing we are all being watched. Fuck ice.
    • ynac4 hours ago
      To all the replies herein:

      Dang - I haven't read that kind of hacker attitude anywhere, even here, in a long time ya'll. I ain't kiddin', I got a little weepy.

      I don't know what the rally cry of hackers would be, but Atari 800, assembly code, and solder smoke for all!

    • comrade12344 hours ago
      I swear many years ago you could delete old posts but not any longer. About all you can do now is do something so egregious that they delete your account.
      • bink4 hours ago
        Even if you could delete comments, in this day and age it's not a real deletion. They'd just put a "deleted" flag on the comment in the DB.
        • nozzlegear4 hours ago
          There's likely many iterations of HN comment datasets out there from "show hn: I scraped everyone's comments for my comp sci/big data class" over the years.
        • Macha4 hours ago
          And there's a bunch of full scrapes of HN around anyway.
      • 464931684 hours ago
        That’s actually how I got my Facebook deleted in 2015, and it appears I am still banned. I posted a picture, from behind, of a cowboy wearing only chaps. I tried to join again around 2022 to sell some stuff and they rejected me.

        Probably the best move I made for my mental health tbh.

      • nostrademons4 hours ago
        You've always been able to delete for 2 hours and then the post becomes effectively permanent, modulo emailing dang to get it deleted by an admin.
        • pesus4 hours ago
          Have they stated the justification for this anywhere? You'd think a site that brands itself as being for hackers would value its users having control over their comments/privacy.
          • nostrademons2 hours ago
            Yes, it's because the comments create a discussion thread that then becomes impossible to follow (or worse, misleading) if certain comments within it are either deleted or edited to say something different. The idea is that what you write becomes communal property once it's been responded to, because it's part of a community discussion that loses meaning if people start deleting individual comments.
          • JoshTriplett3 hours ago
            There's value in editing for clarity within a window of a live discussion. After the live discussion is less active, it's important to be able to reference things or see a coherent view of the discussion and what people were responding to.
        • AnimalMuppet4 hours ago
          I believe that, even within that two hour window, you cannot delete if anyone has replied to it.

          You can still edit it to say "[deleted]" or something, though.

      • layer83 hours ago
        The HN email address takes personal requests for comment deletion.
      • asdff4 hours ago
        You can do it just you have to email dang directly about it. Pretty stupid system.
      • helterskelter4 hours ago
        Archive.org probably already has it anyway.
    • ryanmcbride4 hours ago
      Okay you go ahead and give in I'm gonna not though
    • viraptor2 hours ago
      > Folks, it is now time to delete anything you posted here

      It's too late. Multiple copies of all the posts exist already.

    • metabagel2 hours ago
      ICE and CBP are building a lot of concentration camps. Clearly, they are planning to fill them.
    • tehjoker3 hours ago
      They have a limited amount of power to suppress opinion even with their powerful tools and thugs. Their method is to go after big platforms and prominent individuals. If you keep speaking up anyway, it will overwhelm them.
    • booleandilemma4 hours ago
      This is known as a "chilling effect".

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

    • nozzlegear4 hours ago
      If Trump's going to throw me in his El Salvador gulag for being a deep state Soros-backed neoliberal globalist shill on HN, I'm going to make sure somebody in his regime at least has to read my bullshit first.
    • madaxe_again4 hours ago
      Man, they can fucking blow me.

      If you start censoring yourself because of potential consequences, you’re complicit.

      Sooner a dead lion than some kind of shabby boot-donkey.

      • dagi3d4 hours ago
        Fearing the consequences doesn't make you a complicit but a victim. Sure there will be people who will take a more brave/difficult stance, but can't blame others for not doing so, we don't know they'd put at stake.
        • organsnyder4 hours ago
          You can be both complicit and a victim.
    • krautburglar4 hours ago
      One day redhat is going to grease Trump's pole with enough cash, and King Donald is going to send a member of his tribal-tattooed, part-time MAGA influencer burgerwaffen to pull-up the black van and take you under cover of night for posting wrongthink about wayland & systemd.
    • add-sub-mul-div4 hours ago
      You can't delete comments here. It's why I've only ever made anonymous throwaway posts or comments.

      But in this specific case I do not agree with complying with this bullshit in advance.

    • LightBug14 hours ago
      For the record: FUCK ICE, bunch of pseudo-fascist thugs, or paid off mercenaries. Wankers, the lot of em.
    • zaptheimpaler4 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • AngryNPC3 hours ago
        This guy gets it, and isn't falling for the distractions.

        Also, what is going on with this thread? Everyone here sounds like they're from Reddit, which has one of the most hysterical and heavily-propagandized userbases in existence.

        One person here even said that Reddit is "free from MAGA influences". Like lol, Reddit is nothing but bot accounts and activist moderators who will insta-ban you for wrong-think. The whole site is nothing but astroturfing, and you have to be an NPC to believe any political post on its frontpage.

        HN's has been one of my fav sites to lurk on for at least a decade, but I can't tell it apart from Reddit sometimes.

        • zaptheimpaler3 hours ago
          HN has taken a very sharp turn over the past 2-3 years. Putting aside politics, they are reflexively cynical, misinformed and confident in their ignorance even about technology. Missing the boat on AI as well for years as its evolved from cool chatbot that hallucinates to can write serious code with few errors and solve unsolved research problems with some assistance.
          • AngryNPC3 hours ago
            It's the smugness and complete lack of curiosity that gets me, which I am seeing even in this thread.

            Any idea why the culture's been shifting here? I've always loved the deep & insightful back-and-fourths we've had on HN, but now a lot of that nuance is lost, and it's mostly just kneejerk reactions ("thing is the way it is because GREED, simple as that") and the endless nit-picking of unimportant details.

      • Alupis4 hours ago
        > They have released 2% of the epstein files

        3,500,000 pages[1] have been released, including 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

        If this was only "2%" of the files, you're alleging there's 175,000,000 pages of documents. Absolute nonsense. That's not even realistic. Not to mention nobody but the government knows how many pages are in "the files" - anything else you see is just made up.

        > Im not a conspiracy theorist at all... murder of hundreds or thousands of girls and 1 year old babies

        laugh out loud...

        [1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-publishes-...

        • zaptheimpaler3 hours ago
          https://x.com/jakeshieldsajj/status/2022425434626183307?s=61

          this is one example mentioning babies. There are hundreds of other pictures and emails re young girls. If you bother to look into this, you will see. you would rather feel superior nitpicking a minor detail while missing the fucking point. Good job. Heres another crumb, a tiny sliver of evidence:

          https://hyperallergic.com/epstein-files-detail-gruesome-alle...

          • Alupis3 hours ago
            You're interpreting that email to mean they've killed thousands of one year old babies? Or perhaps it was a joke about a party that had a bunch of babies at it... I dare say, you're so deep down the conspiracy rabbit hole you don't know which way is up.
            • zaptheimpaler3 hours ago
              I said thousands of victims, not thousands of babies or murders. That much is confirmed even by the FBI.

              https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1407001/dl?inline#:~:text=...

              Some of these claims don't have bulletproof video evidence and DNA, and i suspect you would call those fake too even if they did but they are not unbelievable when considered in the context of everything that's been shown. I can't do that for you.

              Anyways, if that's not enough for you to even spend some time reading the news, then I don't know what is. Enjoy being stupid and smug.

              • Alupis2 hours ago
                Here's a quote from your original comment:

                > murder of hundreds or thousands of girls and 1 year old babies

  • taylodl4 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • pojntfx4 hours ago
      For the non-US-American part, that's the Fediverse, the only network that isn't developed and used primarily by US-Americans. As for "wont turn over our data" - it's push-based, that helps to make it a bit harder to crawl, but it's public social media, and by definition the data will be out there as a result of that.
      • pphysch3 hours ago
        What? Telegram and Weibo are developed by US-Americans?
    • baby_souffle4 hours ago
      If you're a participant in one of the federated platforms and your native home server is in European territory but your content is federated to a server in the US, can the US server do anything to reveal your identity other than point to the home server?
      • edoceo4 hours ago
        Are you a US citizen? If Yes then USA has some jurisdiction over you. If not they could try to compel the operator.
  • fleroviumna3 hours ago
    [dead]
  • scottscambaugh4 hours ago
    [dead]
  • otikik3 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • unnamed76ri4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • riazrizvi3 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • nxobject3 hours ago
      Why would you assume that this was astro-turfed? I'd argue that, like other domestic surveillance that require FISA judicial approval, justifications for acts like these require a very high level of proof.
      • riazrizvi3 hours ago
        I spent ten years on reddit looking closely at the evolution of manipulation patterns from its early days to what it has become. The current anti-Trump admin positions are maintained far beyond the subtle techniques, the moderators on mainstream subreddits like /r/news will permanently ban you for not towing the line on left positions in your commenting.

        I don't assume it's astro-turfed, I assess it is, and I want answers to confirm or refute it.

    • mpyne3 hours ago
      > It's fine for citizens to voice positions, beliefs etc. It's not fine for organizations of hostile origins to astro-sturf and manipulate people into positions they wouldn't normally take.

      As the Supreme Court has already apted noted, organizations enjoy free speech rights in the U.S. as well, including the right to advocate for positions you or others wouldn't normally take.

      • riazrizvi3 hours ago
        Yes, and I said 'of hostile origin' - the law still prohibits foreign nationals and foreign organizations spending in US elections. I want to know if they are at work here, and the reason why our media does not represent the people (who overwhelmingly voted for Trump).
    • crummy3 hours ago
      Do you think Americans have to be paid or manipulated into making anti-ICE statements on social media?
    • PpEY4fu85hkQpn3 hours ago
      Is this satire?
      • roxolotl3 hours ago
        I was talking to a long time coworker the other day and they said straight faced basically you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet. There are those who genuinely believe even at this point everything being done is justified.
    • malcolmgreaves3 hours ago
      Reddit isn’t extreme left.

      You’re regurgitating lies from the Republican party’s impressive propaganda machine.

      Trump is as anti free speech as you can get. There’s no debating this fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Anyone that is regurgitating the lines you are is doing so in bad faith: at best, you’re being willfully ignorant.

  • krautburglar4 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • aa_is_op4 hours ago
    Imagine organizing an anti-government movement on the platform of a guy who sponsored said government.
    • hackyhacky4 hours ago
      What are the alternatives for organizing large groups of regular (non-tech savvy) people? Carrier pigeon?
      • willturman3 hours ago
        Word of mouth, independent websites, newsletters, blogs, community organizations, religious organizations, political organizations, amateur radio broadcasts/transmissions, neighborhood meetings, festivals, conferences, meetups, cultural traditions, leaflets, town criers.
        • hackyhacky3 hours ago
          Many of these (word of mouth, community organizations, religious organizations, meetups, neighborhood meetings) don't work beyond the local area.

          Many of these (radio broadcast, independent websites) aren't accessible to non-technical people.

          Many of these (cultural traditions, town criers) are obviously unserious.

  • bediger40004 hours ago
    It's the NYT, so I'm sure their general attitude is "good corporate citizens will do it", but how is the proper response not "fuck you, make me"?

    And don't kid yourself about deleting stuff preemptively. It's all backed up in the NSA's Bumblehive data center, Cedar Valley, Utah. All that has to happen is to tie some "handle" to a real person, and said real person will end up in a FEMA camp in an old KMart outside of a small town in the midwest.