How Happy Couples Argue: Study (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://news.utk.edu/2019/09/16/new-research-sheds-light-on-how-happy-couples-argue/ <comment><USER2> I'll recommend Imago training [1] to any and all couples. It's reflective listening on steroids and was transformational for us.

The basic process starts w/reflective listening, then goes deeper to get at the underlying wound ("when you do that, it brings up all the times my parents..."), then to what might happen in a perfect world ("the toothpaste cap would magically fly back on the tube after 30 seconds of inactivity"), then to some concrete make-ups.

The other things we do that helps is to stick with the current argument (which I find difficult, sometimes) and to not go "meta" ("see, honey, there's a pattern here where you ...").

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

<comment><USER3> Sorry but my naive first-pass read of this registers it as contradictory. Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.

<comment><USER4> > Your first example was clearly meta about the partners behavior pattern.

Bringing up history is not meta. Meta would be starting an argument about the way your partner argues, or similar.

<comment><USER5> Ah, that is insightful, thanks.

So next time she does that, I will tell her that that's not a good way to argue because I read that on HN, right. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Most "arguments" in a relationship aren't about the actionable issue at hand. Those issues usually aren't that big they couldn't be calmly discussed if only they didn't reflect on and resonate with larger things, either personal to either party or long-brewing friction in the relationship due to earlier issues not having, in turn, been discussed at the time.

A good way to force perspective into arguments is to just listen, not take it personally and not make a confrontation as soon as you observe that your significant other is angry. S/he just needs to lash out first after which you can get to the root of the problem which probably wasn't that mundane little thing that started "it all".

In other words, don't argue at the same time, don't be angry at the same time! While those arguments _are_ coming right at you it's rarely personal in the real sense. It makes it hard to have an argument if you don't argue back. You only start discussing when you've let the anger come out first.

<comment><USER7> If you found some strategy that works for you, great. But be wary of offering this a general solution.

Specifically for your post I know several persons who start to argue with their partner with the intention of getting an emotional response. And when the other person tries not to argue they just escalate to heavier stuff.

Also, sometimes arguments ARE personal. The reason for the argument is just pretext and you partner really can't stand you any more. In which case IMHO you should get out, not look for strategies to have healthy arguments.

To keep it short there are a lot of particular situations and no general solutions to couple problems.

<comment><USER8> Every marriage is a universe, mundane interactions creating supernovae, spectacular histories eroded into dust, a state of existence with billions of nodes.

-Leo Tolstoy

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Personally I find one of the biggest things that keeps my relationship going is that we have ways to express discontent with each other that unambiguously frames it as not necessarily a big thing.

Mostly this way is pretending to be a goofy cartoon version of George and Martha from "Who's Afraid Of Virginia Wolfe". Or, rather, of what we imagine would be their online role-play avatars - how a rotting lich and a hyena lady ended up together in a stable orbit of mutual loathing is an open question, but it gives us a _great_ way to express exaggerated versions of the things causing friction between us, and amuse each other with trying to turn them into comedy. It makes checking in on the actual issue afterwards a lot easier, as we've already burnt off a lot of whatever anger may have wanted to make us snap at each other in these exaggerated personas in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER10> This isn't just how happy couples argue; it's how happy PEOPLE argue.

You'll find just as much conflict in the workplace as you'll find with your family, and how that conflict is handled will determine how healthy your workplace environment is.

You can't agree on everything (and that's a good thing, because it keeps ideas fresh), but you MUST agree on how to talk about and resolve differences, how to communicate, and how to cooperate.

<comment><USER11> A great piece of advice I heard is "don't treat your partner worse than a stranger". Most people wouldn't dream of being abusive to a stranger they just met, yet they're fine with being abusive to the person they're supposed to care most about.

<comment><USER10> I understand the sentiment, but the way you avoid potential conflicts with strangers is to impose distance, which is not what you want in close relationships.

You'll offend your partner far more often than you would a stranger because you are intimate and vulnerable to each other, which makes it far more likely that you'll hurt each other unintentionally, but also far more likely that you'll have a full and meaningful relationship, provided you practice good relationship hygiene.

A good resource is Dr. Gottman: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLXX8wzvT7c)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My wife has a masters degree in marriage and family therapy. We have been to so many marriage therapists. It's expensive but cheaper than the alternative. Just be deliberate about what you want from each session so it doesn't turn into expensive fighting.

I recently went vegan (for her) but with exceptions for when she would get angry at me. It was amazing. Instead of my blood starting to boil when her voice would raise, my mouth would start to water. Now, I've never eaten so many steaks. (And she is much more aware of her anger)

<comment><USER13> Sorry, but this sounds like unhealthy to me. The day I need an external person to deal with the arguments in our relationship is the day I end that relationship. There are many females on this planet. No need to bend over backwards to make one particular relationship work.

<comment><USER14> Your kids would be happy to see you bend your back a little.

<comment><USER13> Have you ever had to watch your parents fight over nonsense? Nope, sorry, I disagree. Why should kids be any happier if their parents stay together and fight all the time?

<comment><USER15> Because children make life enjoyable with your partner half the time, so you're in a dilemma : stay for the good half or quit for the bad half. Then you stay because maybe you can fix the bad half, and why not try getting help from someone. It's worth it. Even getting from good 50%/50% bad to 55%/45% is worth it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A book I'd recommend for anyone who wants to improve the communication in their relationships -- romantic or otherwise -- to help resolve any kind of conflict, is "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg. The ideas are very simple, almost obvious, but his exposition is brilliant and really reaches deep into the human experience. He makes a convincing argument for how our learned behaviours have led to widespread inability to effectively resolve conflict, and he gives a straightforward model for overcoming this.

<comment><USER17> Yes totally recommend it. I am convinced that communication is the root cause for strife in all relationships, love or otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I completely agree with that article. I have been separated from my wife off and on for about 6 years over the 17 years we have been married due to military. We don't argue as much now, because at this point there is little reason as we basically read each other's minds. Most of the time there is conflict to be found its not between each other and talking about feels more like reviewing a git pull request.

When we do argue its usually minor and due to differences of opinions search for conflict resolution. The last argument we had was whether we should kick the daughter out of the house. We spent less energy on that argument than I probably spent choosing what to eat for lunch, which is strange considering the severity of the subject.

The last serious argument we had was about 22 months ago when she got another dog without asking. Somehow I guessed the subject exactly when she started the conversation with: "Don't be mad..." I was livid. I told her if she wanted to keep the dog she had to name him "Gay Fish" (South Park reference). That never happened. What can you do when you haven't seen your spouse in a year and are on the other side of the planet? In hind-sight things are pretty healthy if that's the most serious of arguments.

The thing we disagree about the most is that I cannot arbitrarily quit my high paying corporate job where I literally do nothing. Although I hate being bored and so many of my coworkers (not just at the current job) are incredibly insecure and exceedingly sensitive my spouse is adamant I need a good reason to enter a different line of work.

After all that its funny, in a very sickly schadenfreude kind of way, to see the curiously trivial absurdities or bizarre self-serving behaviors other couples destroy their marriage over.

<comment><USER19> If you have enough savings for retirement, and no dependants, I do not think your wife gets to have a veto over what you choose to do with your life. An opinion to take into consideration, sure, but not a veto.

But maybe this is why I've never gotten married despite wanting to. I don't like it when other people try to pressure me into doing things I know I shouldn't have to do on premises that I don't agree with. Shrug.

<comment><USER20> I think that is definitely something that you have to be willing to balk from in a relationship. There will always be things that your partner insist you do, and things that you insist your partner.

When I would put up a fuss over my mother making me do something as a kid, she would eventually exclaim "Would you just humor me and do it?" Being an adult now I get that reaction. A lot of the times it's hard to describe your position to someone else, like my mother attempting to make me do something as a kid that I don't understand the ramifications of since I'm a kid, like going to the doctor's office. Obviously going to the doctor's office is necessary maintenance for a human, but as a kid you only see it as getting in the way of your playtime.

Being an adult is knowing that you will sometimes be the kid or the parent in this sort of scenario plenty of times, and that it's usually a lot easier to swallow your pride and humor your partner, rather than die on your hill like a child throwing a tantrum over not wanting to go to the doctor's office.

<comment><USER21> This is a very healthy perspective on relationships and I fear the nuance of this view is often lost in discussions about relationships. I'm sure that if you posted this on a Reddit relationship forum, you'd get responses telling you that this is oppression or abuse, and you shouldn't put up with it.

Relationships are all based on compromise, and the art of compromise is really what makes a relationship. I love the story you tell of your mother saying "Would you just humor me and do it?". My father did the same.

<comment><USER22> >Relationships are all based on compromise

Yes, and I assume this is implied, but compromise must strike an acceptable _balance_. When things get too one-sided it's generally a recipe for trouble.

A good rule of thumb is for _both_ partners to estimate their contributions or compromises to be 60+% of the total, and then there's some chance that it'll be fair (i.e. most people over-estimate their contribution/sacrifice)

I think a lot of relationship issues result from a struggle over balance/fairness because they aren't sufficiently dedicated to the others' interests and well-being.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> One of the best things I learned from my wife: Never go to bed angry. If we have an issue, we talk it through until we find an agreement. It's actually harder than it sounds.

The worst thing you can do is not talking about something or avoiding the topic. I think mutual understanding is one of the cornerstones of a healthy relationship.

<comment><USER24> Never go to bed without negotiating a ceasefire.

Agreeing that the anger should not disrupt human contact and safety is absolutely essential, and does not require resolving the anger itself. It is certainly easier to _successfully_ resolve anger and conclude the topic than to being asked to set aside anger for the evening. However, resolving anger when tired, stressed out, after a long day for one or both of you, and maybe hungry — at significant personal cost to one or both of you — is not a success. It does not create a space of safety for future arguments, and it implies that anger is a higher priority than the human being(s) feeling it.

The ceasefire specifically does _not_ include any form of warfare between when the agreement is made and the next day. No passive-aggressiveness, no sniping, no laying verbal traps. No silent punishment. No withholding platonic touch because "they don't deserve a hug". If they attempt to start something, let it slide. If you attempt to start something, stop the instant you realize it and apologize for breaking the ceasefire.

You don't have to hide the signs of your anger. You don't have to make them feel better. You don't have to do everything they ask out of guilt. But you _must_ continue to be their partner, and sustain the foundation of your relationship, by offering them safety overnight.

Note: This applies _exclusively_ to non-abusive anger. If you feel like you're being verbally, emotionally, or physically abused, whether anger is involved or not, please seek immediate support from a hotline, a friend, a professional, anyone. If you can get out, do so. Possessions can always be replaced.

(Standard disclaimer, I am not your medical professional.)

<comment><USER25> __ceasefire __Thank you for finding a better word for "not angry" and for writing down the idea behind it. It's the conscious, mutual decision to solve the problem later, knowing that sleeping safely together as a couple is more important.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The Science of Trust by John Gottmann is a great read if you are interested in this. Unlike most behavioral health, they use actual science and math to describe and dissect behaviors and outcomes

</comment><comment><USER27> I've not sure I've ever really argued with my wife, even though we've had difference of opinion on things. I haven't really seen my parents argue, or her parents argue.

I don't really get why people seek out conflict and blame. It just seems unhealthy all around. Some people thrive on conflict, though. They like to argue. They like to blame, to engage. Or at least, they NEED to, even if they don't like it. Or maybe one partner seeks out conflict, and the other one hates it.

But, ultimately, I think arguing is a choice.

One could argue that partnering young leads to more issues because it doesn't allow you to form an individual identity. On the other hand, it could strengthen your bond because your identities were built together. Partnering late in life, when you don't "need" each other leads to less dependency; but it could also lead to the partners finding it just as easy to get rid of each other.

<comment><USER28> I find most of the time when couples say they don't argue, the real reason is one is a doormat that let's the other get their way all the time. There's not much to argue about in that case. I don't want to say that's the case with you, as I know nothing of your marriage. It's just an observation.

<comment><USER29> That's what my first marriage was like. I told myself it was a great relationship because we never argued, but really I just deferred to her on every decision and went out of my way to avoid any conflict.

<comment><USER28> I'm glad to hear the qualifier "first" used in that case. Hope things are better for you now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This appears to be a study of common patterns of argument in two samples of self-reportedly happy couples. The kind of happy couples that volunteer for these sorts of studies, presumably. It's all very nice but I'm not sure it tells us much, not least because every unhappy couple I know behaves in these ways too.

</comment><comment><USER31> i have found most things i have gotten very angry at my wife over and we've had big arguments over, i cannot remember a week or two later. was it worth a big relationship damaging outburst, vs waiting a bit to cool off, talk it over later? i am not sure. maybe felt good at the time to get it out, but peaceful discussion with cooler heads and empathy is the only thing that results in lasting change

<comment><USER32> Yeah i find the best way to ramp down is to eat some food. Usually I'm only angry because I'm actually hungry. It's the same for my wife.

<comment><USER33> We call it Hangry.

Assuredly the word came from somewhere else, we lay no claim to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> For unhappy couples, there might be more differences and stronger opinions remaining unresolved. So could be different from individual to individual, and for different couples and environments. Some couples are a good fit, and others might never reconcile their differences. Most long-lasting couples go through a phase of rejection and reconciliation.

</comment><comment><USER35> Non-jealous, compromising people tend to have longer and happier marriages? Sounds about right.

</comment><comment><USER36> I suppose in order to learn how to love, it would be begging the question to scatter that word throughout the article. I wish it would have been mentioned at least once, though.

</comment><comment><USER37> My partner of 11

</comment><comment><USER38> Couples are happy when they're attracted to each other. Arguments turn bad is when the attraction is gone. Nobody wants to say "I'm not attracted to you anymore" so they fight dirty instead.

<comment><USER39> That view seems limited. Many relationships, especially longer ones, allow for both attraction and arguments.

<comment><USER38> No, what's limited is assuming argument style is the input and relationship happiness is the output.

<comment><USER40> I think you're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. The article isn't claiming that this argument style leads to happiness (ie, that it is _sufficient_ ), merely that other argument styles lead to unhappiness (ie, that it is _necessary_ ). But plenty of other things can go wrong along the way; just because you argue correctly doesn't mean you will have a happy relationship.

(Of course, whether or not it is actually necessary is open for debate.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wonder if this is a language confusion. An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion. People regularly have to argue together to work together, because things change over time and we have to adjust to the changes. But the other sense of argument is that one person has one conclusion, and the other person has a different conclusion, and they are battling about it and are upset about it. That's the sort of thing that can be entirely avoided if people start with shared premises and argue "together". I think there are a lot of happy couples that actually never argue in the battling/upset sense.

<comment><USER42> "An argument is using reasoning to move from premises to conclusion."

Dictionary definition discussions are weak at the best of times, but they're _super_ weak when the definition you're choosing for the word isn't even the most common one, whereas the article clearly is using the most common one, and is perfectly correct in that usage. We all know that's not the definition in question.

<comment><USER41> I'm sort of surprised by both the replies to my comment so far, because I think it's the article itself that conflates the two definitions. When the quote is, "Happy couples tend to take a solution-oriented approach to conflict, and this is clear even in the topics that they choose to discuss" that's clearly pointing to the more academic definition of "argument" and not the "upset about opposing points of view" definition. If two people are taking a solution-oriented approach regarding a conflict they are choosing to discuss, would you normally describe them as "arguing" in the emotional sense?

I'd also disagree that one is significantly more common than the other, when the phrase "making an argument" is so commonly understood.

<comment><USER43> I'd be shocked to find more than 1 in 1000 English speakers to interpret an couple arguing as anything other than

> 1) an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry > one.

As opposed to a definition common in other contexts, eg academic, legal, political, like

> 2) a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that > an action or idea is right or wrong.

<comment><USER41> Would 999 out of 1000 people describe "taking a solution-oriented approach to conflict" as a heated exchange of diverging or opposite views?

It's probably just a sloppy article - the paper's abstract doesn't describe that behavior as "arguing". In fact, the string "arg" doesn't show up on the study's page at all:

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_...](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335327845_What_are_the_Marital_Problems_of_Happy_Couples_A_Multimethod_Two- Sample_Investigation)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Awakens to the Force - <AUTHOR> http://google.com/starwars <comment><AUTHOR> And they have an accompanying chrome extension which loads a Star Wars wallpaper when you open a new tab! [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/awaken-the- force-w...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/awaken-the-force- within/boeojddkbfhdgnnicgkgogjnbkdljibb?hl=en_US)

</comment><comment><USER2> If you don't want to bother reading the page. It's just a publicity/marketing skin on various google properties for Star Wars.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well duh.. The point is that its cool to a star wars fan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So without signing up...what is it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Its pretty much just theming of various google sites. The subtlty of some it is cool. Like the volume control on the Youtube videos plays the light saber sounds whenever you try to change volume.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wish it supported Google Apps accounts.</comment>


Can Technology Redefine Detroit? - <AUTHOR> http://www.growdetroit.com/can-technology-redefine-detroit/

<comment><USER2> I moved back to Ann Arbor from NYC about six months ago. I think I had to move to New York to see how truly awesome things are here. There is a lot top notch technical talent, the cost of living is low, and abundant cheap space makes it a startup's dream. The quality of life in Ann Arbor is very good, particularly if you want to start a family. To be honest a lot of the really talented people I met in NYC were midwest ex-pats looking for work.

Our start-up is banking on the notion that things are coming full circle for technology, and that we'll see a shift from consumer facing web-applications to physical hardware. Lately it seems that the New York Times agrees:

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/silicon- vall...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/silicon-valleys- hardware-renaissance.xml)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/new-wave-of- adept...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/business/new-wave-of-adept-robots- is-changing-global-industry.html?pagewanted=all)

<comment><USER3> Hi K, I remember your name from previous threads on this topic. Would love to meet you in Ann Arbor for coffee and learn more about what ya'll are working on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I grew up in Detroit when it was at its peak, then I watched it crash and burn. Though I live outstate I've been in Detroit at least monthly for the past two years and am convinced that I am witnessing its rebirth.

Detroit is like a startup there is huge opportunity with a capital O along with huge risk. As a result Detroit has become a magnet for ambitious young people.

The city's despair has made it open to bold ideas where you'd never get a hearing anywhere else.

Want to start a farm? The city will sell you the land and even tear the buildings down for you.

Want to own a skyscraper? Detroit has over fifty for sale and according to the Wall Street Journal they're at the lowest prices anywhere in the world.

[http://www.dailywealth.com/952/The-Cheapest-Skyscrapers- In-T...](http://www.dailywealth.com/952/The-Cheapest-Skyscrapers-In-The-World)

</comment><comment><USER5> I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. I live in Ann Arbor (about an hour west of Detroit) and the area does seem primed for a revolution. I think it will take a handful of well-known people to say "this is the next spot" for everything to explode. Hopefully this conf is the start of that.

<comment><USER3> One, thanks for reading (and whoever posted, thank you). I agree with you, personally I think it's a combination of needing more local success stories, as well as recognition by the Nat'l Startup community that we have something to bring to the dance.

Folks like Steve Blank seem to be taking note of the region's efforts. We hosted him last month and his investment into the Michigan eLab (Venture Fund) in your neck of the woods (Ann Arbor) seems to be a strong indicator that something is here...

<comment><USER6> I've been trying to get Detroit recognized as a start-up success story [1] for a few months here on HN. For those living in Detroit, the turn-around might be hard to see. I live in West Michigan, and in the past decade I've noticed a huge change in the Detroit area. I only visit Detroit a couple times per year, but every time I come by there's something new that surprises me. In the last few years, I've even taken to parking and walking some streets that I wouldn't have previously.

I could even see myself taking employment in Detroit; maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but the city is getting there. Mitt Romney might have famously called to let Detroit go bankrupt, but all it really needed was some investors who cared enough to force a paradigm shift. Look at Detroit startups such as Neowin, Fathead, Stardock, etc.

[1] <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3923825>

<comment><USER7> "Mitt Romney might have famously called to let Detroit go bankrupt, but all it really needed was some investors who cared enough to force a paradigm shift."

Those two things are unrelated. Bankruptcy doesn't mean the city physically disappears or anything. The reason one declares bankruptcy is to clear debts (in a fairly drastic way), which opens capital up to do things other than service debt. It may yet be a necessary or desirable step.

<comment><USER6> You're right, Detroit hasn't avoided bankruptcy yet. Like you said, though, bankruptcy is drastic and has consequences. It could be possible to rebuild without suffering that blow _and_ without a bailout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think one or two big time tech company campuses would make a world of difference in downtown Detroit. Open a big dev shop, recruit underpaid people from local companies and best and brightest from Big 10 schools. Just please, don't feel obligated to focus on automotive customers just because you're in Detroit.

<comment><USER9> what will make more difference is grocery stores and other amenities people need to live in an area. tech campuses that bring people to work, then drive back to the suburbs... not enough to build sustainable changes. everything will be at the whim of the people deciding to place businesses there (for charitable reasons, or other), instead of any locals having any say or needs to fulfill.

<comment><USER10> There is a "grocery store" myth related to Detroit, and it is just that, a myth. There a numerous markets and stores in Midtown and Downtown that supply fresh food to residents.

Edit: I lived downtown for nearly a year and a number of grocery stores opened in the downtown business district while I lived there, with plans for more. According to this article [1] from 5 days ago, there are 80 grocery stores in Detroit. Not to mention the awesome Eastern Market year-round farmer's market.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-walljasper/detroit- fresh-f...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-walljasper/detroit-fresh- food_b_1821511.html)

<comment><USER3> Would love to have you build on this...do you live in the area?

<comment><USER11> I used to live in Eastern Market in Downtown and could get fresh food there all the time.

Edit: You can buy fresh everything in Eastern Market every day of the week, not just during the market on Sundays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've also thought quite a bit about this the past year. I moved to downtown Detroit after graduating from school, and I absolutely love it down here. Granted it isn't as bustling as the valley or SF, but we are slowly building a community of super talented individuals. Hopefully Techonomy can get a few more people out of the woodwork and interested in the community. I'm personally very interested in who is bootstrapping their business from the ground up. I have been doing so for about a year and it has been working out great.

<comment><USER13> Out of curiosity -- what makes Detroit special (aside from cost)? Why would Detroit be a better choice for Tech than other 2nd tier centers?

<comment><USER12> Personally I'd say it would depend on the type of software a particular company is making. I think advancements in health tech have a ton of potential here with some of the research going on at the academic centers in the area (Wayne State, Karmanos, Henry Ford Health System, DMC, and outlying areas like UofM and MSU). Enterprise software while not as sexy would also probably be a good fit here as well. If an entrepreneur can make solid connections with the autos and outlying manufacturers and suppliers it can really give you some nice profit and list of clientele that is impressive. Other sorts of software startups may have a tougher time here due to the lack of coverage we get compared to other cities and Valley/SF. While we have DVP, Bizdom, and Compuware ventures it is also tougher to find funding then some areas. There are downsides to the city, but I've grown up in the area since I was born so my connection to it is fairly deep and I really want to see the city flourish as it once did.

<comment><USER3> Totally agree with your perspective on enterprise software, and inroads to the auto/suppliers/etc being a tremendous opportunity.

I initially thought the same about lack of funding, but it is not true. There are numerous funds as well as angel investors across the state of Michigan that are poorly connected, and historically as a region we've done a poor job of highlighting accomplishments of up-and-comers. We're trying to improve this dynamic.

<comment><USER12> Interesting. If that dynamic improved I believe that'd be a huge asset to the region. What are your thoughts on health tech in the area? One of my projects is pretty focused on improving the lives of researchers, and I've found this area has quite a few institutions looking to become more cutting edge.

<comment><USER3> We hosted Scott Case (Founding CTO of Priceline.com) at an event in Grand Rapids last week, covering the implications that the JOBS act will have on the Entrepreneurial and Investment communities alike.

It was...to date, the strongest representation of Michigan VCs I've ever seen gathered together at the same time. Absolutely overwhelmed by this group and the interest they had in health tech in the region.

At the same time, had the privilege of meeting a young Entrepreneur who went from founding Avomeen, to creating a very young startup called Labdoor. He's out of Ann Arbor. I'd bet on this kid in a second...he'll do massive things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's the idea behind that "Submit a Story" uncollapsible floating tab on the left side of the page? Seems like you're obstructing a pretty important, content-dense part of the screen with something unimportant and obnoxious that doesn't even generate revenue. Please reconsider this design.

EDIT: It's come to my attention that this only appears to be an issue at 1024x768, which I'm currently using because I'm at work and my employer's computer hardware is ancient. This is probably not a problem for the typical user.

<comment><USER3> Reconsidered.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> $500 for a ticket? As a student, I'd love to go, but that's a little much. Does anyone know of any student tickets, or company sponsoring tickets? I'll wear as much company swag as you want, and be there the whole day.

<comment><USER3> There are a few opportunities for student outreach from what I've heard. Contact us and we'll see if we can connect you to someone that can help.

<comment><USER15> Couldn't find an email on growdetroit.com, so I facebook messaged you. Thanks for the help! I really appreciate it.</comment></comment></comment>


How are you dealing with working remotely (5 min survey)? - <AUTHOR> https://forms.gle/ycgJqXyqc5mpfNDR6 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN -- I'm gathering some info around the challenges we're facing with transitioning to a remote work setting. I would really appreciate it if you guys could take 2 minutes out to fill out the linked survey!

Thanks in advance!</comment>


Whose limb is it anyway? - <AUTHOR> https://aeon.co/ideas/whose-limb-is-it-anyway-on-the-ethics-of-body-part-disposal <comment><USER2> I've never understood this fetish with discarded body parts. In the US, after you've used a cadaver or cadaver part for research you're supposed to return it to the family. How absurd! And that's even before the modern fetish with "IP value" and residuals.

These kinds of rules (and many others) make it very difficult for small pharma and other medical startups to get human anatomical specimens for product development. I know this from experience.

I really couldn't care less what is done with my non-functional corpse once I'm gone.

PS: In the US the collagen that gets injected into lips to puff them up all comes from a single cell line harvested from a discarded foreskin sliced off about 20 odd years ago. No residual "rights" there -- Allergan gets to keep all the money.

<comment><USER3> > PS: In the US the collagen that gets injected into lips to puff them up all > comes from a single cell line harvested from a discarded foreskin sliced off > about 20 odd years ago. No residual "rights" there -- Allergan gets to keep > all the money.

Wtf? Is there more info on this?

<comment><USER2> It's in Allergan's filings on the FDA web site (warning: they ahve a lot of products). Figure out when it was introduced, start around then and work backwards.

Back when I learned about htis the boy would have been about 14 years old which was even funnier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I once shaved my beard off and couldn't bring myself to throw it away. I kept it in a paper bag for... oh wow LOL I still have it. Facepalm.</comment>


Show HN: Lottery – A Toy App Using React.js - <AUTHOR> http://jeffreyrosenbluth.github.io/lottery/index.html

<comment><USER2> At first I thought nothing happens when you press "play", but I see now that the player names "Player 1" "Player 2" are not default names, but rather placeholders some of which need to be changed before clicking "Play".</comment>


Ask HN: What do you think of my new blog called Progressive Geeks? - <AUTHOR>

http://progressivegeeks.com/home<p>The idea is a blog that blends topics that interest my friends and I: Progressive politics, science, and technology <comment><USER2> Clickable for people that can't be bothered to use both hands: <http://progressivegeeks.com/home>

Found ∪, wanted ∩.

</comment><comment><USER3> Like the science and tech bits, could do without the progressive politics bit. As a libertarian, I find that I agree with progressives on a few things; but there's an air about most (not all!) self-styled progressives that annoys me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah that is one potential problem, turning people off with politics. Really I think Progressives serve the science and technology sectors better than any other party/political group though, which is why we decided in the end to put these three topics together</comment></comment>


Does It Fit in My Car? - <AUTHOR> http://doesitfitinmycar.com/

<comment><USER2> Seems broken, can't sign up. Account Creation error.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This isn't mine, but I thought it was awesome.</comment>


Chief Executive and Associates Indicted for Conspiring with Drug Traffickers - <AUTHOR> https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdca/pr/chief-executive-and-four-associates-indicted-conspiring-global-drug-traffickers <comment><USER2> I'm failing to see in this press release what set Phantom Secure apart from, say, iMessage?

I remember in the past reading about them, and as I recall they were marketing way too specifically to the criminal element and had direct knowledge and support of specific illegal acts.

There's providing cryptography services, and then there's becoming the IT arm of the cartel. I suspect they leaned too far toward the latter, but this press release doesn't really explain it.

<comment><USER3> These guys were actually shipping phones to cartel bosses. It's a bit different than just offering a phone in a general purpose retail store.

<comment><USER4> The case looks terrible on paper and they obviously knew who their clients were to the point of interacting with them, but what's the difference between knowingly selling those same mob bosses a car which they go commit crimes in? There's numerous businesses who know that their customers are unsavory types and face no such punishments.

It all reeks of cryptowars when you read through the law enforcement statements.

<comment><USER3> Sure there is selective enforcement. But selling a car to someone you know will commit a crime with it is a crime itself:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle)

<comment><USER4> That link doesn't seem to be making the case, for me at least. It seems like a horrendous injustice. 25 years in prison for drunkenly loaning your car to a person who then committed crimes with it? That's insane.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > charges that they knowingly and intentionally participated in a criminal > enterprise that facilitated the transnational importation and distribution > of narcotics through the sale and service of encrypted communications

> Maximum Penalty: Life in prison

Welp. Guess the issue here is _knowingly_ , do apple execs think all sorts of crimes aren't committed with their products?

<comment><USER5> Apple executives presumably don't have specific, detailed knowledge of crimes that will perpetuated with iMessage. They have a general and broad knowledge that some unspecified people will.</comment></comment>


Illegal downloads at "epidemic" levels in Australia - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/illegal-downloading-hits-epidemic-proportions/2008/09/23/1221935645031.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

<comment><USER2> Australia is 95th of 107, at 28%, in this Nationmaster table of software- piracy by nation:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=314632>

That means it is the 13th least-pirating nation. For comparison, the U.S. is the #1 least-pirating nation, at only 20%.</comment>


Alex Stamos to Become CSO of Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/alex.stamos/posts/10153403650527929 <comment><USER2> So totally saw Alex getting some major opportunities coming his way, and very much deserved. If you don't follow infosec watch the entire hour video of Mike Rogers and the Q&A that included Alex along with Bruce Schneier before him. Alex's lucid, persistent and funny Q&A raised his profile in a big way this year.

Here's the Q&A and while I do think the intelligence community actually does some decent work on occasion, the kind of doublespeak displayed by Rogers here is what really gives the IC a bad name and has lead it down bad paths. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjL1WYhLx-M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjL1WYhLx-M)

I'd also very much encourage developers here to watch this presentation which is my personal favorite. Alex talk about some really smart ways to approach application security and why the idea of a traditional firewall is basically dead. Also some interesting stuff re moving away from virtualization towards containerization. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kZMn1RueI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kZMn1RueI)

Edit: Just wanted to add, I really hope he continues contributing talks to the infosec community as they're a great contribution.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm excited about this. Facebook has aggressively evolved its Security org over the years and they have given security a whole new level of focus in the past few years. I was there for 8.5 years and watched them grow and reinvent themselves a few times. I think FB's Security team is one of its crown jewels and it's great to see Alex joining FB. This will shake things up further and will likely lead to more great things.

<comment><USER4> If by security you mean the organization that gives data to the police willy- nilly and not any sort of org dedicated to protecting user data. FB has no security (user data) ; no org, no culture, barely any tooling, and no corporate intent.

<comment><USER3> Respectfully, you don't sound very well informed and your reply is pretty emotional and negative. Did you actually work on or with FB's Security team? If so, when?

<comment><USER5> It's irrelevant if you worked on the team. Facebook is a profiling tool. Its users have traded their privacy for convenience. Please tell me that Facebook doesn't track people using the Facebook banners/IP address combinations... or better yet, tell me that Facebook isn't the ONLY one that does it as a justification for selling people's personal data.

Facebook is only worth 100bn because it sells peoples' personal information.

Am I jaded? Not at all. I am a realist. Facebook is primarily a monitoring tool that monetises itself on selling people's personal information.

<comment><USER6> None of what you said has to do with _security_ \- and you shouldn't conflate security with privacy.

<comment><USER7> security and privacy are two sides of the same coin

<comment><USER8> You can have the one without the other, but not the other without the one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Somewhat interesting is the fact that the previous Facebook CSO was Joe Sullivan (now CSO at Uber), who did not have an "IT security" background at all; most of his career is oriented towards law (he has a J.D. after all ;))

Contrast this to Alex Stamos, who's given many presentations at Defcon/Blackhat, co-founded iSEC, EE/CS background, and it seems a bit of a mentality shift for Facebook.

<comment><USER3> It's true that Joe's background is on the legal and policy side of things, but he presided over the softwareification of Facebook's security team. I worked closely with him for many years and he saw the need for more technology and automation; so that they could be a security team focused on not just incident response, but excellence on the technical front too. Joe and I spent a lot of time talking about technology and where things should be going, and he had his own well-formed opinions and goals. And he often deferred to other experts as a good leader does too.

I'm excited to see what Alex does since his credentials are stronger on the technology front, but the team's shift to a technology focus has been happening for a long time. I view this as another hugely positive step in that direction.

<comment><USER10> Must be fun to finally be able to talk about FB, eh Doug? :)

Joe had more of a legal focus, but if you think back to where FB was at the time there were significant problems with privacy/compliance, LERT and other external-facing security issues that made him a good choice. Similarly, Uber is in the position now where they need someone who can handle those aspects of company security and policy more than someone to tighten up the internal pcap analysis system...

<comment><USER3> Yeah, you're right. We certainly had different problems when Joe came on board and he was a great fit to lead us through fixing them. And I'm glad him and Mat and others are working to fix similar problems with Uber.

I just commented because I wanted people to know that it wasn't like there was no software focus before Joe left--things weren't as binary as that. The software focus shift had been in progress for some time before he stepped down.

And yeah, feels good to talk about FB with no filter. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't think of a better person to replace their outgoing CSO. He made a lot of positive changes at Yahoo and I can't wait to see what he does at Facebook with the amazing team there.

</comment><comment><USER12> All they need now is Himanshu and Joel and they'll have most of original iSEC back together under one roof.

Congrats to Alex.

</comment><comment><USER13> I see a lot of comments about how great Alex Stamos is. I have not followed the industry long enough to know -- why is he great? What makes him different from a crappy engineer, or even Average Joe engineer?

<comment><USER14> I don't know Alex directly. I've worked in security a long time in various positions. Watch his recent talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kZMn1RueI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1kZMn1RueI)

0) Highly Technical Past. [https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-jp-06/BH- JP-06-Sta...](https://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-jp-06/BH-JP-06-Stamos- Lackey.pdf) < This is part of the problem space every app dev team has. 1) Great handle on technical realities and where things are going. 2) Great, clear, entertaining speaking style. 3) Articulate social media presence. 4) Doesn't come off as a security asshole.

Most companies realize they should have security at this point. Getting there is another matter. Delivering the culture and attracting the right hires from a incredibly finite talent pool is the difference in the ability to execute.

From what I've seen, his style wins over even the non-security people and he knows the technical better than most "Senior" security people. I suspect he'll have no problems filling his roles at Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was much more excited when I thought it was John Stamos.

<comment><USER16> Me too.

<comment><USER17> Got to laugh to see the parent post. Written by Alex Stamos. And downvoted.

<comment><USER12> I downvote all of Alex's posts on general principle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why did he leave Yahoo?

<comment><USER19> because Facebook paid more. why else does anybody ever leave anywhere?

all i can say is that in very happy. while he did a little real good at yahoo, he was mostly doing two things: promoting his name and adopting everything in sight based on cool factor without regard for hard facts.

life for people that actually know things was hell. life for the frivolous i-just-read-about-some-cool-thing-on-hn was paradise and full of bonuses.

<comment><USER12> I know several people involved here, some of them very well, some of them being people I tried hard to pull out of Alex's orbit (because they are awesome, not because Alex isn't), and, respectfully: I think you're full of shit.

Especially amused by the attempted "read-something-on-HN" snark. Yeah, that's where all the high-profile elite security people are these days. Hanging out on HN with me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does this mean they eventually want to make a foray into Enterprise?

</comment><comment><USER21> Best security: (1) hit down arrow upper right page corner. (2) hit "settings" (3) in general account settings, hit "Security". (4) hit "Deactivate your account" (5) hit "deactivate your account" again. (6) give reason (7) remove check mark in "Automatically reactivate in 7 days" (8) give password (9) Hide from Process Server. Reactivate on weekends-- I don't want to miss out on the Hootenanny? Wonder if that person, I would once die, for really wants me as her 5091 friend--now? I kinda miss my Amish group?

<comment><USER22> I kind of disagree Facebook is a good force. I have noticed that I am getting really heavily tracked and re-targeted on their service now. I don't like using it any more. Your literally giving a mega corporation all your most private information. They have paired up publicly with Acxiom and many other data brokers which mine your credit card data and associate it with your facebook profile. It makes you wonder what they do in private. They definitely need a good security team to keep their secrets secret. Congrats on the role.

<comment><USER5> Your comment is excellent and the truth. By selling a person's secrets, you control them. Spending habits, political beliefs, sexual preferences, gambling/drinking problems. You are owned when you reveal this data.

Facebook track people through IP addresses, Facebook logos, partnerships, etc. So they know what you say, what you look at, when, who you talk to etc.

If the wrong people get that data (including espionage, change of management etc), it could get VERY ugly.

<comment><USER23> If they get the data? Hehe. Its a hosepipe direct to the people you don't want having that data.

It's really beyond me why anyone would sign up for Facebook nowadays. Feels like we need to reboot the Internet honestly.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Brutality of 'Corrective Rape'  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/07/26/opinion/26corrective-rape.html?_r=3& <comment><USER2> Powerful stuff. Not sure it's a hacker new article. Any south africans out there to comment?</comment>


The Rise of Artificial Unintelligence - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/08/08/outdone <comment><USER2> This has been the problem with A.I. all along. See

[http://ontology2.com/book/chapter1/part1/not_stupid.html](http://ontology2.com/book/chapter1/part1/not_stupid.html)</comment>


Stupid Patent of the Month: JP Morgan Patents Interapp Permissions - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/08/stupid-patent-month-jp-morgan-patents-interapp-permissions <comment><USER2> JP n Sons probably have a strong foothold at the patent office.</comment>


Northrop Grumman is hiring US cyber warriors - <AUTHOR> http://www.clearancejobs.com/jobs/1536410/cyber-software-engineer-2

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting that they mention "google earth" as a security research tool, and also they don't list Ruby as a requirement, when this is what powers metasploit.</comment>


David Foster Wallace, Postmodern Writer Is Found Dead at Home - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/books/14wallace.html?em

<comment><USER2> why is this on HN?

<comment><USER3> I just found this after trying to post the same link. I know it's not a hacking topic, but I figure more than a few people here are fans of his.</comment></comment>


Smart Profiles of Blockchains in Healthcare - <AUTHOR> https://bitsapphire.com/smart-profiles-of-blockchains-in-healthcare/ <comment><USER2> Interesting article I think Blockchain technology should really be more looked into as I believe it could help us improve in multiple industries. In fact I was shocked when I saw that europe might want to try and ban blockchain [https://news.bitcoin.com/europe-power-ban- blockchain/](https://news.bitcoin.com/europe-power-ban-blockchain/)</comment>


Internet, Cell Phones May Prevent  Speeding Tickets  - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/innovation/article/innovation-let-cell-phone-alert-speed-traps_558741_57.html <comment><USER2> "you will get text message alerts of traps in your area."

Yes, let's have people checking text messages while driving. That'll make the roads MUCH safer.</comment>


Ask HN: What kind of prize would get you to enter an online contest? - <AUTHOR>

What type of expected value would you need to have to bother? For example, For 1 minute I would need to have an expected value of at least $1 (where EV = probability to win * prize value)
would you rather have a higher chance to win a smaller prize (like a technical book) or a smaller chance to win a bigger prize (like a macbook air)? Assume the same expected value
What are some examples of prizes that you would want to win? <comment><USER2> A prize that is not a commodity. I'd love one-on-one time with a previous startup founder, a prioritized email exchange with some noteworthy person or expert, or access to a service that is not yet available.

If it had to be a commodity, I would like it to be something that is productive and not a luxury. Although a MacBook would be nice, I'd much prefer a better chance to win a developer's license for something like PyCharm.

</comment><comment><USER3> It doesn't work like that, at least not for me. My perceived chances of winning first prize of a £1000 laptop is always going to be less than 1 in 10,000.

I assume the competition promoter is making a profit out of it somehow.

<comment><AUTHOR> even if the probability is published?

<comment><USER3> The published probability is conditional on my entry being accepted, and implies there is a fixed number of entries allowed. What are my chances of being one of those lucky people allowed to play? Less than 100%.

<comment><AUTHOR> what if the probability is published and constantly updated and there are simple ways to improve your probability?

<comment><USER3> If there are simple things I can do to improve my chances, there are simple things other people can do to worsen my chances (by improving theirs).

Really at this point it isn't primarily a competition any more but has become a game. So make the game play engaging etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


After Facebook scrutiny, is Google next? - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-04-facebook-scrutiny-google.html <comment><USER3> Concerned that google has so much info ([https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity](https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity)) I visited [https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols](https://myaccount.google.com/activitycontrols) to turn off Web & App Activity, but left Voice & Audio Activity on.

This breaks my google home.

I do not want Google to save 20 years of search history so I can use a stupid google home. For the first time I'm considering Apple's device.

This is a dark pattern Google

<comment><USER4> Yeah - you want to make use of Google services (search, maps, youtube, Photos etc.) for free and don't want to give anything in return. #entitlement

Also, most likely you turning off tracking will impact your Google experience.

Google is different than Facebook in that they offer real value services without which you can't survive a day on the web. Just count how many times you rely on a Google service in a day. The least you can do is to support them in maintaining their ad ecosystem in return. Or be ready to pay for their servuces. Unlike Facebook, Google has never had a data breach/trust issue.

<comment><USER5> Okay actually, I would pay to use most of Google's good services. I expect them to do advertising and they do not (!) need that kind of data on me for their search result advertising to be relevant. They have my search term; that should be enough in isolation.

I would pay handsomely for Google Maps, but I have no such option. Again though, that is a service that works just fine without my individual data; they have my location and my search term, and any business that pops up is inherently relevant due to simple proximity.

Please do not call this entitlement. Please understand that my privacy is valuable to me. Please understand that I would gladly pay to keep it.

<comment><USER6> > actually, I would pay to use most of Google's good services.

A lot of people say this. You already can pay for Gmail, Docs, Drive, Calendar, Photos, and YouTube. Are you paying for them?

<comment><USER7> Does paying for these products disable tracking and provide strong privacy controls?

<comment><USER6> For G Suite, "Google does not sell your data to third parties, there is no advertising in G Suite, and we never collect or use data from G Suite services for any advertising purposes."

Also "G Suite's compliance with ISO/IEC 27018:2014 affirms our commitment to international privacy and data protection standards. ISO 27018 guidelines include not using your data for advertising, ensuring that your data in G Suite services remains yours, providing you with tools to delete and export your data, protecting your information from third-party requests, and being transparent about where your data is stored."

[https://gsuite.google.com/security](https://gsuite.google.com/security)

<comment><USER7> Oh, huh. I might have to look into paying for that then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This article is about (in favor of) censoring the youtube platform to make life easier for advertisers. That doesn't seem very related to the information leaks and level of granular individualized advertising that the Facebook platform provides and which can be used to negative effect _by_ advertisers. To me this is a clumsy, lazy attempt to make lazy platform censorship seem "good" in the way that regulating how Facebook treats data would be good, by coopting a popular topic only tangentially related

<comment><USER9> That CNN article they quote is nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers and ad money. CNN isn't exactly the bastion of legitimacy and journalistic standards either. They're also trying to take down true left wing media like Jimmy Dore, painting him as a 'conspiracy theorist' for not being certain about the Syrian gas attacks _before the OPCW was even there_ , as real journalists should do -- not just take talking points from the Pentagon. Cenk Uygur had to step in on TYT and denounce that stupid CNN article advocating for censorship and bring Jimmy out of that hole.

<comment><USER10> > nothing more than CNN disliking that Youtube is challenging them in viewers > and ad money

Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that.

<comment><USER11> > Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on > Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that.

Yeah, no. Generalisations are stupid. Doctorow's a perfect example of why what you're saying isn't true, for example.

<comment><USER10> One counterexample doesn't prove anything, and Doctorow is barely even a relevant example. It's journalists who feel most threatened by Facebook, as they see their subscriber base - and thus their own income opportunities - dwindling. Pseudo-journalist commentators even more so. Once they might have looked to Facebook as a possible ally, a channel through which they could ply their profession, but increasingly (to answer another respondent) they see Facebook purely as a threat. Whether consciously or not, they're highly motivated to magnify everything negative about a rival and never _ever_ write about anything positive.

The incentives for bloggers are similar, though lesser. The more income they derive from ads on their site, the more they see that ad revenue decreasing, the more similar their motivations become to those of the professional media. I'm sure Doctorow makes a bit from pushing products on Boing Boing, but most of his (and other contributors') income comes from other sources and the audience there was always rather Facebook-averse since forever so Facebook's (or Google's) increasing dominance of the ad space has probably not made a dent for them overall.

The real point, though, is that one can't point to self interest as a reason for criticizing Google and pretend that it plays no part in why people criticize Facebook. That's just favoring the devil you're in bed with over the one you're not.

<comment><USER11> He said "All"

<comment><USER10> Yes, I said "all" but it was clearly hyperbole. Most people would interpret "journalists who are all..." the same way as "all journalists who are..." or treat "all" as an intensifier rather than a qualifier. "He was all up in my face" doesn't mean he put his entire body in my face. But hey, if you want to be super-literal for the sake of being contrary I guess that's your problem. The fact remains that what's true for Boing Boing is not necessarily true for CNN, and that there's adequate reason to believe self-interest affects CNN's coverage here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The spark that triggered the current firestorm Facebook is facing has nothing to do with Facebook's practices—those have been apparent and obvious since before Facebook is as even a company.

The spark was the confluence of divisive political headwinds and an outrage- driven news cycle.

I'm thankful that spark has resulted in sustained scrutiny of Facebook, but without a similar environment and controversy, I doubt Google will find itself in a hot seat.

Maybe such a controversy is waiting for Google. I hope so, they've gathered far more data about me and my interests than Facebook ever will.

<comment><USER12> I'll add a thought:

The great irony in Facebook's situation is that it is purely the result of hubris. In 2010, Zuckerberg saw FB as the next great platform. The API was released to much acclaim. But the API essentially gave away the keys to the kingdom!

Facebook either 1) didn't realize that they _weren't_ a platform and the social graph was the most valuable information they possessed, and were blinded by ignorance, or 2) didn't _want_ to be "just" an advertisement business, and was blinded by hubris.

Maybe it was a bit of both, but given how engineering driven FB is, I'd guess there was a healthy dose of #2, and probably still is.

<comment><USER13> In 2010, Facebook's revenue was significantly driven by something other than ads - Social Games. Zynga and the like were raking in billions based on people clicking virtual cows, and Facebook was getting a cut. Promoting these kinds of uses was their goal. It's easy to see modern Ad-Driven FB and forget that there were other eras of the company.

<comment><USER12> Yes, hindsight is 20/20\. However, Google was smart enough to see the endgame: knowing people's interests is some of the most valuable information available to advertisers, ever.

What Facebook has, and what they essentially gave away for free, is far more valuable than whatever revenue they generated as a "platform."

The fact FB was generating revenue as a platform in 2010 has more to do with their strategy (which was lacking at the time) than with the value of the information they had.

I'm suggesting they Zuckerberg's hubris prevented him from seeing the value of what FB already was, and how to monetize that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you frame the question as "how much value do I get from X in exchange for my data?" I think the answer is clear that Google > Facebook. G Search, Gmail, Analytics, Docs, YT (original home of Khan Academy) etc. all contribute to my learning and productivity...with FB the total opposite.

<comment><USER15> You're right. This is an important point to keep in mind to maintain perspective.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I trust Google, but it's only because I have to. Their tools are 10x better than anything else for many cases, so you're simply doing yourself a disservice to not use them. It's not like Facebook where I can just email my friends or whatever. Google search is a fundamentally life changing technology that is untouched by any competitor.

<comment> rlv-dan Google may be better than everyone else. The question is though, do you really need all that "betterness"? Because if you don't, there are actually plenty of alternatives to choose from. They may not be as good as Google, but they do their job pretty well. Giving up some of the (perceived) "Google awesomeness" in favor for say privacy, may be worth considering. Just a thought.

<comment><USER17> I do and why I use Google. But live in the US which is a free country to use whatever you want and just want to be left alone so I can.

I am fine with you using whatever you want.

<comment><USER18> Use whichever search engine maybe, but not "use whatever you want" in general. The US is hardly "do what you want" in the general case. Is also the home of, "you have a duopoly, but you're free to pick between the two," trying to lock your mobile down. [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-doj-at-t/u-s-said-to- inve...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-doj-at-t/u-s-said-to-investigate- att-verizon-over-wireless-collusion-claim-source-idUSKBN1HR2Z8)

<comment><USER17> What do you mean can't use whatever you want in the US? Not following?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This seems like a fairly superficial argument to me. Facebook is mostly getting scrutiny for specific problems that Google has managed (whether by luck or otherwise) to avoid and which have little connection to the main argument of the article around advertising on YouTube. To me, the equating of these two companies is actually harmful because then we are failing to distinguish why Facebook specifically was such a powerful vector into the 2016 election. Both companies present privacy concerns, but they are definitely not the same in their approach and we should be carefully looking at those differences for their instructive value, not lumping them together.

</comment><comment><USER20> This may be the minority opinion here.

But Facebook, Google, and all these other shady companies that collects massive personal data, in ways that were never envisioned of being collected. They need to be reigned in. They have overstepped their boundaries of what is socially acceptable.

Facebook should just call themselves the FBIbook, because they have amassed such huge amounts of private data on us. And they have also done unethical things like creating fake dark profiles of you, or your children, and tracked them on their usage of the internet. This is egregious.

The creepiest thing by far, is their usage of facial scanning, to create a facial biometric of you. Their technology is probably something that the FBI has wet dreams of having. And they use this to identify you in any and all pictures on the internet.

Their next move, might be to actually partner up with brick-and-mortar stores, or CCTV surveillance cameras, to get a real time biometric identification on people. All the CCTV cameras at Walmart, Target, and in the malls, will get fed into the Facebook brain, and Facebook can build a real time tracking system as you wander through their digital surveillance system.

I just want to go to the mall and enjoy an ice cream with my loved ones. I'm not interested in getting tracked by Facebook's creepy surveillance system. This is akin to walking around in a digital virtual prison, that we can never escape from. And once this technology is built, then it will get expanded everywhere. To every single street corner camera, and combined with your smartphone's GPS, it's the perfect thing to track you everywhere. Just to sell you an ad, for something that you don't want to buy.

If you thought they make a lot of money now, by selling ads on their platform. Just imagine when they decide to go down this route. Their revenue and profit potential will explode! And they will be unstoppable.

<comment><USER17> Same with Apple? I mean they basically sold all their user data in China.

"Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud users"

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple- privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy- betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/)

Versus Google chose to not sell their user data in China and left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The fact that google assistant won't even work without enabling web&app activity really pisses me off. Most of time I use the voice controls to set timer or notes. Why does it need my web history to do that?

<comment><USER22> Alexa, turn off Google Assistant.

In all seriousness, this is just sad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Next is passing laws to avoid those kind of problems (like GDPR). It's not sufficient to go after each shady company that sells your data.

<comment><USER24> Exactly. There has to be a framework that everyone has to follow. Imagine we had no laws against theft and you would get into trouble only if you overdid it by some undefined standard

<comment><USER25> No, it's more like people leaving shit all over your property and when you go pick it up they come back and want to charge you with theft.

<comment><USER26> No, it's like inviting people over for a casual party and then recording everything from 15 different angles, including in the bathroom, and then hiring a few people on every street in the town to photograph everyone walking down that street so that you can cross-reference those photos to your candid bathroom shots.

And then you let some other people get those photos because "Chad who was at that party said it was OK with him".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> It's not next, it's already being targeted. The recent Right To Be Forgotten case touches on a theme I think we'll see again - "we don't like what society does with easy access to certain information, and companies that facilitate access to that information are going to face increased scrutiny".

</comment><comment><USER28> The key here is the reccomendation engine. Is an automatically-generated reccomendation an endorsement?

If someone is watching "non-extreme" material and suddenly gets a conspiracy, far right, or propaganda video suggested to them, what responsibility does Google have for that reccomendation? To what extent is it possible for people to "self radicalise" from Youtube?

(I've experienced this myself; an innocuous gaming video had a column of reccomended videos all relating to the same game .. and a livestream of Tommy Robinson. Why? Is Google radicalising gamers accidentally?)

<comment><USER29> I have similar anecdotes regarding youtube. My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism fails". I may have watched one or two videos from prominent feminists and their supposed opposition in 2011 but google is really waiting for me to get back to that particular political fight for some reason.

How long do I have to ignore something before it goes away? It reminds me of how in the UK the tabloid newspapers have audacious headlines but you're forced to read them because they are in the entrance of every store. I dont want to read about this. Leave me alone and stop filling my head with garbage.

<comment><USER30> > My feed often randomly recommends "SJW owned compilation" and "feminism > fails".

I had the same videos queue up in mine and nothing I watch seems even remotely related to that. My YouTube usage is pretty "family friendly" so it struck me as particularly odd to see such blatantly divisive hate videos.

I've even seen weird ads about deep state conspiracy stuff on there too. Their algorithms seem totally broken because I'm definitely not the right target for that stuff.

<comment><USER31> Where do these appear? If it's in the Recommendations, you can delete them, then a link appears called "Tell Us Why", and in that dialog you can see which video in your history influenced that recommendation (and tell it to stop recommending stuff based on it).

It's always worked quite well for me. I have zero crap in my recommendations.

<comment><USER28> The problem isn't just _my_ reccomendations, it's those of my fellow citizens, voters, and potential lynch mobs.

(Also, I don't get the information on why a video is reccomended to me - is it country-specific? I was googling for how to find it and ironically came across a huge thread of complaints: [https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/7Sf7E...](https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/youtube/7Sf7Emtrwp0))

<comment><USER31> _The problem isn 't just my reccomendations, it's those of my fellow citizens, voters, and potential lynch mobs._

No argument there.

 _Also, I don 't get the information on why a video is reccomended to me - <USER2> it country-specific?_

I don't know; it worked in all European countries I've used it in. You mouse over the video, it shows the three-dots menu (⋮), then you choose "Not Interested", then the thumbnail is replaced by text saying "Video Removed" and "Tell Us Why".

Example: [https://imgur.com/a/zlUtCfc](https://imgur.com/a/zlUtCfc)

<comment><USER28> Ah, I've figured it out: the _next_ dialog, "Tell Us Why", doesn't always name a particular video that prompted the reccomendation. Some of them do, some of them don't. Which begs the next question: where are they coming from if not previously watched videos?

<comment><USER31> Uh, that's curious. Can't say that ever happened to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Congress should take action, and install a watchdog that continuously monitors these companies; e.g. by verifying that data placed online cannot be bought through different channels.

<comment><USER33> That is wrong way to approach the issue. These companies should not be gathering personal information worse than NSA. Personal information is personal, and free people in a free society should not be followed by multinational corporations.

<comment><USER34> At least the targeting is advertising and not drone strikes.

<comment><USER35> I'm sorry, but trying to draw this distinction is dangerously naive.

In order to get decent ad targeting for most industries, they need more than enough information than is needed to target a drone strike.

They are legally obligated to share this information with multiple governments (including the US) that openly and routinely engage in extra-judicial killings of civilians.

The only solutions to this moral quandary are to either (a) change multiple governments, some democratically elected, some not, or to (b) simply not gather the information in the first place.

Google has already tried and failed at option (a), and option (b) would eliminate the vast majority of their revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Yes, because ISPs are pushing this and they now have all their net neutrality abolishment and private protection removals in place, all that money can now go to all out assaults on Facebook, Google and any other competitors in the ad space.

Part of ISPs justification for removing privacy protections via bribes was to allow them to compete with Facebook/Google.

As seen with removing ISP privacy protections from the FCC to help them get net neutrality removed, ISPs don't give up when it comes to using their local monopolies and bribing their way into markets rather than competing with products built on it that people want like Facebook/Google.

Right now ISP money isn't being spent on innovation or expansion of their network capabilities, it is being spent to combat competition in areas they want to move into such as the ad network/tracking space, network throttling/data caps and more.

ISPs also want to be the implementers of the internet filters that will be arriving soon to be broad censorship and stifle competition [1]. They are also big on helping the surveillance state and will get shared data to use in their ad networks [2].

The ISPs are helping build the network that will be more like hotel wifi than the internet we know and love today. If the ISPs do one thing well it is stifling competition to create near monopolies because they don't like to compete building actual quality or products to compete next to market leaders, they bribe and use their local monopolies to get in.

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is- advanci...](https://www.wired.com/2017/04/internet-censorship-is-advancing- under-trump/)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A)

</comment><comment><USER9> What would happen to Google? Nothing happened to Facebook except a slap on the wrist. They'll continue doing everything they do and only a few of us nerds on the internet will really care.

Americans have the attention span of fruit flies, which is why none of this actually matters long term.

</comment><comment><USER37> > Child advocates have also raised alarms about the ease with which > smartphone-equipped children are exposed to inappropriate videos and > deceptive advertising.

COPPA has unfortunate consequences. My 7 year old child watches youtube. He can't have an account, so he uses my account. Youtube thinks an > 18 year old is watching the videos, and so places ads for gambling and alcohol on the videos he watches.

There's no mechanism to tell Google that:

i) My child is under 18 and so cannot legally buy the products being advertised (and in the UK it's illegal to target alcohol to children)

ii) I campaign against alcohol and gambling adverts, and that's the only reason they think I have an interest in the product. I'm never going to buy these products.

The Youtube Kids product isn't available on my laptop, and he's not interested in many of those videos.

And the fix seems simple enough: allow a toggle for "viewer is under 18".

<comment><USER28> It sounds like an adblocker would be responsible parenting best practice here.

<comment><USER38> Not letting a child on the web without an adblocker is, in general, responsible parenting. The ad industry is at its scummiest when it comes to ads targeted at kids (and it's been that way for decades, it's just especially visible on the web).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think what Eelo is trying to achieve is interesting. They forked LineageOS, but they understood that nowadays a smartphone is not that smart without services (email, map, contact/cal sync, etc), so they plan to develop their own services that respect privacy.

Now, will these services be on par with Google's? Of course not, but if they're good enough, it could be a game changer.

<comment><USER40> This was essentially what Cyanogen was doing before they went bust (in cooperation with microsoft).

Providing a "good enough" service in a sustainable way is _very, very difficult_. Maybe you can make the service happen, but services require a continuing revenue stream, and that is _hard_. Especially when you don't own the platform, you don't own the hardware, and your only selling point is that you'll promise to ignore the biggest potential revenue source.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have already seen the reminder about privacy etc from google, which tells me they are nervous.

</comment><comment><USER42> Google knows far more about me than Facebook. But their product is not premised on my genuine identity, or the sharing of my social graph with apps.

Google has been pretty good at preserving the illusion of "anonymous browsing".

<comment><USER43> > their product is not premised on my genuine identity

Their product to you may not be, but their primary revenue stream sure is based on the premise of knowing your genuine identity (including habits.)

<comment><USER17> Not really. Google does search ads based on what you are searching at that time. Plus Google does ads with a call back so no data leaves Google.

The byproduct is ad blockers work by blocking the call back.

<comment><USER43> They most definitely tailor ads to your personal data.

<comment><USER17> Target ads but do not sell personal data and have thought out a nice architecture so your data stays at Google. They use a call back for the ad so a third party site does not get any data. Also why ad blockers work.

<comment><USER43> I never said they sold your personal data, I know they don't. But they still collect vast amounts of it that they use against you (advertising), and make available to governments if requested/ordered.

<comment><USER17> I prefer the gov has to go through a legal process versus just giving all your data over to the government.

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple- privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy- betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/) Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> An article about YouTube censorship/kids exposed to bad videos and 98% of the replies don't talk about the content of the article at all.

</comment><comment><USER45> Next Google. Then we forget about it forever.

</comment><comment><USER46> No.

</comment><comment><USER17> Might not be a popular view but my biggest issue is Apple and transparency on what they collect. Google has a fantastic dashboard with everything and ability to remove or even download.

Apple privacy agreement allows them to collect a ton of private data but that is it. You agree and no idea what they are doing with your data. Read the agreement.

[https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en- ww/](https://www.apple.com/legal/privacy/en-ww/) Legal - Privacy Policy - Apple

I do not like big gov but would be good with Apple forced to create a dashboard exactly like Google provides.

<comment><USER47> ???

I'm genuinely confused here. Are you implying that you are OK with Google- scale intrusive data collection as long as you get a convenient dashboard with it?

While it might seem magnanimous of them to allow you to download from their system, (your own data no less), I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that arrangement. The way the T&C of all these companies are written, you have no way of validating the deletion of your data in a comprehensive fashion, there are no provisions for you to look under the hood, and there are explicit reservations outlined with respect to government related obligations.

I'm not comfortable with any of these companies, but knowing that Google has all of my searches, (desktop AND mobile), for the past 10 or 15 years, youtube view history, etc etc etc worries me a bit more than the fact that Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. Personally, I would rate them as follows:

HIGH PRIORITY CONCERNS: Google and Facebook

PRIORITY CONCERNS: AT&T Amazon

SECONDARY CONCERNS: Netflix Apple Pandora etc

To put it in layman's terms:

Apple knows what apps I've downloaded. AT&T knows where I've been. But Google and Facebook know all of that PLUS what porn I like, what I REALLY think of my boss, what I've been posting "anonymously" to different web forums, and they have a pretty good idea which of my S/O's friends I think are hotter than her.

Which one do you think I'm more worried about?

<comment><USER17> The problem is Apple had an agreement that let's them collect as much data as Google yet they are not transparent like Google on what they actually have right now and enable me to remove like Google. Plus Google let's you even download and have no such option from Apple.

I try to keep all my data at Google and no where else when possible but I have both a Pixel and an iPhone and do not know what is at Apple. I do use Google DNS and Google services including Chrome.

I use Google DNS everywhere, 184.108.40.206, to keep my internet browsing away from my wireless and isp providers. I also use chrome data saver to keep browsing data at Google. We now have YouTube TV so now keep my viewing data away from our cable provider.

We have Google WiFi which made the DNS easy as how it comes. I have a pixel book and wife CB+ and kids Acer 14s and 15s so keep my data away from MS and all at Google.

We switched our Echo to the Google home so my home auto data at Google. We have Nest for everything they offer a product. We do have Phillips lights but wish Google would do bulbs.

Then we use Gmail. Maps, YT, and Duo. The areas we leak our Netflix as nothing from Google. Also Amazon for shopping but try to limit. Really almost nothing with MS.

But Apple has my iMessages and data from me using my iPhone which is an issue for me as I do not know what they have and that bugs me and is not right.

Our biggest issue is I have 8 kids and can not use Fi because of cost so my location data is at my wireless provider. This is a big one where you could use Google and protect your data as Google fi is anonymous to the underneath carriers. Trouble is the cost is too much.

<comment><USER47> OK... let's walk through this.

How do you KNOW that Google, and all of the people Google has allowed access to your data, have deleted it?

Do you see where I'm going?

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether Google deleted your data or not. You just get an email maybe saying that your data was deleted. But that email is only warranting deletion within the parameters of the original T&C you agreed to.

Now compare that to Netflix or Apple. They have NO WAY AT ALL of knowing what I searched for on my home or work machines. If I'm using Google Chrome, as the vast majority of users are, then Google knows not only what I searched for, but also which web pages I went to. When I went to them. And what I did when I was there. Netflix, Apple and Pandora/Spotify etc have almost no way to determine that level of detail about me.

MAYBE AT&T does, which is why I listed them as a priority concern. But very few companies outside of the ISP's, Google and Facebook would even have access to that information. Not even Microsoft and Apple would have access to that level of detail about you. Let's face it, not many people use Edge or Safari.

Even on your phone, Google will ALWAYS have access to more data about you than Apple does. I was getting lots of ads for health insurance on my desktop. They claimed that if I could run a sub-7 minute mile I could get a break on my insurance. A friend of mine told me it was because I used Youtube on my runs in the morning. So Google knew how fast I could run. So we did an experiment where I slowed down for a week, sure enough, the number changed to 8 minute miles. Apple, Spotify, Netflix etc would not have even known that I was searching for health insurance on my machines. But Google not only knew that, but was smart enough to watch me while I was out running to give me an ad that would seem more attractive to me.

Yeah... I stopped using Youtube.

<comment><USER17> Google does not allow anyone access to my data and I like things to work in the interest of the company. The last company going to give up your data is Google. They know the value and there business is based on trust. They lost trust and they are screwed while companies like Apple do not have the same on the line and why we see Google invest so much more into security and why Google has found Shellshock, Cloudbleed, Spectre, Heartbleed and meltown among others and Apple and MS did not find a single one.

Another example is Apple handed over all their user data in China over to the government while Google instead left China. Kind of saids it all.

[https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple- privacy...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/03/apple-privacy- betrayal-for-chinese-icloud-users/) Campaign targets Apple over privacy betrayal for Chinese iCloud ...

You never know if any company deleted your data but trust Google far more because as they have more to lose and Apple giving up their users data in China proves my point. Apple gives your data away and my daughter is still buying a iPhone.

Let me give a specific examples of my issue with Apple. I try to keep all my data at Google. They are not going to give it up for dollar like Apple in China and Google has the best security by a huge amount.

We were recently on holiday and several of my kids have iPhones. I permanently share my location on Google maps. But when we are traveling I use iMessages with my iPhone kids. They need to find me when out and about and will share my location in iMessages as easy to do.

But I do not have a way to clearly remove from Apple as I do not want that data at Apple. I do not want my data spread around. Apple is the worse like this. Google offers on their own and we will need the gov to force Apple to do the same.

Hope that helps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Google provides a dashboard with everything including ability to remove or even download. Wish we could get the same from Apple.

Do not think Google has the same issues as FB.

</comment><comment><USER48> I wrote an essay on this exact topic: [http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick- mozi...](http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2018/04/google-doubleclick-mozilla- essay-final.html)

</comment><comment><USER49> Probably not.

Wish they would be, but probably not.

</comment><comment><USER50> We're learning that good is relative so do no evil can't mean anything good for us, long-term, unless we're Google.

<comment><USER17> Use a lot of Google services and never had an issue with my data. Plus Google will secure far better than anyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> If congress couldn't grok how Facebook operates I doubt they will be able to grok Google who in my opinion has a much more indirect (manipulative) way of getting people to view ads and gather data to show ads.</comment>


My Predictions: Covid-19 and the Everything Bubble - <AUTHOR> This post is not about facts, evidence, or deep analysis.  I am posting my predictions for the coming year based on my feelings and current thoughts.
1. COVID-19 will be (if it isn't already) the event that bursts the "everything" bubble and leads to a global economic disaster whether or not it becomes, or already is, a pandemic.  I feel that the media is misguided and may blow things out of proportion, after 9/11 and false reports of weapons of mass destruction my trust in the media has been badly tainted.
2. The unfolding economic disaster will play a huge roll in the upcoming U.S. election, "socialized medicine" might not seem so bad, and people may begin to doubt in the strength of capitalism.  My feelings are that the unfolding events are tied to the election, that claim is not supported by any facts, and I believe that post election the economy will begin to slowly recover as people are rejuvenated with hopes and promises of vast change and reforms.
I think that this year is going to be a tough year, those that come out of it with a job and some savings will be able buy fruitful future investments cheap, whether it be stocks, property, or anything else.  I do not want my predictions to be true although I am generally a bit more of a pessimist than an optimist and may be why I see things the way I do.  I am curious how this years events will unfold and how my feelings and predictions now will compare to those I have toward the end of the year. <comment><USER2> And the trade war between US and China could it be the everything bubble and the virus is being used as their leverage and excuses for their actions now and the time being?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think we will ever really find out what is going on up top but your theory is sound in my opinion. The US China relationship is badly strained and the US is the one straining it in many cases, not sure what the underlying motives are but Coronavirus will add to that strain I believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "after 9/11 and false reports of weapons of mass destruction my trust in the media has been badly tainted."

could you elaborate on this please?

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/weapons-mass- destruction...](https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/weapons-mass-destruction- and-media-anatomy-failure)

The WMD story was amplified by the media, there was no real investigative reporting done to find out the validity of the government's WMD claims and as a consequence the media helped the US raise an army that under wrongful pretexts started a war in the middle east.</comment></comment>