Things You Can't Say About Assange or WikiLeaks - <AUTHOR> https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed-to-say-about-assange-or-wikileaks/ <comment><USER2> It is sad to see how low WikiLeaks has fallen, and makes me think more and more that there has never been much of WL beyond Assange himself.

It has reached comical levels of insanity, illusion of grandeur and narcissism.

<comment><USER3> WikiLeaks has almost certainly been compromised by global intelligence agencies and is operating as a front.

<comment><USER4> It's not clear to me that intelligence agencies would have ever _needed_ to compromise WikiLeaks-the-organization. WikiLeaks' whole methodology was to publish, unedited and unredacted, any documents anyone handed them. Any intelligence agency that wanted a clean way to get some illicitly-obtained documents out into public view could therefore do so just by handing them to WikiLeaks, without needing to subvert the organization in any way. WikiLeaks made a perfect front just by working the way it was designed to work.

<comment><USER5> We can tell that wikileaks is now a front precisely because they have _stopped_ operating in the way you describe.

They no longer publish everything they have been given (Assange once claimed to have documents embarassing to Russia but they are as yet unpublished).

They no longer publish documents indiscriminately (Podesta emails trickled out over the course of October 2016 for maximum political effect on the election)

If that wasn't enough, everyone should've been convinced that wikileaks is compromised when Assange refused to demonstrate that he held the wikileaks signing private key during his reddit AMA

<comment><USER6> _" It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have not published critical information on Russia, Syria or Donald Trump [in fact, WikiLeaks has published hundreds of thousands of documents on Russia, millions on Syria, and thousands on Donald Trump, see [https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/](https://wikileaks.org/spyfiles/russia/), [https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#...](https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=russia%7Cputin%7Cmoscow#results), [https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/](https://wikileaks.org/syria-files/) & [https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=trump#results](https://search.wikileaks.org/?query=trump#results)]."_

<comment><USER5> ooooOOOOOOooooOOOO is Julian going to sue me for defamation now?

Allow me to amend: Wikileaks now publishes Russia and putin related material long after they aquire them and only after they are called out on it.

They sat on the "spy files" for a full year, and only published them _after_ their source went around telling other publications about them. [https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned- down-l...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/17/wikileaks-turned-down-leaks- on-russian-government-during-u-s-presidential-campaign/)

<comment><USER7> Are you suggesting Wikileaks may have had a hidden agenda? Say it ain't so! </sarcasm>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have always love wikileaks for what they do. It is very sad to see that there is so much wrong information and it makes me believe that there is indeed a smear campaign against Julian Assange and wilileaks.

<comment><USER9> If anything, can't but help feel that WikiLeaks informed how the ICIJ handled the leaked 11.5 million leaked documents that comprised the 'Panama Papers.' The involvement of multiple journalists, across different organisations, really adds authenticity that the information was handled objectively and fairly. There's been very little criticism of that fact, at least when compared to WikiLeak's handling of other materials.

<comment><USER10> > Even WikiLeaks didn't answer its tip line repeatedly. The media has failed.

Direct quote from the Panama Papers source[0], after which Wikileaks "slammed" the source for not releasing the full leak. That was such an obvious defamation attempt that Wikileaks disgusts me ever since.

That wasn't the only defamation attempt around Panama Papers that Wikileaks attempted. Check out this[1] investigative gem, in which they've used a secret technique called "scrolling to the bottom to see the donors". I worked at that organization at the time and specifically remember myself thinking "Fuck you Julian, we're supposed to be on the same side." Edited to add: Of course, Russian media picked up on that tweet immediately[2].

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama- papers-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/may/06/panama-papers- source-breaks-silence-over-scale-of-injustices)

[1] [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/717458064324964352)

[2] [https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin- attack/](https://www.rt.com/news/338683-wikileaks-usaid-putin-attack/)

<comment><USER11> OCCRP does amazing investigative journalism. I know in Romania, Rise project is associated with them, and they have some amazing pieces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My opinion of Julian Assange has varied over the years, depending on who the victim of his latest exposure was. I think this means that on balance he's fairly neutral.

However this item is a statement of fact, no?

>> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever "breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time.

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian- assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange- supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail)

<comment><USER13> You are quite right, there is an active arrest warrant for him (from the uk, Sweden never issued one) [1]. My understanding is that he fled the warrant as he beleves he would be extradited to the US if the UK arrest him.

1: [https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/201...](https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/media/2018/feb/13/judge- refuses-to-withdraw-julian-assange-arrest-warrant)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Please try to suspend the snark-meter for a second and realize the truths being stated here by Wikileaks. For example, the supposed Manafort/Assange meeting was trumpeted by The Guardian to great fanfare, yet there is literally no evidence that it happened (ex. no security cameras inside or out showed Manafort entering the embassy).

[https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the- gua...](https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians- viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just- stonewalling/)

Clearly, we are being played by the media and whoever is putting them up to it, with the understanding that most people hear a headline and think they now 'know' the story. Another great example is teh high-tech sonic attack on Guantanamo US personnel which is now being revealed as.. crickets!

<comment><USER5> Speaking of just reading the headline, The Intercept piece you linked has the facts wrong, apparently relying on readers like you not having read the original Guardian story.

1\. There is photo evidence, but the Guardian cannot publish it for one reason or another. They described the clothes he was wearing that day in detail.

2\. There is an entry in the guestbook for him, it doesn't come up when you ctrl-f because they misspelled his name, it appears as "Paul Manaford".

This isn't "lack of transparency", it's protecting your sources.

But, then again, I wouldn't expect The Intercept to know how to tell the difference, seeing how they've burned Reality Winner and Terry Albury.

<comment><USER15> Reading this makes me sad. I thought the intercept was quality journalism. I didn't know they had this kind of history

<comment><USER5> Yeah. And those are only the famous ones. They also blew the cover of John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman, leading to their arrests and imprisonments, and there may be others.

The Intercept isn't safe any more, and it's increasingly becoming sidelined, with the biggest leak since Snowden, the Panama Papers, being given to Süddeutsche Zeitung and ICIJ, by a source that is still anonymous 4 years later.

<comment><USER16> Well, first I think there is a difference between having the facts wrong and not protecting a source enough. And secondly, what exactly did the Intercept do to harm John Kiriakou and Joseph Hickman?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange bleaches his hair.

I mean... I feel like we've reach full self-parody at this point.

</comment><comment><USER18> Is it false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks was a tool used to affect US election?

<comment><USER19> isn't the role of every media organization to affect the outcome of elections, by revealing true facts to the public?

democracy dies in the dark you know.

<comment><USER20> There's a difference between objectively revealing all relevant, true facts at your disposal and selectively releasing true facts that support your agenda or actively harm your opponent, at very specific times when its most advantageous for you to do it. There's also a difference between having legitimate complaints about the United States government and actively working with Russian Intelligence to destabilize western civilization.

Journalism is supposed to inform, not manipulate.

You talk about democracy dying. If Wikileaks had their way I don't think you'd like the NWO that Putin and China would build for us.

<comment><USER21> Honestly curious -- do you think there are outlets that meet that ideal? I used to think so but 2016 shook my faith in a lot of outlets I used to trust.

<comment><USER20> No. Alt-right tabloids like Breitbart are obviously significantly worse than mainstream media, but almost all journalism is trash. Every major network can point to really great work that some of their journalists have done. However, every day ALL of them post intentionally misleading stories designed to manipulate people that don't fact-check.

Frequently, they leave things out or use deceptive wording to change the meaning/context of events. Even when they cite facts, they often do so in ways that make telling what actually happened difficult.

<comment><USER22> This "almost all journalism is trash" is just naively cynical.

I bet what you call "deliberate manipulation" I would describe as "telling a story."

There is often no such thing as "the truth"; two people who saw the same thing happen will often interpret and describe it very differently.

It's unavoidable, and if you see the world in black and white you're blind to most of the details.

<comment><USER20> You're making an awful lot of incorrect assumptions here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Overall such statement leaves bad taste. But pressure to be first or negligence makes media publish press releases without looking at them. Maybe starting it this way would make someone think about its content and not just put on their website?

</comment><comment><USER23> This is the original source: [https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre- not-allowed-to...](https://emma.best/2019/01/07/140-things-youre-not-allowed- to-say-about-assange-or-wikileaks/)

After it was leaked WL released their edited version.

<comment><USER24> Among the bullets from the original version:

 _> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange stinks._

 _> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange does not use cutlery or does not wash his hands._

 _> It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange lives, or has ever lived, in a basement, cupboard or under the stairs._

What on Earth…?

<comment><USER25> I think it comes from Daniel Domscheit-Berg's book.

For example:

"Julian ate everything with his hands and he always wiped his fingers on his pants. I have never seen pants as greasy as his in my whole life."

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/02/23/ten- thin...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2011/02/23/ten-things-you- should-know-before-moving-in-with-julian-assange/#37baf65970ac)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The ridiculous hypocrisy of the "official" wikileaks organization sending out a document labeled "CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION NOT FOR PUBLICATION."

<comment><USER27> Isn't this something that Assange should be releasing personally, anyway? Feels a little weird for him to have his org do his dirty work. An org that claims such objectivity.

<comment><USER26> Multiple news agencies have reported that the Ecuadorians cut off his Internet access in the spring of 2018, after unspecified or wildly speculated-upon "misbehavior" by Assange.

<comment><USER6> _" It is false and defamatory to suggest that Ecuador isolated and gagged Mr. Assange due to his comments on Sergei Skripal [in fact, he was isolated over his refusal to delete a factually accurate tweet about the arrest of the president of Catalonia by Spain in Germany, along with U.S. debt pressure on Ecuador. The president of Ecuador Lenin Moreno admitted that these two countries were the issue, see [https://defend.wikileaks.org/about- julian/](https://defend.wikileaks.org/about-julian/)]."_

<comment><USER28> We can't be very far from, "It is false and defamatory to suggest that the wizard of Oz is just a sad little man hiding behind a curtain."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> "It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever "breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time."

I would love to hear their explanation for why they think this isn't true.

<comment><USER30> Since we're unlikely to get an official statement from Wikileaks here (although it's not impossible) perhaps we could go the other way. Maybe you could research whichever of these you think is most clearly false, and report the evidence you find? My guess is that they are all technically true (as in, he didn't "breach his bail" because he never paid a bail), but it's also possible that at least one is an outright lie. I and others would be interested to see the clear evidence of this if you can find it.

<comment><USER29> Here's an article about when he was released on bail:

[https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12005930](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-12005930)

And here's how the people who posted the bail were ordered to pay the remainder when he breached the terms:

[https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian- assange...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange- supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail)

Absconded: To leave quickly and secretly and hide oneself, often to avoid arrest or prosecution.

He left his house arrest location quickly and secretly to avoid arrest and prosecution.

<comment><USER30> OK, that convinces me: it's a lie to say that Julian Assange has never breached his bail.

Version 1.3 of the document says: "It is false and defamatory to suggest that Julian Assange has ever "breached his bail", "jumped bail", absconded, fled an arrest warrant, or that he has ever been charged with such at any time."

And yet we have a decision by a UK judge that Assange "failed to appear in accordance with the conditions of his bail" and that "the associate sureties should be forfeited": [https://www.judiciary.uk/wp- content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Ju...](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp- content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sureties-julian-assange-08102012.pdf)

So while I can see why Wikileaks might try to argue that seeking asylum instead of appearing did not "breach his bail", there is a clear UK legal judgment saying that he did. It's a lie for Wikileaks to claim otherwise.

Nice job. I'd suggest passing it on the author of the post (Emma Best) to see if she can publicize this clear example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Contrary to false reports, his cat hasn't even been at embassy since well > before the inunction was filed

</comment><comment><USER32> The bizarre call for secrecy and extremely long length are reminiscent of cult communications. I get the image of Assange ranting for hours while some faithful deputy uncritically types up every word.

</comment><comment><USER33> It started out well but some of the things on there were a little petty. Surprised I didn't see a statement mentioning it was false and defamatory to claim that Assange has a small penis.

<comment><USER34> Are we going by the British law regarding defamation, or the US law (where "Truth is an absolute defense")?

<comment><USER35> Do you know something you'd care to state publicly?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> " _Defamation List v1.3_ "

Is this in version control somewhere? Github?

</comment><comment><USER37> While HN does not have a great appetite for jokes, this sort of anti- chucknorris list could go far. That said, I also think much is lost between the journalistic climate between common / civil law jurisdictions, especially as it pertains to libel law. Wikileaks, as an organisation, and independent of any particular motivational bias has a clear and present interest in maintaining and pursuing a list such as this. I'm pretty sure pretty much any journalistic or advocational/lobbyist organanisation in any jurisdiction with a libel clause has a clear and present interest in maintaining this sort of stance, even if as an American you think it shouldn't be necessary.

That doesn't mean I agree with it, but if you operate in a commonwealth country and do anything controversial, I'd say it's pretty much mandatory.

<comment><USER37> for those who arent aware of some of the differences, a factual defense -- i.e. you're only speaking provable truth -- is not a defense against a libel suit in say the UK.

<comment><USER38> The defence of fair comment is effectively a factual defence in UK law.

If the statement(s) are shown to be views anyone could be expect to hold, ie including truth, the defendant can countersue for fraud. I don't know if the changes to the law during the coalition removed all the grounds for libel tourism, but that was the intent.

Some cyclist, I forget who, did against one of our newspapers about some doping scandal. He won significant damages. It sticks in the mind as he was later found guilty of doping and ended up admitting it and compensating the newspaper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> > It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks or Julian Assange > shared documents with a dictator

so no dictators have read any documents on WikiLeaks?

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't get it - it seems to be just a list of common false claims about Assange (according to Wikileaks)? How is that "things you can't say"? Surely you can still say them? Or what - will Wikileaks send their hired guns to silence you?

Also I think Assange is not in control of Wikileaks anymore.

<comment><USER41> My understanding is that defamation and slander laws vary wildly across the world. Many people are looking at this with a US-centric slant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> We've updated the link from [https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2019/01/140-things-wikil...](https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2019/01/140-things-wikileaks-says-reporters-cant-say-about-assange/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER43> Wow it's such a mystery why American 'tech' sites would run propaganda like this. [https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000041920&cy...](https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/totals.php?id=D000041920&cycle=2014)

</comment><comment> a0-prw Don't cross the man, he'll crucify you for sure. Respect, JA

</comment><comment><USER44> That's a very bad title on a very interesting list. Wikileaks did some great work over the years, and I hope they can continue.

</comment><comment><USER45> Every time they say "It is false and defamatory", it sounds like "It is true". Also, has anyone ever seen a prominent organization go to such lengths to protect an executive from accusations?

<comment><USER34> All the time. Usually by doing things that Wikileaks would eventually out.

... which is one of the reasons it's so sad to see the org falling into the trap as well, instead of recognizing the mission exceeds the man and cutting ties with this albatross.

<comment><USER45> I've never heard of an org sending something like this to the media. Can you cite a few examples?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> The funny thing about this is, Wikileaks very effectively got a media outlet to publish a long list of corrections to media lies about Wikileaks. Great self own, ars technica!

<comment><USER34> It'd be a valid self-own if they were lies.

Since the truth of them is in dispute, it comes off more as a list of nerves the media has struck on a very vain man.

<comment><USER47> But at least some of the "false and defamatory" items are definitely true. For example, he jumped bail, and the contributors who put up his bail forfeited their money. But Assange thinks that I am being defamatory for stating this true fact.</comment></comment></comment>


On the manifestos killers leave behind - <AUTHOR> http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n20/andrew-ohagan/whos-the-alpha-male-now-bitches <comment><USER2> I was picked on in school a fair amount. Some of it quite violent, and pervasive. At some point I got really fed up with one particular kid, and got myself a big stick. Luckily for him that stick broke cleanly in two upon first impact, otherwise i'm not sure what would have happened. After that things subsided somewhat. That kid threatened me more, but never did come after me again.

Growing older I realise two things. First, those "jocks" that get all the girls, have (generalizing here) other very serious problems, are often emotionally stunted, angry at their dads, or whatever. So we all get weathered differently by life, and actually it's kind of heartbreaking to see. Second, I just think too much! It drives people crazy when i do that, and instead of that, I just need to turn my attention outwards, and feel what is going on outside of my own head. Then things become relational, and people can also sense that I am here too.

Wish I could tell all of this to my 14-year-old self.

<comment><USER3> _" First, those "jocks" that get all the girls, have (generalizing here) other very serious problems, are often emotionally stunted, angry at their dads, or whatever._"

I highly doubt that this is true.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, smells like an adolescent rationalization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think this is a good read when combined with the Gladwell article from the New Yorker ([http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds- of-v...](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of- violence?currentPage=all)).

I'm not against gun control efforts or better mental health efforts (whatever that might mean) but I think that both articles suggest that a lot of progress can be made in figuring out how to arrest this kind of societal disconnect.

In the days after Columbine, there was a huge reaction from people who wanted to paint with a really broad brush, along the lines of random kids being potential suspects just because they liked wearing trench coats. John Katz had a project called "Voices From The Hellmouth" over at Slashdot, that invited people that had similar difficulties to write in and share their thoughts and experiences of being bullied or ostracized. I'm convinced that efforts like that can save lives.

[http://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices- from-...](http://news.slashdot.org/story/99/04/25/1438249/voices-from-the- hellmouth)

<comment><USER6> I haven't thought about "Voices From The Hellmouth" in a really long time. I remember reading Slashdot a ton in high school and college (maybe 97 or 98 through 02?). Then, not so much. FWIW, HN, esp when I first found it a few years ago, reminded me a lot of what I loved about the discussion on Slashdot back in the day.

Anyway, the actual point of this comment: much of what's described in "Voices From The Hellmouth" would now fit comfortably under the currently fashionable term "microagression." I'd bet that many posters on HN and elsewhere who think that microaggressions aren't a thing worth real concern, are also the sorts of people who were/are picked on in the way that "Hellmouth" catalogs so vividly.

And for the record, I'm not saying that the prevailing view on HN is that microaggressions aren't real, or that most people who deny them were bullied geeks. Just that there are probably a lot of bullied or formerly bullied geeks who deny the significance of such social ostracism, even though they experienced it themselves.

Ironic, but not unexpected: people without power often end up at odds with one another when they should be looking for common ground and empathizing with one another. Still, sad. I always find it really painful to watch minorities be racist, to watch geeks pick on other geeks for lacking social graces, to watch women be unfeminist, etc. Well, sometimes it's darkly hilarious. But still painful.

<comment><USER7> >Ironic, but not unexpected: people without power often end up at odds with one another when they should be looking for common ground and empathizing with one another

From a certain altitude this is true, but what usually happens is the top plays the bottom off against the middle. From the perspective of the middle, both are enemies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I am convinced that the people who do these shootings do so because they have an ego that cannot cope with their societal impotence.

That is, they think they should be more liked, more powerful, be able to get girls, be in charge of things, free from criticism, unable to be bullied (which is reasonable) etc... but aren't for any given reason.

So their recourse is to _prove_ to everyone how powerful they are by shooting them up. The worst part is, it is pretty powerful and it destroys communities, which is what they want. They want to be able to say they destroyed a community because that's how they are proving their power.

I don't see any solution to this. Preventing them from getting access to the tools that could empower that could help but is really hard to do, especially in the US, because banning guns or whatever likely wouldn't work 100% of the time. If they are smart and dedicated enough they will find a way to get/make bombs and guns.

So I see no real solution here.

<comment><USER9> The falacy here is the classic "perfect is the enemy of good."

Banning assault rifles and handguns could go a long way to reducing availability. And if that decreases the number of these events by as much as people think it could, it's probably worthwhile.

Just because somebody who's super dedicated to the cause and works day in and day out to get the equipment to carry out a shooting could probably make it happen doesn't mean limiting access won't greatly reduce the number.

<comment><USER8> This is a good point, but I think underestimates the pathos around American gun ownership.

That is to say, I don't think that banning those things would result in a reduction in availability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is the first time I've read excerpts from these "manifestos" and it's hard to know how to react. It all reads like a kind of mental illness and it's chilling to see the similarities (although this article may only make them look similar). Intellectually I feel like there should be room for sympathy of some kind, but to be honest, I feel nothing of the kind; just angry. The authors strike me as small, pathetic, misguided and (for me, worst of all) demanding and entitled.

In terms of constructive moves to try and deal with this issue, it's hard to think of anything substantive. For sure, less guns means these individuals would have taken fewer lives. Perhaps a better attitude toward mental illness and easier to access treatment options might help. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like these people though they were mentally ill. On the contrary, they felt the opposite.

I found the bits about how special they think they are to be particularly striking. I certainly feel that my daughter is special, but I understand that what makes her most special is that she is my daughter. The idea that everyone should be, in some way, globally special seems somewhat misguided.

<comment><USER11> I think you have hit on the one key similarity, at least in the examples cited. They all seem to feel they 'deserve' something, that the world owes them a relationship, sex, power, money etc.

When they don't get it they get frustrated and angry, and eventually violent because they feel they are being 'cheated', 'oppressed'. I've read that that Elliot guy also harboured a racist belief that he was better than african- americans, and thought it a huge injustice that he couldn't get a girlfriend but saw african-americans who could.

<comment><USER12> Elliot Rodger's manifesto: [http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting- do...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting- document.html)

Rodger thought it was a huge injustice that anyone else could have a girlfriend -- or anything else -- when he couldn't. Though he never seems to have actually summoned the courage to ask a girl out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I link to this far too often, but it's relevant to so many discussions had on this site.

        The Great On-Line Equalizer
        Date: 21 Mar 1996
        https://subgenius.com/bigfist/answers/articles2/X0095_The_Great_On-Line_Eq.html

        Relevant quote:
        """
        All the people who are invisible in the normal world (the world
        run by the rich and powerful), all those people you can dismiss
        on the street as powerless and harmless -- ALL THOSE PEOPLE are
        now in your face.

        You can feel their hot breath on the Internet.
        """

It seems the more we become intertwined with the Internet, the more we start feeling their hot breath in real life. Or at least, the more we notice it.

<comment><USER14> This quote has a lot of truth to it. I think the issue we now face is that it gives EVERYBODY power. Even people that shouldn't ever have it in the first place.

Many of these hashtag protests are purely based on emotion and in some instances, don't even have enough information to make a claim either way (or are based on rumor/false information). This is why our court systems were invented in the first place: to prevent mobs of people from attacking innocent individuals and calling it 'justice'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_rage_of_the_avera...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_rage_of_the_average_joe.html)

</comment><comment><USER16> I went to school with the author. If you like his writing style, I highly recommend his (long but fascinating) account of trying to ghost write Julian Assange's autobiography. [http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew- ohagan/ghosting](http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n05/andrew-ohagan/ghosting)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for mentioning - really enjoyed the linked piece (previously on HN at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9395156](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9395156) though it didn't generate discussion).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting topic, but the article does nothing more than recycle points taken from the most quotidian of newspaper editorials.

</comment><comment><USER19> From your first paragraph:

>'I have noticed,' it says, 'that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight.'

So, PLEAE can you stop fucking mentioning these assholes names? For the the love of God you are perpetuating the problem.

<comment><USER20> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herostratus)

<comment><USER21> Now _that_ was a law that backfired... 23.5 centuries later, can the average person think of anyone else who lived in Ephesus back then?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> At what point does the constant retread of mass murders' ideals become fetishization? Does anyone really think we'll prevent more of these attacks by deep analysis of their writings or are we just obsessed with the possibility of understanding horrible tragedies?

I'm tired of reading these monsters' names and quotes. They all thought they were the smartest people on the planet and everyone should read their words.

I'm going to stick with remembering the amazing people taken from us instead. I think about people like Liviu Librescu and Alex Teves a lot as a reminder of the requirement for good people to stand up to evil. [http://nonotoriety.com/](http://nonotoriety.com/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Is pervasive PUA language in articles now so commonplace that nobody even comments on it?

Is it a thing now to identify people with serious mental health problems with "betas", as if that was in any way a valid or helpful analysis?

</comment><comment><USER24> There should be a Mad Max reference in the article with Immortal Joe shouting "mediocre", because even in their blaze of glory moment for these troubled individuals, there is no glory and barely any blaze. And I think that the reason they leave this manifestos is because they feel they cannot do anything right and put it as insurance.

<comment><USER25> "Immortan Joe"

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> ...what about the Unabomber?

<comment><USER27> He doesnt have much in common with the people mentioned in this article, except Breivik maybe, though i might be completely wrong since i havent read up on the Unabomber.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, as I understand it the Unabomber was politically motivated terrorism. He also had the distinction of being a pretty smart guy, which is unusual for the demographic that gets into mass murder.

<comment><USER26> Ted Bundy [0] Andrew Cunanan [1] Jeffrey Dahmer -

I wouldn't say it's "unusual" [2]

[0] [http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/serial%20killers/B...](http://maamodt.asp.radford.edu/Psyc%20405/serial%20killers/Bundy,%20Ted%20-%202005.pdf)

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunanan#Early_life](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cunanan#Early_life)

[2] [http://www.examiner.com/article/22-serial-killers-with- high-...](http://www.examiner.com/article/22-serial-killers-with-high-iqs)

<comment><USER29> You listed two serial killers with a high IQ; however, the merits of IQ can be debated, but more importantly Kaczynsky stands out because he holds a PhD and was a Berkeley professor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> People alone with their thoughts. Early, frequent and long-term intervention can ease the suffering of mentally troubled individuals. Instead we build prisons, invest in security and hire more police.

<comment> aaron-lebo Are you advocating more spending on mental healthcare and less spending on prisons? If so I agree, but that isn't explicit in your comment.

These people committing these acts don't usually end up in prison, anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> According to this ridiculous article I was "a natural step" from being a school shooter in my teenager years, and so are million others. The juvenile grouping of "jocks and nerds" is not enough for the author, who makes no effort in trying to understand the killera, instead he dwells into generalizations and sheer prejudice. If the title didn't hint you into what sort of article it would be.

</comment><comment><USER32> I realize this is the actual title of the piece, but it's going to get _much_ fewer views/reads because of it.

For the sake of HN readers, it might be worth editorializing this title to add some kind of context.

<comment><USER33> This is a common misunderstanding, but in fact the HN guidelines ask you _not_ to use the original title when it is linkbait.

We changed the linkbait title to the subtitle. Once you get past that, this is a substantive piece.

<comment><USER34> Perhaps adding a note to that effect on the submissions page would help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> It's little more than a rehash of facts with little exploration beyond that. I expected more from such a read.

</comment><comment><USER36> It's a very strange time, when anyone can reach anyone else (or any knowledge) instantly, but many use this as an opportunity to isolate themselves even further. It seems to happen a lot when the exceptionalism common to young white men runs straight into the reality that they are in fact _un_ exceptional and what power they have is not just unearned but waning. The cognitive dissonance that results is, as we see over and over, lethal to themselves and others.

<comment><USER7> > what power they have is not just unearned but waning

That's the interesting thing, though, isn't it? Leaving aside questions of "earned," _is_ their power waning? Does it console Veronika Weiss or Katherine Cooper that we might have a woman as POTUS? I know no one is crusading for it but I will: when will we see equality in mass shootings? To put it in less obviously straw-man terms: why should women have to live in fear when men don't?

My point is: the exceptionalism is apparently justified, because when it couldn't be, _they went out and justified it._ Got any breathless expose's about _your_ troubled writings?

<comment> vezzy-fnord _why should women have to live in fear when men don 't?_

They don't?

<comment><USER7> It was definitely a straw man. I'm a dude and I don't live in fear of a shooter, and I don't get the impression many women do either.

My point is: We're quick to claim victory as society grows more tolerant and race/sex matter less, but I think we claim it too soon. That young white men feel entitled to shoot people when their lives don't work out (and apparently others don't) is as real an imbalance as wage gaps, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Very well written and interesting. While some people put the blame on firearms (lets not turn this into a debate on gun control) i believe that its the media attention that is the biggest culprit. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4)

<comment><USER37> "Let's not turn this into a debate on BLANK, instead let's talk about my pet theory BLANK".

Seems like that's the only constant after any sort of horrific tragedy. It becomes grist in the mill for people to push their pre-existing agendas.

For some it has been a push for greater gun control. For others it has been a push for greater funding and understanding of mental health. For others, you blame media attention.

Personally, I view these events as "side-effects" of our society. And we're basically loathe to examine it too deeply as it can call into question some deeply held parts of American culture.

<comment><USER38> "Reduce media attention to criminals" seems like an odd pre-existing personal agenda. What ulterior motive could that possibly correspond to?

<comment><USER37> Blaming media has gotten increasingly popular for a variety of societal ills. It's just a favorite boogeyman to go after. Much like people who blame violent video games or 4chan.

The ulterior motive is to use the situation to disparage something they already don't like.

<comment><USER39> Yes, I'm sure people blame the media because they perceive it as popular and not because killers leave manifestos saying they do it because of the attention it will bring them.

>'I have noticed,' it says, 'that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you're in the limelight.'

-TFA

<comment><USER37> It's not the media that causes the individual to crave the media attention or infamy.

Does our media contribute? Absolutely. But they are the way they are because of the way we are. Or at least the way the consumers of media are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> > According to the FBI, there have been close to two hundred such incidents in > the last 15 years, resulting in the murder of 486 people and the wounding of > 557 as of September last year

According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualt...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war) , in the 8-year Iraq War (2003–2011), there were 3,527 U.S. combat deaths and 32,222 wounded. Could save far more American lives, not to mention others, by keeping sociopaths out of the Presidency rather than profiling and surveilling loners.

</comment><comment><USER41> Who cares honestly? It's the same rehashed garbage. First world problems galore. Not getting enough sex, not having enough money, not making enough friends but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in their basement of choice and whine.

Clarifying: The first world problem I'm talking about are the things the shooters cite as reasons for their actions, not the shootings themselves.

<comment><USER42> Mass shootings are overwhelmingly a US problem, not rest of the first world problem. (There are a few exceptions).

> but not being willing to do anything about those things but sit in their > basement of choice and whine.

Or go out and kill a bunch of people.

<comment><USER43> Not even close; here's an accounting I did covering just Western Europe just for this century as of a little over 2 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4970408) and the same with some discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5070201)

Add e.g. Canada and "[it's] overwhelmingly a US problem" is even less true.

<comment><USER42> That's 20, for all of Europe, since 2000.

The US has had over 30 mass killings _this year_. And that's only the events where four or more people were killed. It doesn't include events like Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida where 15 people were shot but no-one died.

Sept 28th 2015 Miami Florida - I need to include all that information because there were also shootings on that day in Indianapolis, IN; Walterboro, SC; and Philadelphia, PA, and there were shootings (often different events on the same day) on September 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 11th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th 20th, 21st, 29th, and 30th September.

> Not even close

Really?

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass- shooting...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass- shootings-1443905359)

> The U.S. represents less than 5% of the 7.3 billion global population but > accounted for 31% of global mass shooters during the period from 1966 to > 2012, more than any other country, Mr. Lankford said, adding that he defines > a mass shooter as one who killed at least four victims. The 90 killers who > carried out mass shootings in the U.S. amounted to five times as many as the > next highest country, the Philippines, according to his research.

<comment><USER43> Those are different classes of "mass killings", Wikipedians aren't going to collect all the cases of where 4 or more people were killed, and my postings were not intended to discuss scale, just to refute the lie that this is a uniquely American phenomenon with 2000-~2012 examples.

Which is not quite what you claimed, you said "overwhelmingly", and that's sufficiently vague I suspect it's a debatable point. Paywall stops me from the WSJ article, but I know that people who study this sort of thing that I trust have said at minimum the FBI's recent study was bunk, and that's enough for me on this topic.

<comment><USER42> You tell me what you're counting as a mass killing, and then I can show you how that event is overwhelmingly something that happens in the US. You've pointed to less than two events per year for Europe for this century.

How about six people killed? There have been 13 events in the US where six people were shot and killed since Jan 1 2013.

You're wrong anyway. From your own post:

> De Gelder, Kim, 20, Jan. 16/23,, 2009, Belgium, 4, 12

> Bosse, Bastian, 18, Nov. 20, 2006, Germany, 0, 22

> Radmacher, Sabine, 41, Sep. 19, 2010, Germany, 3, 18 (arson was also used)

> Sacco, Angelo Secondo, 54, June 28, 2005, Italy, 3, 9

Numbers killed: 4, zero, 3, and 3.

Wikipedians are going to list every event that happens in Europe, because these events are so rare. They are by definition news worthy, which provides a lot of reliable sources. But US mass shootings are so common that they hardly make the news.

The fact that you dismiss an event where 15 people were shot but not killed as not being relevant, or you dismiss events where 4 people or more are killed as not being mass killings is a sign that this conversation is pointless: you're blind to the facts.

> this is a uniquely American

I didn't say uniquely, I said overwhelmingly.

It is overwhelmingly a US problem.

[http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- interactive/2015/oct/0...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- interactive/2015/oct/02/mass-shootings-america-gun-violence)

<comment><USER44> That article cites 'shootingtracker.com' as a source, which is a known-false propaganda site, as it includes accidents with airsoft guns in their list of "mass shootings".

I have been shot by an airsoft gun. It stung a bit.

Since January 1st, 2013, Wikipedia shows six mass killings in the United States, two in China, and four in continental Europe.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Could a new sound format change music production? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-33939203 <comment><USER2> If it is taken up by the major DJ software and DAW developers, then yes.

If not, it will die.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe? If people use it. Next question!</comment>


TikTok: Pompeo says Trump to crack down on Chinese software in coming days - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53625344 <comment><USER2> You ridicule Donny T, he destroys your business.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump- rally-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally- tulsa.html)

<comment><USER3> At least you can ridicule Trump without getting banned or being thrown in jail. TikTok was already being 'investigated' before the Tulsa rally: [0][1]

So what happens when you ridicule or criticise the CCP? [2][3]

[0] [https://www.vox.com/open- sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-...](https://www.vox.com/open- sourced/2019/12/16/21013048/tiktok-china-national-security-investigation)

[1] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/9/20906971/tiktok- censorshi...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/9/20906971/tiktok-censorship- china-bytedance-musically-marco-rubio-senate-mnuchin-cfius-treasury)

[2] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/tiktok-says-it-doesnt- censor...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/tiktok-says-it-doesnt-censor-but-a- user-who-criticized-china-was-locked-out.html)

[3] [https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9414465/tiktok-t...](https://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9414465/tiktok- to-leave-hong-kong-as-security-law-raises-questions)</comment></comment>


Xkcd: Wikileaks - <AUTHOR> http://xkcd.com/834/ <comment><USER2> The mouse-over is the best part.</comment>


The Polygons of Another World: IBM PC - <AUTHOR> http://fabiensanglard.net/another_world_polygons_PC_DOS/index.html <comment><USER2> Corrections:

>pc_arch.svg

VGA was hanging off 16 bit ISA bus. CPU wasnt touching ISA, Ram wasnt touching ISA. You had chipset with build-in memory controller, ISA arbitration and fast Cache was the norm. Typical contemporary 386/486 motherboard diagram [http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/samsung/pc/98134-925-...](http://www.textfiles.com/bitsavers/pdf/samsung/pc/98134-925-009_DeskMaster_486Q_SD925E_Service_Manual_1993.pdf) page 1-1 system block diagram will explain a lot.

> clear the screen

this must be the worst clear screen routing of all time :o why bank switch at all? setting mask to 0xff once will write to all of them at the same time

        outpw(0x3c4, 0xff02);
        memset(VGA,0, 8000);

done. Enough for 30fps clear speed using absolutely __the worst __8bit ISA VGA card, something like Trident TVGA9000 or Realtek RTG3105.

>SOLVING COPY, 4x speed up

Transfer speed when writing to non crappy 16bit ISA VGA card is ~3MB/s. Reading is always slower, nobody optimized graphic cards for reading, sometimes even ending up under 1MB/s. I think I read Abrash or Carmack stating that IRL on real hardware this ended up being a wash in terms of performance.

>SURPRISINGLY DIFFICULT AUDIO, On Amiga and ST it was a piece of cake

ST has no native PCM output. Atari uses "Yamaha" YM2149 aka re-licensed AY-3-8910, audio chip from ZX Spectrums and Amstrad CPC. Its the same pain as trying to play PCB on Adlib (volume register?), except even lower fidelity.</comment>


Ask HN: Is Node.js appropriate for timeline critical applications? - <AUTHOR>

I am about to start writing a timeline critical application, whereby, a user would be able to sync music to events. I want to execute client-side JS with (mostly) perfect timing. I read that Node.js is reliable for soft realtime apps. I also enjoy the idea of writing server-side JS. I have a background in C# .Net, some RoR, CF, PHP - is this route a good choice for me? <comment><USER2> Node.js isn't a client side system, just server-side. If you need events to trigger without concern of network latency etc, the triggers and checking should all be pre-loaded on the client side and that would be independent of the server technology used.

Look in to popcornjs[1] and see the Donald Duck sample[2] utilizing popcornjs to see what you can do client wise for synced triggers.

One a different note - Node.js is an amazing server-side system and I highly recommend playing with it.

[1] <http://popcornjs.org/>

[2] <http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/semanticremix/></comment>


LinkedIn: The Missing Manual Worth Reading - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/national/2012/02/17/linkedin-the-missing-manual-worth-reading/ <comment><USER2> Great summary..seriously...I felt like I read the book!!

I giving you a point for that for sure.</comment>


Excel and CSV Conversion to JSON and XML in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://apievangelist.com/2013/09/24/excel-and-csv-conversion-to-json-and-xml-in-javascript-that-runs-100-on-github/

<comment><USER2> Something similar submitted 6 months ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5322177](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5322177)

[http://niggler.github.com/js-xlsx/](http://niggler.github.com/js-xlsx/) and [http://niggler.github.com/js-xls/](http://niggler.github.com/js-xls/) seem to be pure in-browser parsers for Excel, whereas the Mr Data Converter solution is just parsing data coming out of the clipboard

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it would be fairly easy to whip up something like this with WebODF ([http://webodf.org](http://webodf.org)). That is able to show _real_ spreadsheet documents from software like Excel, LibreOffice, Apache OpenOffice and Calligra. Of course that works if you move away from the binary formats and choose OpenDocument Format - but this is default in most (and at least in Europe also one of the defaults of the latest two versions of Microsoft Office).

</comment><comment><USER4> This isn't actually a usable API, it's a page that you can paste into.

</comment><comment><USER5> a ripoff/clone of [http://shancarter.github.io/mr-data- converter](http://shancarter.github.io/mr-data-converter) \- years old

<comment><USER6> To be fair, the article acknowledges as much:

> The solution I've employed involved discovering and forking of a kick ass > data conversion tool called Mr. Data Converter, and quickly the tool > retrofitted with some of my own enhancements:

> * HTML5 File API - Allows me to acces file content without server side > technology. > * oAuth.io - Dead simple, client side oAuth for Github and > other platforms. > * Github.js - A JavaScript API wrapper for Github, > enabling client-side interaction.</comment></comment>


"The DNA Code" - New Research Shows Life Hardwired in the Universe - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/the-dna-code-new-research-show-life-hardwired-in-universe.html <comment><USER2> I wonder how this will affect estimates of the Drake equation?</comment>


Seeking Access to Facebook in China, Zuckerberg Courts Risks - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/business/seeking-access-to-facebook-in-china-zuckerberg-courts-risks.html?smtyp=cur&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> Like Rupert Murdoch, Zuckerberg might be chasing a white whale in terms of trying to get access China.</comment>


Finite-State Automaton - <AUTHOR> https://www.programmingalgorithms.com/algorithm/finite-state-automaton <comment><USER2> I would love to see this implementation in JavaScript.</comment>


Evil Teacher: Code Injection in Moodle - <AUTHOR> https://blog.ripstech.com/2018/moodle-remote-code-execution/ <comment><USER2> I think the patch should have been to rip out eval() and build/use a shunting- yard parser/evaluator. A quick search found this: [https://github.com/ircmaxell/php-math- parser](https://github.com/ircmaxell/php-math-parser)

Leaving a call to eval() with user supplied input, no matter how well filtered, seems like way too big of a risk.

<comment><USER3> Or use whatever tools are included in their language for safely evaluating strings (like ast.literal_eval in Python).

<comment><USER4> It's PHP there is none. In fact most languages don't include a safe way to evaluate strings out of the box.

<comment><USER5> > It's PHP there is none.

This seems to disprove that, no?

[https://secure.php.net/manual/en/runkit.sandbox.php](https://secure.php.net/manual/en/runkit.sandbox.php)

<comment><USER4> Allow me to rephrase, no cheap way to evaluate arbitrary strings without spinning up another vm.

<comment><USER5> That's not true either.

<comment><USER6> explain?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is hilarious because i'm seeing Moodle installations around the UK that are _4_ years old with no patches.

My partner works in higher education and they give her blank stares when she mentions how out of date they are. It's a culmination of "Not my problem" and "It works so why fix it?"

<comment><USER8> Moodle used to be provided for free as inclusion of the IT services provided by the local authorities. Local authorities stopped running schools (academy) and LA dropped moodle for free so school saw a free service turn into £3k+/year maintenance contract.

And most schools started to get unhappy with moodle because it was hardly updated. IIRC they left the free moodle running at one major version and offered the service contract on the next major version up as a carrot.

<comment><USER7> Interesting, thank you.

I did look at putting up on my partners domain just so she's got an instance that doesn't rely on a client (she works for Universities). Last time I looked it was all "dump this .tar.gz php stuff into a directory", it was like going back ten years. No standard containers, debs, rpms, anything. Maybe I didn't look hard enough...

<comment><USER8> I think the only reason moodle i still around is as above (it was free) and some resources are published as packs for it, which are re-design archives of php and files that upload to a directory. I wasn't particularly impressed with it when I managed one.

Drive + classroom is free as it the MS answer, I don't see moodle as a wise investment in time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _Moodle allows teachers to set up a quiz with many types of questions. Among > them is the calculated question which allows teachers to enter a > mathematical formula which will be evaluated by Moodle dynamically on > randomized input variables._

But... why? What's the practical use for such a quiz?

<comment><USER4> Would be handy for a ctf competition maybe if I could run a validator against a string. Especially if I wanted to check if some string validates against my program, and there are possibly many flags in the solution space.

<comment><USER10> If I'm understand you correctly, what you're asking is an undecidable problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Moodle is also that piece of software which allows teachers to include arbitrary javascript in the course content, allowing them to XSS themselves to an admin role.

</comment><comment><USER11> Moodle may be terrible, but the alternatives are much worse. And omg isn't PHP a mess. It's like perl but if you keep all the bad bits and throw out the good bits.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not related to the content of the article but the justified text in the paragraphs makes it harder to read

</comment><comment><USER13> This is one of the better write up formats I have seen. Good work Robin.

</comment><comment><USER14> I remember using Moodle in middle school. I was a bit of a script kiddie and tried to break it. It had a WYSIWYG editor for responses (obviously not helpful for breaking in), but you could also get at an HTML editor. I put some JS in the HTML editor and saved the response, but the code did not execute when I viewed the page after saving it. But then when I brought up the editor to remove my tampering, the JS executed. It didn't execute on viewing the page, only on attempting to edit it.

I never came up with anything to use that for (thankfully, since I would have gotten caught and punished). It required the person viewing to try to edit my post (which teachers could do but rarely did) and then bring up the hidden HTML editor. But it was the first time I ever found a security vulnerability and I remember it fondly.

This was over ten years ago. I hope it's been patched.</comment>


Ask HN: How to stop Google indexing dynamic search pages? - <AUTHOR> Hey HN folks,
A few months ago I received a manual action penalty from Google as they detected spam pages on our domain.  The problem was that when people were searching on our site they are directed to a page with the following:
https://$domain/search?query=$QUERY
Some users (most likely bots) are generating huge spam searches on our search page and somehow Google is indexing these and there are no inbound links to these pages (at least I cannot find any).
To resolve this I did the following:
* On our search page I set the following header: X-Robots-Tag: noindex (based off of the documentation here https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_tag).
* Submitted URLs to be dropped from Google Index via Webmaster console
* Submitted 3 reconsideration requests to Google to avoid the penalties
In theory this should stop all search pages being indexed (as they all contain the noindex header) and it has helped drop the number of indexed pages marked as spam by 99% however we still have a significant number of urls marked as spam and so our site has a penalty from Google.
Has anyone had this issue before?  How can I stop these pages becoming indexed when I have the noindex header set _and_ if you search the spam urls there are no inbound links to them?
Any help appreciated folks! <comment><USER2> Hilarious how Google thinks they are now in editorial control of your content to the point where you are on the hook for fixing _their_ bugs. You're being treated as a wayward content provider, rather than that they should be happy to get the benefit of your content to index.

<comment><USER3> Problem, as usual, lies with default being opt-out instead of opt-in. They did the same with WAPs. Now mine need to append _nomap.

<comment><USER4> While I agree, opt-in would certainly be better.. I really see no way to transition from the current state, to 100% opt in. And, I think opt-out was the right choice at the beginning - nobody would have updated their sites to suit the startup search engine.

That said, Google & co could set a date, whereby new content / pages will not be indexed unless its marked as indexable. This would allow historic content to remain indexed, and new content be opt-in at the expense of any new search engines being unable to index historic content. How can they tell if the content has not opted in, or is just no longer actively maintained without having a pre-existing index?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You need to add <meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow"> to the  section of all your search results pages.

You want robots NOT to index pages but to still follow links on your search pages.

Create clean sitemap.xml file and submit it to Search Console.

Another way is to just canonicalize all search results pages to your search page.

With Google and these things time is involved. Once it's in the index it will take time to properly clean everything up. How was the traffic before this happened? Did the website rank for any decent keyword? Sometimes when this happens the smart thing to do is to just start from scratch with a new domain.

If you want more extensive help email me.

</comment><comment><USER6> Based on my experience:

A.- I would also add "nofollow, noarchive" tags [1] to your X-Robots-Tag header:

\- "nofollow" -> do not to follow (i.e., crawl) any outgoing links on the page.

\- "noarchive" -> prevents Google from showing the Cached link for a page.

B.- I would specify in Search Console (former Webmaster Console) how should Google handle "query" parameter [2]

C.- Prevent those spam searches by blocking source IP address, User-Agents, combinations of both, etc.

Good luck!

[1] [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/79812?hl=en)

[2] [https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/crawl-url- parameters...](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/crawl-url- parameters?hl=en&siteUrl=https://<domain>/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the suggestions!

A) I'm going to add the nofollow and noarchive to see if that helps the issue.

B) I've already set the search console to ignore the query parameter but I'm still getting new spam results coming in.

C) I've been looking into this but so far the meta information for the spam requests is not consistent and it's tricky to identify so far.

Thanks for the help and the luck, I think I'll need it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> You should use the canonical tag. Moz has a good page on how it works.

[https://moz.com/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important- ad...](https://moz.com/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement- in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps)

</comment><comment><USER8> You could also annotate your page. [https://schema.org/SearchResultsPage](https://schema.org/SearchResultsPage)

Edit: Maybe it is also worth annotating the search field ([https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data- types/sitelin...](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data- types/sitelinks-searchbox)) so that google can match it against your search results page.

</comment><comment><USER9> Register for Google Webmaster tools. There's an option in there to exclude links that have dynamic parameters. You can define the parameters you want it to ignore.

</comment><comment><USER10> Maybe also add a robots.txt? [http://www.robotstxt.org/](http://www.robotstxt.org/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Would adding robots.txt help? I cannot blanket ban the page as it needs to display to the user with 0 or more results and my understanding is that whilst robots.txt would take precedence for index settings as I have it defined in the header for that page it ought to achieve the same.

<comment><USER11> I think adding rule for /search* to your robot is easier way to block google bot

<comment><USER12> Don't do this until Google sees your new robots meta directives (or canonical tag) on these pages, that way they will drop from the index. Then you can add this to your robots.txt to prevent it being crawled again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Adding <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> to each page should work. Also as a heads up, having an entry in robots.txt to disallow is not enough since pages can still be indexed if they can be navigated from anywhere else on the web.

<comment><USER14> I thought robots.txt was meant to be pulled from the domain and honoured anyway. At least that's what used to happen. Just because someone links to you doesn't mean the spiders should crawl all the content

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can anyone answer a related question: Are you penalized for _not_ running Google Analytics and/or Google Webmaster tools? In other words, if you have a clean website with no analytics whatsoever, is your ranking likely to be worse?

<comment><USER16> Anyone who doesn't work at Google wouldn't be able to with absolute certainty be able to answer this question. Anyone who does work at Google wouldn't be allowed to answer this question. However page rank is widely attributed to mainly based on back links.

<comment><USER17> If not using GA doesnt affect your page rank, I don't see why Google would need (or even want) to be secretive about it. Only if it does hurt your ranking (how is that huge antitrust lawsuit today feeling Big G??) will they need to be all secretive about it.

<comment><USER16> It is not in their best interest to be open about everything. From their perspective it is better to leave it a mystery and allow people to assume that it does negatively affect your rank to not use their services. Whether it does or does not affect it. From your perspective, you need a good ranking? You get GA.

<comment><USER18> It's not a threat. It's the _implication_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Heh, I ran into a similar issue previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16302821](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16302821)

GoogleBot is broken.

</comment><comment><USER20> Are they still being added newly, or have just not been purged from Google index yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> There are still new spam search queries being indexed.

<comment><USER20> Do you have a robots.txt entry that's stopping Google from fetching them? That can counter-intuitively cause Google to index pages.

<comment><USER21> In my limited experience, the robots.txt is helpful, but not a stop all. The big G still indexed a bunch of my pages because a certain group was creating (off of my site) links to the spammy pages - which makes G index it; however if you have like: Disallow: _spamresult_ Disallow: _search_

They can still end up in the index, just with a not that says "no description is available for this page"

I remember years ago the debate Matt Cutts asked if G should index and pointed out that other engines were indexing pages that were robots.txt blocked.. meh.

I had to setup a 301 to homepage redirect system to zap all the pages I took out... although some other engines still spider looking for those pages even though I removed them with 301s over a year ago - perhaps the spammers still have links going to them?

I started just blocking all indexing from sogu or whatever it's called and similar bots in the robots.txt and then started to look at ip / cidrs to block further after thinking they would get the hint after several months.

Hope your situation is different.

<comment><USER21> Just realized that I had put the asterisk * in front of and after the two words I had with Disallow up above, but that kicked in HN formatting instead of showing Disallow: *search with another asterisk after it is what I mean to show.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Blocking the search function in robots.txt may help as well.

User-agent: *

Disallow: /search

Disallow: /search _

</comment><comment><USER23> You can restrict in .htaccess

<comment><USER24> That might work, but only if you use apache. If there is a CDN or a different server or proxy (nginx, varnish) it's probably better to rely on meta tags, robots.txt, and/or canonical tag.</comment></comment>


Exit unicorns, pursued by bears - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/briefing/2020/04/04/technology-startups-are-headed-for-a-fall <comment><USER2> The article carefully points out VC funding receding even before the pandemic, which is simply accelerating what was already trending. Reminiscent of how 9/11 and its aftershocks sped up the dot-com bubble popping, which had already been in motion.

The examples of "fake tech", startups assuming easy entry into markets due to mass adoption of internet computing (via smartphones) and then running into fundamental problems with their business models, and the valuations based on creative accounting also sound familiar.

This really is the dot-com bubble 2.0, isn't it.

<comment><USER3> What little I know of history has indeed convinced me that major ordeals are quite often the logical conclusion of small or past things unaddressed, gone out of proportion. "Bubbles" are such a thing. Real "black swans" are incredibly rare; and this (CODID-19 pandemic) isn't one.

Indeed, the current dotcom situation is a bubble, and it was long due. Meanwhile, let's hope investors become better at identifying real value, real innovation, real game changers. It's often the boring stuff.

<comment><USER4> You don't think having almost every major metropolitan area in the world under some degree of reduced economic activity for 1-3 months qualifies as a Black Swan event? What does, then?

<comment><USER5> Is it a Black Swann? This event was in the possibility space of epidimiologists. I don't have a source unfortunately, but it's findable.

<comment><USER6> That it was in the realm of possibility doesn't make it not a 'black swan'. Black swans by definition are possible.

COVID-19 is unequivocally a Black Swan.

Hopefully, we get a CDC 'mini Army' like Korea/Taiwan have so this doesn't happen again.

<comment><USER7> That's a bit of a contradiction. If something is not in the realm of possibility, then it is impossible, and thus cannot (in a strict, logical sense) happen. If we were to define a black swan event as something "not in the realm of possibility" then there would literally never be a black swan event, ever... because things that are not in the realm of possibility do not happen, full stop.

So yes, as you say, a black swan event is allowed to be something that is in the realm of possibility. But it has to be improbable. And it has to be something unforeseeable by people knowledgeable in the field. COVID-19 does not pass either of those tests; it definitely is not a black swan event.

<comment><USER8> Exactly.

A pandemic scenario was modeled/tested just last year [1]. Some participating states appear to have learned from it, other not so much.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Contagion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Contagion)

<comment><USER6> This is ultra cherry-picking.

'Some guy, somewhere predicted the 2008 crash, therefore, it should have been obvious'

People have been running 'pandemic' simulations forever, this is not a new idea.

There are multitudes of catastrophic scenarios we could face.

Pandemics that break out at this level are probably 'once in several generations' (at least pre-full globalization) which implies effective 'Black Swan'.

The next pandemic may be in 20 or 200 years, nobody knows, hence 'Black Swan'.

<comment> blaser-waffle Ultra cherry picking? Did you even read the wiki article?

It was a study that lasted for months and involved the US Fed Gov plus 12 states. This isn't one talking head spouting their pet theories on their blog, then later turned out to be correct.

<comment><USER6> Every major calamity was predicted by someone (or group) on some level, with relevant credentials.

The US military runs China-US engagement scenarios all the time, of a variety of flavours i.e. S. China sea flare-up, Tawian invasions etc. You know we are running Europe/WW3/Russian nuclear standoff drills and simulations - all the time, right? Any one of those scenarios is very unlikely to happen, but somewhere in the world, something similar will happen.

The Fed and large banks constantly 'stress testing' and producing models for relatively unpredictable things?

Insurance companies are constantly doing fairly complex modelling built with really good data?

And academia is rife with all of those activities.

After the 2008 crises, there would have been an easy handful of individuals of credibility who were predicting much of what happened. Dot-com crash. 9/11\. Saddam's Invasion of Iraq. If there's any likelihood at all of something happening, someone is talking about it in a meaningful way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> grey-area What a wonderful headline; I almost don't need to read the story. The economist has always been very clever with their copywriting.

<comment><USER9> It's derived from one of Shakespeare's less popular plays, Winter's Tale, which contains the amusing stage direction "Exit, pursued by a bear."[1] (Apologies if you knew this, sincerity via text is hard)

Their actual headline/url seems to be "Technology startups are headed for a fall," which is less fun.

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winter%27s_Tale#The_Bear](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Winter%27s_Tale#The_Bear)

<comment><USER10> As one of today's lucky 10,000, thanks for posting this. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Coronavirus is just accelerating the market correction in startups that was already underway. In the end it may actually do some good to just pull the bandaid off fast.

This is just the next wave in the cycle and those of us that have been around a few years know what to expect. Those that haven't been though this before or are in denial will learn the hard way.

Nobody cares about your pumped up valuation anymore. If anything pumped up valuations only hurt you in times like these. Options become worthless and early investors don't want to take a hit at the benefit of others that come in on a severe (down 50+%) down round. What people do care about is how much cash you have and what your burn rate is. Cash is king.

Getting new cash will mean making it with old fashioned revenue and profit. If you can't do that your days are likely numbered.

<comment><USER12> Right now is an excellent time for fully online services to make their mark like a few products I've seen promoted on this forum (specifically the IPTV centralization site in the last month or two).

I think once we get through the pandemic and begin returning to normal life we may, at least short term, see companies drop the whole develop product, get VC buy in and cash to burn, then explode staff count and product depth without the user base or revenue streams to maintain them. Companies will be more conservative short term and consider their liquidity and ability to reshuffle and adapt vs a titan of their segment buying up all the smart engineers. Some may still go for that (true unicorns, perhaps?). Maybe I'm being optimistic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> [https://outline.com/DavUGk](https://outline.com/DavUGk)

<comment><USER14> Much gratitude for making me aware of Outline.com Will use this often

<comment><USER13> Glad to know! Not sure how long it's going to keep working though because I think all the staff was laid off recently.

<comment><USER15> The site that had recent layoffs is The Outline, not this one. I got them mixed up myself at first.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22769301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22769301)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> [https://archive.md/5d7Kx](https://archive.md/5d7Kx)

<comment><USER17> This is giving a 403 error from CloudFlare? Am I the only one?

<comment><USER18> Archive blocks CloudFlare.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> losing money since day one, overvalued, on life support from investors...so Covid is killing those that would have died anyway, just in a week's time.

</comment><comment><USER20> Now would be a good time for every business to take an inventory of all the software services they use and define their contingency plan for each one.

</comment><comment><USER21> The title used for this HN submission isn't the title chosen by The Economist - but it's so much better! (And really sums up the article's content in a terse manner)

<comment><USER22> Well, it was one of their titles. Actually the submitter posted "Exit unicorns, pursued by bears - Technology startups are headed for a fall", which was perfectly legitimate. But the first part is so good, we truncated to that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Unicorns are just symptomatic of the decadence of late capitalism. Companies that can only exist because of an overabundance of greater fools who create a short-term "success" from purely trading the inflated capital of a popular but failing startup - totally divorced from its actual business. The enormous prevalence of fraud and reward for failure, of front-runners, bent sell-side analysts, the wretched hive of scum and villany that is Wall St.

A better world is possible.

</comment><comment><USER24> I hadn't known Lime had effectively shut down in most markets, although upon reflection it's fairly obvious that would happen.

(Incidentally, while I couldn't get the archive.md link that neonate published to work, either, I could read the full article simply by disabling JavaScript and reloading the page. It's remarkable how many paywalled magazines this works with now. It's almost as if rewriting an essentially all-text web site to be a snazzy web app that pushes all the smarts to the client side has some drawbacks! Who could have predicted.)

<comment><USER25> > It's almost as if rewriting an essentially all-text web site to be a snazzy > web app that pushes all the smarts to the client side has some drawbacks! > Who could have predicted.

That's not their threat model. 99.9% of people don't think to disable javascript. However at the same time search engines get the full text making the story more discoverable. I wouldn't be surprised if you'd get the full story if your referer said you came from Google too, that at least used to be a thing.

<comment><USER24> You're right, of course, and the search engine full text is a good point. I'm not sure how many sites still give you a break if you come from Google, though -- I remember a fair number used to, but it seems the industry has gotten a lot less generous in that regard.</comment></comment></comment>