Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa <comment> grey-area The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this:

 _They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name._ [1]

This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime, and why the police should never be trusted with exceptional powers simply because we feel under threat. Give them the powers, and they will be misused - in this case they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation. The security services even called Greenwald to give him the news that his partner had been detained.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david- miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

<comment><USER4> I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane.

Taking into account that the UK law enforcement and Brazil have a bit of a history when it comes to labelling people terrorist wrongly makes it even worse.

<comment><USER5> _the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date_

Why would this be a tactical mistake? The general public DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK. The government(s) know(s) this quite well.

If you think for a second that detention of associates of political enemies matters to an electorate far more interested in the minutiae of Kanye West's baby, you're living in a fairy land of your own making.

<comment><USER6> I'm kind of confused by what you consider the "general public" here.

Right now, in addition to this being the top story on HN, it is is on the default reddit front page at #9 and rising. It's also on the front page of the New York times website, and also in the top three headlines at news.google.com. Google reports 25 articles most being published in the last hour.

By these measures, it seems to me that a lot of people are rather interested in the story.

Now, I understand that you may not consider "the population that consumes its news on the internet" to be equivalent to the "general public". But any argument about that question is a much larger one than an argument about the public's interest in this particular story.

The fact is, even amongst all of the tabloid trash real news stories do matter to people, and people who consume cotton candy celebrity media for entertainment can also be consumers of hard news. The existence of one doesn't preclude interest in the other.

<comment><USER7> Neither the BBC, Independent, The Sun nor Daily Mail report on it; q.e.d., the "general public" doesn't care.

Edit: The Sun does, however, have boobs on its homepage, the Daily Mail talks about celebrities and the BBC's international site talks about Syria, Gibraltar and Usain Bolt, with its England page concerned with assisted suicide, a rider who died after a horse accident, something about climate activists and this gem: "Leicester Globe pub closes over anti-military rumours"...

Edit 2: Colour me impressed, the Telegraph not only reports on it on its frontpage, it also has an additional quote by an Amnesty International spokesperson. That's at least something, I suppose?

<comment><USER8> It's now the second-to-top story on the www.bbc.co.uk website

<comment><USER9> Certain HN contributors seem to subscribe to a very strange idea that if something is news on HN, it surely is not news elsewhere.

You see it all the time. Go back to the very first HN discussions about PRISM and phonetapping and you'll see people swearing on their mothers life that nobody outside HN will ever care because it is just a 'nerd issue' or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Greenwald just posted his own account:

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david- miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

 _At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - <USER2> received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."_

 _David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras, the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived in London this morning, he was detained._

 _At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him._

 _I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done._

<comment><USER11> Quote:

"Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they feel threatened by."

<comment><USER12> Come again? I thought threatening one's family was #1 in the mafia playbook.

<comment><USER9> Obviously that depends on the mafia, and the era. Hard to make broad statements about "the" mafia.

<comment><USER13> The Sicilian Mafia are pretty vile human beings, by and large.

Compare and contrast "detained 9 hours", which is a big violation of civil liberties on behalf of a government, with "dissolved an innocent _child_ in acid", which is just sickening and inhuman.

[http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Giuseppe_Di_Matteo](http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Giuseppe_Di_Matteo)

Not to say at all that what the government did in this case was "not so bad", just that there _is_ worse out there.

<comment><USER14> The mere fact that it's becoming possible to make comparisons between a Western government and a criminal organisation, even if it's just to get a message across, is worse enough on its own.

<comment><USER13> People have always made comparisons. The mere fact that they're making them does not necessarily have any bearing on reality.

<comment><USER11> While obviously, mafias and governments work on the same problem: How to govern, how to stay in power.

Of course, a government has the power to brand a mafia as a criminal organization, but the line between legal and criminal can be very blurry, and often quite arbitrary.

If you just go, historically, by the score of committed crimes, then whatever metric you choose, governments and their agencies will beat criminal organizations by a huge margin.

<comment><USER13> > While obviously, mafias and governments work on the same problem

Bullshit.

You'd do well to read more about the Mafia and how it affects places where it's strong. They are _badly_ governed, and generally not good places to live or do business as an honest person.

Denmark has a strong government that is quite involved in its citizens lives, but the number of them that end up dead, tortured, with their lives ruined, and so on is minimal compared to people in Sicily, Calabria, Campania, or other areas in southern Italy dominated by Mafias. And the standard of living is far higher. People are happier; with the possible exception of the climate, which is not really something either Mafias or anyone else can change on a local level unless you read some of the wackier subreddits.

Mafias are nothing like western democracies. If you're going to compare them with governments, compare them with feudal, tribal systems where family and personal loyalty is everything, and the rule of law counts for nothing.

To equate even something so abhorrent as fascist Italy to the Mafia is to have a gross and severe misunderstanding of history. They are both _bad_ , but very _different_.

The Mafia is a real thing here in Italy, not just some abstract talking point for your libertarian ranting.

<comment><USER15> With respect, you might want to familiarize yourself with some significant papers from the political science literature, starting with [http://static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf](http://static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf)

<comment><USER13> Access denied. Do you have another link?

<comment><USER15> Sorry, I don't offhand but you can probably find one by just searching for "War Making and State Making as Organized Crime" by Charles Tilly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Disgusting.

If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be indicted under some terrorist act or another.

And perhaps I should be: it's a deep depravity what happened here, and I'm deeply ashamed it happens anywhere, let alone in the Western world. Soon we won't be able to hold ourselves up as beacons of freedom to those in savage, barbaric places like China where all Internet usage is surveilled or Russia where you can be targeted for being gay or being a member of the press who has printed stories critical of the State.

<comment><USER17> Soon? It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already being punished, and we now know that the internet is surveilled.

<comment><USER18> > It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already > being punished

I've just finished reading a pamphlet written ~370 years ago, in 1644, called "Compassionate Samaritan", authored by a very interesting character named William Walwyn, where he had this to say about the religious establishment of his time:

> There they brand men with the name of heretics, and fasten what errors they > think are most hateful to the people upon those men they purpose to make > odious. There they confute all opinions, and boldly they may do it, for as > much as no liberty of reply or vindication in public is allowed to any, > though never so much scandalized by them. And that men may not vindicate > themselves by writing, their next interest is to be masters of the press, of > which they are lately become by an ordinance for licensing books; which, > being intended by the Parliament for a good and necessary end, namely the > prohibition of all books dangerous or scandalous to the state, is become by > means of the licensers, who are divines and intend their own interest, most > serviceable to themselves in the stopping of honest men's writings, that > nothing may come to the world's view but what they please - unless men will > run the hazard of imprisonment, as I now do. So that in public they may > speak what they will, write what they will, they may abuse whom they will, > and nothing can be said against them. Well may they presume of making > themselves masters of the people, having these foundations laid, and the > people generally willing to believe they are good.

Now, anyone can replace "the divines" from the (very long) quote with the current establishment and the "heretics" and "honest men" with, well, the few honest men of our times.

<comment><USER4> There is a reason why that proverb about studying history and repeating it exists. Too bad not many people like to study history, it is not like we haven't been here before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> About two or three years ago I was taken aside when boarding a plane at a London airport back to Belfast by a policeman and held under their terrorism legislation. Being heavily hungover from a night spent funding London's publicans, and a little nervous about flying, I just wanted to board the plane and go home.

Nevertheless, I was questioned by the queue as others boarded the plane, casting nasty looks my way. The cop asked some pretty insulting, at times ignorant, questions. I guess to see if I harboured any anti-British/anti- state/anti-cop feelings. I got the impression if I lost my cool I'd be spending a lot longer in that airport.

I didn't know my rights, that's my fault. Nor did I want to escalate a situation where the odds were stacked against me. I did feel pretty disgusted though, given that I'd done nothing wrong. Even now I feel like I shouldn't share this kind of thing online lest the wrong person read it. I found myself asking; why me? Was it something I said on Twitter or Facebook? Did I just look at him the wrong way without realising?

Luckily he let me go after some thorough questioning and the plane waited for me (although finding my seat was basically a walk of shame). They probably do this day and daily to all kinds of people. And most would never talk about it for fear of receiving worse down the line.

<comment><USER20> _...casting nasty looks my way...._

That's one of the worst parts of abuses of power; the people not being abused very quickly start to blame the victims of abuse. "You must be a bad person if they're talking to you," onlookers might be thinking to themselves.

<comment><USER21> In this thread a man being detained for 9 hours has been compared as worse than mafia members murdering people, now apparently the look on the faces of hte officers is a serious abuse too.

This whole thread has destroyed any credibility HN had.

<comment><USER22> If you don't understand why this is far worse than nuking London, then you have no reason to be on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated > electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory > sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

Thievery and intimidation are good indicators of who and what we're dealing with.

<comment><USER24> As IRC has taught us for two decades, there are probably few things more antagonistic than a butthurt pirate.

<comment><USER25> What _are_ you on about?

<comment><USER24> If you're not familiar with IRC, it probably won't make much sense. It made sense to some people before the downvotes, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> As bad as things are in America vis-a-vis the surveillance state, I've always thought that England is actually worse. I guess it explains why they have such a rich history of dystopian thought. When I saw the "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" poster [1] I couldn't believe it wasn't satire.

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg)

<comment><USER27> As a Brit, I agree. But, the scope is different. The US threatens literally every country on earth..... the UK?

Ah, bless. Its almost funny, isn't it?

All we can do is harass our own, in order to suck up to Uncle Sam.

TBH, I find UK behavior worse. Its not on principle, its sucking up. My country turns my stomach at times, and this is one of them.

<comment><USER28> [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have- inva...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine- out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html)

Going by history, the UK is the most threatening entity ever...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows

What a flagrant abuse of power. It looks like their power should be reigned in.

The acts are fascism. The public would pay more attention if we refer to them as such.

* edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.

<comment><USER30> Don't be shy - call it what it is - genocide.

<comment><USER31> faschism = An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Which fits the situation.

Your genocide reference, an attempt to trivialize the above statement, doesn't even make sense.

<comment><USER30> You have to accept that not everything happening in the world you dislike qualifies for fascism, genocide or equivalence to Hitler.

Overusing these labels dilutes their 'brand', and then you don't have appropriate adjectives for real cases of fascism or genocide.

<comment><USER12> Rather than fascism per-se, actions like holding people without charge, perusing their personal belongings and papers without due process, and threatening families or associates, are the marks of totalitarianism. It exists on both the right and left ends of the political spectrum.

<comment><USER11> > It exists on both the right and left ends of the political spectrum.

Even though those are relatively exotic forms, compared to the one that exists in the _middle_ of the political spectrum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> k-mcgrady I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning.

Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this stuff anymore.

<comment><USER32> It seems odd that they removed property of a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists (and their materials) had special protections under English law.

Once you get in the country you have different rights ([http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...](http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm)) ([https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your- rights](https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights))

<comment><USER33> Is he a journalist, or just the partner of a journalist?

Maybe since they know they can't intimidate Greenwald directly they are going after his family and loved ones?

<comment><USER34> I'm not sure what he does for a living, but he was in Germany to meet with Laura Poitras so he is at least somewhat involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> And one of the foot soldiers of the Powers That Be weighs in:

"Glenn, Glenn - did you really think there'd be zero consequences for you and those close to you? I expected Ed to believe WL lies, but you?"

\- John Schindler (@20committee) August 18, 2013

[https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257](https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257)

<comment><USER35> My god. The responses are basically saying that they agree with the government kidnapping and robbing the family of a journalist in retaliation for the journalist's legal news coverage.

<comment><USER23> Combine those responses with Michael Grunwald's "I can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" and we can see the lines being drawn right before our eyes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is crime. The people who authorized this should be put in jail and the officers present should at least be fired.

It should not be allowed that power is so easily abused, nor should written laws be so easily twisted without fear of consequence.

I believe a civil disruption of the airport specifically targeting the security apparatus would be an appropriate response.

To the cynics, yes, I am idealistic and, yes I'm pretty much just venting, but damn, this is just going too far. Suggestions for _constructive_ frustration welcome.

<comment><USER37> > The people who authorized this should be put in jail

By who ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> As Greenwald's response[0] suggests, it seems the only obvious way to cause any type of change (from small to moderate), seems to speak in terms of 'mafia', 'fascism', and 'police state'.

Allow me to take John Stuart Mill out of context momentarily, because he was speaking with regard to Irish-English relationship (territory disputes between the two countries). But it summarises Mill's thought on why radical and extreme thought is useful: it helps bring small to moderate change because it incites dialogue. Unfortunately, this seems to be where we are at now.

"...I well knew that to propose something which would be called extreme was the true way not to impede but to facilitate a more moderate experiment. [...] To induce them to approve of any change it is necessary that they should look upon it as a middle course: they think every proposal extreme and violent unless they hear of some other proposal going still farther, upon which their antipathy to extreme views may discharge itself".[1]

[0] [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david- miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

[1] Autiobiography. John Stuart Mill. Penguin Classics. p. 216.

<comment><USER39> Being modest in an argument never convinces anyone of anything. However, if you appear to be seriously pissed and offended, then people tend to think for a moment about it.

 _Why are they so angry? There must be a good reason._

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> HN is a smart bunch, so I'm going to ask:

Why do people think the security state is being rammed through with such a sense of urgency right now? Are they expecting something? A war? An economic crisis? Ecological meltdown? Invasion from outer space?

I ask because I get the impression that there is a top-down (from the executive branch) full-court-press on this, and that the gloves are coming off. That leads me to wonder if there's something driving this, some sense of urgency.

<comment><USER41> I think Charles Stross said it best[1], what we have now is effectively the _ancien regime_ pre-revolutionary state; that MUST retain absolute control, lest the natural order be shattered irretrievably.

In effect, the guardians of the status quo are in full panic mode and are not necessarily reacting rationally.

This is why this incident should be investigated by ( on the UK side ) a parliamentary commission, and ( on the US side ) by an independent congressional commission.

1\. [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad- dr...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-dream.html)

<comment><USER42> I agree .. but I also think that technological change is exacerbating old stresses in the system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I happened to be a fairly conservative high schooler after September 11th, living in NJ suburb. 9/11 happened in my time there. I saw smoke from the city, not quite the buildings themselves, and classmates lossed parents. We were all militant after that, and someone needed to burn.

No matter how conservative my friends and I were, we saw not so long after those days Farenheit 9/11, the then controversial 9/11 documentary. No matter how hard-core Republican I was then (spending time in the Arab world later had me quickly outgrow that), I was appalled by the admission of lifer Congressman, scumbag Charles Rangel (NY - D) in his interview in the movie. He said no one he knew read the Patriot Act, not a single one, him included. No one would say no at the time to such legislation. Even as a sophomore I was appalled and said in the first real interest in non-partisan politics, we should have people removed for such incompetence.

As I said I was a sophomore then, and discovered subsequently how very sophmoric I was. Nothing is more self-serving than govt in crisis, in the alia acta est way. That was the beginning of my disbelief in my government, then all government more as each year passes. Fuck them all.

</comment><comment><USER44> If you were one of those people who still -- after all this time -- says things like, "it's OK, [insert law] is only for acts of terrorism", now would be a good time to reconsider that.

Or issues of national security or state emergencies or...

<comment><USER45> It's mission creep. Law enforcement will always demand more power in pursuit of what they see as their goal of stopping the bad guys. Trampling all over innocent peoples' civil liberties is unfortunate to them, but they will never cease their pursuit for more power. Have you heard Ray Kelly's argument in defense of stop-and-frisk? _" We do this to protect minorities! It's for their own good!"_ without any mention or even a passing courtesy to said minority's civil rights.

Actually, I can think of one area that probably won't be receiving all the extra scrutiny that the rest of us have been enjoying in new found police state, and that's Wall Street. Someone's gotta pay for all those toys cops have been buying lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I apologise for my country's idiotic and rude behaviour. I will make sure that I vote for none of the political parties that currently run the country, nor the previous one, as none of them can be trusted.

Again, sorry. Our country is being run by fuckwits. We keep voting for different parties but it doesn't seem to make a difference.... Hang on a sec....

</comment><comment><USER47> So many countries have "Detain first, something-something later" policies that it's easier to make a list of the ones who don't. Like Japan, for example, allows suspects to be arrested and detained for 20+ days without being charge

[http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive- detention-s...](http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive-detention- system-after-murder-conviction-quashed-2012-11-07)

</comment><comment><USER48> I guess Greenwald, his family and friends are now on terrorist watch list. I wonder how soon Guardian will be dubbed Terrorist Organization.

More and more, it appears western governments are following the policy of if you criticize us, you are terrorist.

<comment><USER34> And as those governments do that, they lose all remaining legitimacy.

<comment><USER49> The great irony being that as they lose their legitimacy they're gaining power by labeling more people/activities as terrorists/terrorism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> This and the fact that Obama is constantly being caught in lies says to me that the U.S. government has no clue what information Edward Snowden has passed off to Greenwald.

<comment><USER51> This is a really interesting bit of speculation. Obama's consistently "just off" statements (i.e. saying an executive order that hadn't been implemented yet would have protected Snowden) make me think that Obama & his advisers doesn't have a good handle on what the NSA is doing and how the law applies to the "secret state." One could say that "Obama is lying," which may be perfectly true, but it could also be that the politicians are genuinely uninformed and/or think protections exist that don't.

I could see this being the case because politicians train to talk about health care and the economy, while the details of NSA programs are rarely discussed and so politicians have little incentive to be up on the facts.

<comment><USER52> Obama is nothing, but a puppet. His masters surely have blackmail material to absolutely ruin him - say a recording of sex with an underage.

<comment><USER53> I don't think it even has to be that extreme. When one starts out as a politician, even small-potatoes stuff like inflated tax exemptions would be enough to influence the ambitious. Later, once one is president, they have recordings of all the noxious shit you've done at their command. This is basic spy agency tactics.

It's quite probable that Obama knows about shit the various agencies have done that would make GG's hair curl. It's also quite probable they've done much worse shit that he doesn't know about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I think it's time we started talking of the "English-speaking axis" and its totalitarian tactics.

<comment><USER9> That is probably a tad unfair to Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, etc.

<comment><USER55> Canada's RCMP spied on Amnesty, the Anglican Church and the Raging Grannies. Our secret services gave their American counterparts information that led to torture of Canadian citizens and others.

You think we're not part of this totalitarian movement?

<comment><USER9> I'm not Canadian, but do you think that Canada is participating in a particularly more extreme manner than non-engligh speaking countries?

Language is not the binding factor here.

<comment><USER55> US / UK / NZ / Canada and Australia have historically cooperated on Intel. See e.g. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I am not disputing that... read my above comment again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> more of this : "But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

less of this: "ohh noo.. Should I write my opinion on the internet? What if the NSA is watching????! Will I be put on the...the. the list???"

<comment><USER57> That's a good point: we already know they are watching, and that we are all on the list.

<comment><USER45> How very 20th Century of you. We're all in the database; much more efficient.

<comment><USER26> Well, a table is conceptually equivalent to a list of rows

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Just more evidence that the world is controlled by an oppressive totalitarian Govt that we're effectively powerless to stop.

At least with these incidents we get to know which other countries are complicit and under the influence of the NSA.

<comment><USER59> No, we aren't powerless. That's why these people are so relentless in their intimidation and pursuit of more power. If they thought we were powerless, they wouldn't bother. They are afraid, and they should be. The tide can turn quickly.

<comment><USER58> I don't think the ability to dispense fear and intimidation around the world at will is a show of fear.

Our biggest hope is this becomes a national issue for the next election so we at least have the opportunity to elect the leader who respects our constitutional rights the most.

<comment><USER60> And which one will that be? The "democrat" or the "republican"?

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo)

<comment><USER58> Not clear yet, if its a national issue each side can make their position known and back it up with planned reforms.

The one thing that is clear is that we shouldn't expect change under an Obama administration.

<comment><USER52> Are you really that naive as to expect change under the next democrat|republican administrations?

<comment><USER58> You've confused hope with naivety, where there is none.

Election time is the best time for reform, i.e. where the democratic process has the most influence.

<comment><USER12> And this time around, let's hope we are a bit more curious about the "change" we are voting for.

<comment><USER52> Voting for a very small set of preselected candidates, endorsed by either wing of the elite party and mass media has zero chance of changing anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> >The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654

Yup, looks like we are officially living in some sort of Orwellian dystopia.

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm curious exactly what you have to do in transit through the UK if detained and questioned. I'd presumably identify myself, and comply politely for a few minutes, but once it became pretty clear I was going to miss my flight, I'd want to know the various options. I have zero interest in being in the UK if in transit, so "we're going to send you back to Germany" "do it, then" is fine. Or, "you're an asshole, we're going to put you on the next flight to Brazil and never let you enter the UK" is also fine. The risk would be that "actively non-cooperative" is a sign of "is a terrorist" and then you get the free flight to Cuba.

It seems obvious that a targeted person should travel with a lot of older/disposable devices full of lightly encrypted but legal "NSFL" material, like medical/battlefield/surgery photos or, depending on the country, various types of legal porn. Or perhaps Slavoj Zizek books sans title information.

<comment><USER62> Oh wow, under title 7 in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to answer questions for any reason during that 9 hour period.

Looks like a total travel boycott of the UK is prudent. In addition to compelled disclosure of keys, it is worse than the US for this reason too.

<comment><USER63> Try asserting any right to silence at the US border — you won't get far. If you are not a US national, I'd expect you to be refused entry (and as one is required to complete an ETSA prior to arrival, one is required to sign away any right to appeal of the decision of the border control staff).

<comment><USER62> Oh, I'm totally fine with people who are non-cooperative and non-citizens being denied entry. I'm a US Citizen, so I have an absolute right to re-enter the US without answering any questions (they do have a right to make sure I'm who I say I am, and that I'm not carrying any prohibited things in contravention of customs regulations, but that's it).

I'm not sure how it works for transit. Also, if I were not a US citizen (and, even as a US citizen), I'd avoid the US as a transit country if at all possible -- lack of sterile transit makes it a pain due to waiting and scheduling even if you're a citizen, and if you're not visa waiver, it's horrible.

The UK does sterile transit, so most travelers shouldn't even have to touch security/immigration/customs if they're in transit only, which is what confuses me about this story.

<comment><USER63> If you're entering the EU or a Schengen-signatory, even for a transit flight, you are required to pass through security (all passengers on any flight departing within the EU must have passed through EU-legislated security, to avoid the case where their incoming security has been lax). Some places include more (the UK requires security for /all/ passengers arrival on an international flight, regardless of the EU).

What one doesn't have to do is pass through border control or customs (unless one is transferring onto a domestic flight, then quite where you clear border control and customs varies from place to place — in the UK you clear the border at the port of entry and customs upon arrival at your final destination).

Also — just to note, I can't imagine anyone ever being actually arrested under the no-right-to-silence clause (and if they did, I expect it'd just get take to the ECHR and thrown out) except potentially for UK citizens/subjects/nationals/whatever-other-categories-there-are-that-I-always- forget (for whom entry cannot be refused).

If what you mean by not being sure how it works for transit is how it works in the US — you must posses a valid visa (probably a transit visa) or not need a visa (VWP, citizenship, etc.) for entry into the US, regardless of your further destination. Sadly, for many of us from Europe, many flights to South America require pre-approval from the US, because you cross US airspace, even though you never land.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> I find this so hard to deal with. There's party of me screaming at the screen saying what is happening is so so so wrong more, but another part of me fears for my family. The fact I fear for my family feels like my head is above the parapet. The problem more than anything is that nobody around me seems to be that bothered about this. WTF do I do?

<comment><USER65> Why do you fear for your family?

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> For me the most absurd thing is that all this erosion of peoples rights and several wars have been justified by the threat of terrorism. I'm not going to even bother finding some statistics to post right now but the actual threat of terrorism is vanishingly small. For example in 2012, more Americans died crushed by their TVs or furniture than from terrorism.

[http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human- rights/sta...](http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human- rights/statistics-on-war-conflict/statistics-on-terrorism/)

<comment><USER67> Be careful with this kind of argument. Among the reasons that we object to the treatment of Mr. Miranda et. al. is that it can cause a chilling effect, similar to what terrorism does.

Are you prepared to argue that the threat of home furniture will ever cause a chilling effect?

<comment><USER66> Yes, I agree there is a difference between an accident and an attack. The main point I'm making is the organisations involved are clearly using terrorism as a pretext, greatly inflating its media presence. If the US for example really wanted to reduce terrorism things like better universal education and social welfare would probably really be effective as the vast majority of the US' terrorism is internal. (Killing of abortion clinic doctors and so forth)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I think this is a terrible mistake but I do wish he'd stop referring to himself as a journalist. He's a political protagonist using his platform for change. Journalist's don't "aggressively" report on stories. It matters because GG is now so tightly integrated into this story that we need to view his comments not as those of an impartial reporter.

I doubt they think they can intimidate him. They probably are hoping they can get their hands on as yet unreleased docs to stop them being published. Either way it's a real mistake.

<comment><USER23> One of the functions of a free press (journalists) is exactly to aggressively report on the malintent of bureaucrats and the maladministration of government power. Actual journalism is and always has been a form of dissent.

<comment><USER68> "He said he would respond by writing reports "much more aggressively than before" and would publish "many more documents". "I have lots of documents about the way the secret services operate in England. Now my focus will be there as well," he added. "I think they are going to regret what they did."

\- Does it sound like he is now reporting impartially or is he clearly a participant in the game with revenge on his mind?

<comment><USER23> Greenwald's response:

"Reuters is the absolute worst at tearing comments out of context for sensationalizing headlines. The paraphrase:

Q: Will the UK's detention of your partner deter your future reporting?

A: Absolutely not. If anything, it will do the opposite. It will embolden me: I have many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK, where I'll now focus more. I will be more aggressive, not less, in reporting.

Q: What effect do you think they'll be of the UK's detention of your partner?

A: When they do things like this, they show the world their real character. It'll backfire. I think they'll come to regret it.

REUTERS: HE VOWS TO PUBLISH DOCUMENTS ABOUT UK AFTER DETENTION, SAYS THEY WILL BE SORRY!!!"

[http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm09tf](http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm09tf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> As a U.S. citizen, I am more and more surprised that we aren't subject to a world wide trade embargo... We're as reliant on food grown in south/central america as in our own country, or others are reliant on us. As for tech, if China/Taiwan/Japan closed off all sales, the public would show significant outrage.

I don't think most people in this country will care until they can't buy a new iPhone 6, or Galaxy S 5... What I am really surprised by is how many other countries have tolerated this so far.

</comment><comment><USER70> Welcome to the UK

[1] [https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human- rights/terrori...](https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human- rights/terrorism/overview-of-terrorism-legislation/index.php)

[2] [https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill- tracker/...](https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill-tracker/past- bills/2012/protection-of-freedoms-bill-2011-12.php)

I think I'll buy the Guardian tomorrow...

</comment><comment><USER4> Fox news has it now: [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa- leaks-jo...](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa-leaks- journalist-held-for-hours/)

</comment><comment><USER71> I can't think of any legitimate government questioning someone and not allowing an attorney to be present. This is really scary.

<comment><USER72> I've got a big moral problem with a country interrogating a non-citizen and not allowing an attorney to be present or consulted.

More than a few years ago, I had key evidence about a felony and therefore had good reason to cooperate with the investigating officers. The initial questions were simple, factual, and related to the felony. But then the questions changed. At a certain point the questions became _almost_ accusatory, at which point I started to ask WTF. It was then - and only then - that I was told I was a suspect and read my Miranda Rights. As knowledgeable as I was about my rights in my own country, all this still left dumbfounded. (It turned out the suspect in the felony had subsequently accused me and a colleague of a different felony. For months we were still suspects, had our own rights limited and were interrogated frequently. Thankfully, evidence came to light several months later that firmly cleared me and my colleague.)

I can not imagine being in a foreign country and going through a comparable situation. Beyond the right and wrong of David Miranda being interrogated, I've got a huge moral problem with any country interrogating a non-citizen without legal counsel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Someone left a Gandhi quote in the comments section on the Guardian... worth rewriting here I think:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi

</comment><comment><USER74> God, imagine if Russia had done this, and how the UK/USA would have responded.

The UK's credibility as a democracy is fading fast...

</comment><comment><USER4> Shades of Joseph Wilson. There will be some serious fall out from this, I wonder what they were thinking when they pulled this stunt, Greenwald is not going to be intimidated.

</comment><comment><USER75> The UK should be kicked out of the EU. Until they learn how to behave.

<comment><USER76> This is probably the worst idea I've read on HN this week.

It's not just legally and politically impossible, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would have dire economic consequences, it would be grossly disproportionate and unfair and these kind of petty attempts at disciplining sovereign nations would only serve to politically destabilise Europe.

<comment><USER77> Nah, it is actually a pretty good idea. It's high time for the EU to actually take a stance on civil liberties, human rights and the abolishment of these 'anti-terrorism acts'. This will be a lot harder if there are people at the table working on their application as the 51st state.

Furthermore, by cutting ties with the UK, both its financial and economical situation will be worsened, making for a loss of importance until it's only an annoying island off the coast of France rather than the first waypoint to Canada or (in this case) Brazil.

<comment><USER78> There is an a European body dedicated to civil liberties and human rights, and it isn't the EU.

It's the Council of Europe, which is the body which coordinated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and runs the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The only human rights cases that come before the EU courts (the CJEU) are only those within its jurisdiction. Which means: either reviewing acts of EU institutions (e.g. as in Kadi, which was reviewing regulations by the EC implementing a UN Security Council directive), or reviewing EU laws, or reviewing acts of member states implementing EU laws.

So: while the EU does have a charter of fundamental rights (the CFREU) - <USER3> is itself soon going to be a signatory to the ECHR - you can only sue the government in the CJEU for violating it _when they 're implementing EU law_. (Especially for the UK and Poland, who have a pointless clause which restates this just for them because they're special snowflakes).

The Terrorism Act 2000 is not an EU law.

So: this is outside the scope of the EU's jurisdiction. The appropriate international court to take this to is the ECtHR.

As for kicking the UK out of the Council of Europe, that's something that can and should happen if, and only if, someone brings this to the the ECtHR, they rule against the UK, and the UK refuses to bring UK law into compliance. Trying to short-circuit that and kick the UK out without that legal process would do nothing except damage the reputation of the Council of Europe for rule of law.

<comment><USER77> While you are of course right that, from a legal perspective, the ECtHR is the body responsible for (most cases) of human rights abuse, and that it is not part of the EU per se, I did not mean to say that the current case should be brought in front of an EU court.

What I did mean to say was that the EU as a whole should (politically) take a strong stance on such issues, implement appropriate, EU-wide legislation to protect the privacy of European citizens from their own and third party governments as well as private companies and enforce corresponding standards in international trade – i.e., I was referring to a political process that I would like to take place (within the EU), not a judicial lawsuit in front of the appropriate court of law.

Regarding your last paragraph: The Treaty of Lisbon does contain an exit clause[0], which either requires the agreement on a withdrawal treaty or a period of two years from the notification of the intention to secede. This means that, within the current legal framework, it is possible

a) for the UK to declare its intention to leave and just do so in roughly 2015.

b) for the UK to declare its intention to leave, agree on an appropriate treaty and then leave as soon as possible.

c) for the _other_ member states to leave (in 2015) and – in parts – form an appropriate core union which is made clear to be more than a free trade zone.

Naturally, the last option is rather unlikely to occur any time soon, but it would be legally possible and certainly not damage the reputation of the Council of Europe (at least not more than Russia's prolonged membership therein).

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> I will be writing to my MP about this disgraceful incident. I will be encouraging others to do the same. In fact I will door step them at their surgery and let them know that this is a line that's been massively overstepped.

</comment><comment><USER80> I stopped reading when he implied that the US was behind it. GB is a sovereign country, and still a democracy. If you don't like the fascist laws people are voting for, stop voting for them. If you blame some outside party, you're just passing the buck and making excuses why you can't convince people to grow a spine and stop voting for the status quo -- "oh, my people would never put up with this, but the big bad USA is forcing us to". If your politicians have signed you up to be the enforcers for a little mafia protection racket, maybe they shouldn't be in office.

<comment><USER81> "US is behind it" doesn't mean "US has sole responsibility for it, letting GB off the hook".

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> Disclaimer: This is largely speculative and WHOLLY me playing devil's advocate. I do not condone this sort of behaviour by my government.

Could the case be made that journalists are legitimate targets for investigation following on from Manning and Snowdon? My focus here is less on terrorism and more towards counter-intelligence. Were I a rival nation-state I would see an intelligence-gathering opportunity in what's happened: Rather than bribing/coercing people into become informants, there is now the option to invite them to 'blow the whistle' by posing as a journalist.

<comment><USER83> If you believe that the security interests of the state should always take precedent, then this argument could be made. However, this is of course a totalitarian position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> I don't understand why this article so carefully avoids the word "spouse". I had no idea what kind of partner David Miranda was – business, romantic, or marriage – for most of the article. The story only hinted at the meaning in the third-to-last paragraph, about "detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists". Was this just bad editing, or does nobody talk about "business partners" any more?

<comment><USER78> It's just a style issue. From 2004 until very recently gay couples in England could only get a 'civil partnership', not a marriage; possibly because of that 'X is Y's partner' in the UK is these days understood as meaning a romantic attachment. (The business meaning still exists, but is phrased as e.g. "X and Y are both partners at Foobar LLP" rather than "X is Y's partner").

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> They do it because they can and they learned that the public will scream for a few days and move on with their daily problems soon after.

It's sad, very sad. I am pessimistic and I have an impression looking at how Obama and co. are lying without any consequences, what NSA has being doing and other recent examples, that we lost that war and we have no tools to fight against it.

</comment><comment><USER75> Effing cheap intimidation pricks. One day it will come back to haunt them.

</comment><comment><USER86> Does anyone have the original article link? There are several indications in the comments that it was changed by an HN editor.

<comment><AUTHOR> The original article link was [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn- greenwald...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald- guardian-partner-detained-heathrow)

The title was edited by the mods at least twice.

<comment><USER87> Original link was AFAIK [http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david- miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Not really relevant, but I am greatly amused between the current relationship that we have with our security services and the situation that Terry Gilliam portrays in his excellent film: "Brazil".

After all, when the security state starts to be driven by the profit motive, were we really so naive as to expect anything less?

</comment><comment><USER88> Unlikely and perhaps wrong under most perspectives, but as soon as I read Greenwald's account I thought "shit, he's caught the bait". The government and those detaining his man were wholly aware of what a shitstorm this would have caused. I would have LOVED to see the alternative scenario, where Greenwald tells Miranda "Don't tell anyone else.". The police wouldn't and couldn't speak publicly, no-one gets to know about the event, the political game of those who had this brilliant idea is now in pieces. The gov's option at that point would have been to further escalate their offensive, exposing themselves even more. Instead what we got now is a lawful, yet badly-intentioned use of the law, which is grave, but likely insufficient to warrant & spark any significant tectonic movements.

</comment><comment><USER89> It seems to me that a good line to draw regarding overreach by the government is to determine who or what they're efforts are protecting. Terrorism laws were sold to us as necessary to protect the people. More recently, it seems that the efforts of the government has been to protect itself FROM the people.

</comment><comment><USER90> There's no doubt "terrorism" laws are abused on a daily basis to intimidate and scare people into being good citizens, the question here is who in the chain of command and how far up the chain did the order get carried down from and why? This whole NSA, Prism stuff is getting out of hand. It's not a nice feeling living in a world where Governments are spying on their citizens and those abroad in plain sight and knowing there is nothing anyone can do about it except go off the grid completely and well, it's 2013, it's not exactly easy to do that.

I can only hope that this incident is investigated further and that we get some solid answers from those in power about why David had been detained for the legally permitted time of 9 hours without charge.

</comment><comment><USER91> I find awesome when this kind of thing happen, It makes pretty clear how the law is manipulated to protect those in power, the fear politics is obviously a strategy to intimidate and control the masses but fortunately, with this kind of abuses, it is becoming more and more apparently.

</comment><comment><USER92> How long until the organizations that protect us meet the definition of terrorists themselves?

<comment><USER4> Depending on the country some have already reached that definition. Terrorism is a nebulous enough term that it can be made to fit a large variety of entities. That's exactly why it was chosen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER93> Pressure-intimidation tactic? Turn up the indignation up a few notches to make Greenwald trip and release more/all NSA-related information in one go, instead of the slow drip-of-death that is making them look like liars with every denial they make.

</comment><comment><USER94> The UK has a long history of abusing anti-terrorism laws. Just look at Northern Ireland.

</comment><comment><USER95> I'd guess what they were looking for was any one of the leaked top-secret NSA documents on his laptop, the hard drive of which is being analyzed as we speak...

Had they found anything during the 9 hours, I'm afraid he wouldn't be flying to Brazil - he would have been detained indefinitely as a "terror" suspect in order to intimidate Greenwald even more.

</comment><comment><USER68> I was just saying on a post the other day how badly the government(s) are losing the PR battle. Quite amazing: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584)

</comment><comment><USER96> so this is one side of the story. no one knows what happened during that questioning, why amd how it started and how his partner acted.

case in point, there was this guy who stripped naked at a TSA check a while back.

you yourself can easily trigger an incident like this and escalate it.

right now there is one side of the story, reported by a deeply involved, non- objective actor. if you ask a parent about what happened to their kid in school when it was expelled you'll also get a very subjective, partisan take.

this "discussion" here smells of the reddit hivemind, quickly jumping to conclusion, throwing around terms like fascism and full of nerd bravado. nobody asks what really happened.

<comment><USER96> and to the downvoters - there are now emerging articles that Miranda was carrying classified information. so yeah, more sides to the story, but who gives a shit because fascism.

<comment><USER97> Is it terrorism to carry classified information?

> Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political > aims. [1]

Ok... Someone with a lot of power is too easily intimidated.

[1] [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition)

<comment><USER96> no, but if the person is not allowed to carry/possess it, he/she might be breaking laws. the term 'classified' exists for a reason.

it is all 'ifs', which is my point - not much is known, the so called fog of war is still in full effect but people around here are already jumping to conclusions.

might have been a nasty way of intimidation, might have been a security clerk reacting to standard procedure. no one here right now knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> "Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence."

Wait...What? HFSMFCSWTF!

</comment><comment><USER99> Disgusting. But may I dare to suggest that in his case it was extremely naïve, if not outright deliberate, to choose an airport in the UK to change planes?

</comment><comment><USER100> I know it is the British who detained Mr. Miranda, and not the US but Groucho Marx would have loved the setup.

</comment><comment><USER101> That's the last straw for me. From now on, my private communications are between me and my deceased cat.

</comment><comment><USER102> Welcome to dystopia, friend. We have polonium-laden cookies, would you like some?

</comment><comment><USER103> Does anyone else see the humor in his last name being "Miranda"?

</comment><comment><USER104> So what do we do?

</comment><comment><USER105> if a 82 year old nun is charged terrorism than why not journalists and who ever else that's not convenient:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan- rice-s...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan-rice- sentencing_n_3246071.html)

tomorrow this can be us just for posting the truth on the forum here folks! Wake up!</comment>


Facebook and WhatsApp pause Hong Kong user data requests - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/06/facebook-whatsapp-pause-hong-kong-user-data-requests <comment><USER2> My Signal friends list triple in the past week due to the passing of the Hong Kong National Security Law.</comment>


Ask HN: What license key service do you use for your product? - <AUTHOR> I want to generete a license key for the customers who buy my product after they purchase (e.g. with stripe or paypal).
I don't want to reinvent the wheel, is there a SaaS or similar I could use for key generation and management?
This is especially important because the product is an App Script add-on, so everything "administrative" that has to be built on purpose is a distraction... <comment><USER2> I did some research on this and didn't find anything that fit my needs. I need to generate licenses for software that's running in Docker containers. I finally decided to roll my own.

The whole thing is basically a database, simple front end, and a bit of code that generates a license key. The license is basically a signed/encoded string which my software can parse and validate. The user buys the license string, they feed it to my software as a config parameter and the software verifies the signature and validates it in various ways. Job done.

If there's any demand for something like this I'm willing to productize the whole thing.

<comment><USER3> There is already [https://www.vaultproject.io/](https://www.vaultproject.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pinging ezekg with his startup [https://keygen.sh](https://keygen.sh)

<comment><USER5> Hey, thanks for the ping! Keygen ([https://keygen.sh](https://keygen.sh)) is an developer-focused API that handles user management, licenses and helps you track things like devices, etc. It integrates easily with Stripe and other payment providers using webhooks. I just launched a new feature this month that handles licensed software distribution as well. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I haven't tried it but Gumroad looked promising. They deal with payments and subscriptions, each sale generates an email to the customer containing a license key and you just make a simple HTTP API call (e.g. via JavaScript or whatever) in your app to verify a license key is still valid. I had a look at several other similar services but couldn't find a simple one that didn't require you to run some kind of server yourself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes I was also looking into gumroad and sendowl, trying to understand which would fit my needs more.

<comment><USER6> So from memory...API calls to SendOwl requires a secret to be sent and each IP can only do an API call once per second. For desktop apps for example, you'd need to create some kind of server of your own to keep the secret hidden and perform rate limiting.

Gumroad seemed super simple in comparison. I was concerned about it being a relatively young company and some stories about all sales being refunded because of too many suspicious transactions though (I'm guessing this is rare). Worst case you could export all your license keys + user emails and transition to another service. It's really quick to try out as well as you can make test purchases and just use "curl" calls to verify licenses.

Other ones to look at are Sellfy, FastSpring and Paddle. Paddle told me that for subscription checks I'd need to maintain my own database + server for that. Gumroad looked the easiest by a long way.

Have you considered other services? I'd be interested to know what you found. I'm with you that you don't want to be implementing this yourself. Not having to worry about bugs in your payment processing code is likely well worth the cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In case your software's written in Java you could use License4J: [https://www.license4j.com](https://www.license4j.com)

It's not a SaaS but rather an on-premise solution, which can be an advantage depending on your infrastructure.

</comment><comment><USER8> There was a product called LimeLM that was quite popular a few years ago. The creator was active on the old Joel on software forums. Last I checked it had been sold to Oracle. Sais la vie and all.</comment>


Ask HN: When is it too early to leave your first job? - <AUTHOR> I'm a new grad with a degree in finance, but I love programming and tackling challenging, weird and new problems. I'm about 6 months into working for a big consulting firm, but I can already tell that it's not going to work long-term - I don't like super-structured hours, relatively limited freedoms and a big hierarchy. I'm very interested in starting working for a very small company or startup.<p>When is too early to start applying for new jobs? How do I go about interviewing if I'm not sure that the startup I'm interviewing at is right for me and I don't want to leave my current job if it's not? What's your advice? <comment><USER2> Questions:

What do you like about the job?

What are you learning?

Who are you meeting?

Who are you working with?

Free advice:

1\. "Long term" in terms of a new graduates career is pretty long. Some day, odds are, you'll be sixty three.

Lots of small workplaces have structured hours and limited freedom and in exchange for a big hierarchy, the boss can start to take ten minutes late to your desk and long lunches personally even if you stay late every day...which is to say that big organizations are more likely to have experienced professional managers than a place where the boss has their child's college tuition on the line.

I'm not saying that working for a big consulting firm is the right decision. I'm suggesting that it isn't likely a bad place to gain experience in the world of work while figuring out a better answer to "why did you leave your last job" than what sounds like, "I don't really like going to work".

That better answer is probably in terms of a specific opportunity. Historically, working for consultants is a great way to widen the opportunity surface.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) I like how great the benefits are, and how amenable my firm is to making sure that I don't totally hate my life (crazy, inconsitent hours and a good work-life balance). But at the same time, I find the stability to be stifling - I'm not opposed to working 14 hours/day if I know that I have a tight deadline coming up, but why do I have to sit at my desk to hit a 40 hour/week deadline if I don't have 40 hours of work to do?

2) I'm currently in a long-term project, and it's the nature of my firm and the projects that my group has that you tend to stick to a project over a fairly "long" time period (1-2 years for consulting might as well be forever). I am doing a lot of self-education during the times during my 40 hours/week that I don't have anything to do, but even so, there's only so much I can do. I've worked on harder projects that taught me more in internships. This is what I'm most dissatisfied with, but I don't want to rock the boat because I want to remain in the good graces of higher-ups.

3-4) My current project is in a field that I have relatively little interest in, and I've found that a lot of the people I am working with want to be lifers - something I DO NOT want to do. I want a creative and diverse (in thought) group of people, and I tend to be in a stagnant place.

Like you say, "working for consultants tends to be a great way to widen the opportuntity surface", but I haven't seen that so far. It may be that I am in the wrong place in my firm, but as I've already said, I don't want to rock the boat and possibly jeopardize the current stable state of affairs, which is significantly better than nothing.

<comment><USER3> > I've worked on harder projects that taught me more in internships. This is > what I'm most dissatisfied with...

Turns-out that the lack of feeling personal & professional growth is a very common complaint with people early in their careers. The pace and variety of corporate work life can be extremely stifiling compared to university & internships.

Before you jump to a new job-- one way to consider the next step in your career is ask:

\- What are the most important problems in your field?

\- Are you working on one of them?

\- Why not?

\- How can you leverage where you are now into the Next Big Thing?

On this subject, Richard Hamming offers brilliant advice> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zDuOPkMSw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zDuOPkMSw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's never too early if you really hate it. You just don't want to get in the habit of leaving companies after working there less than a year. A lot of companies get turned off by that. The advice I got from multiple people was to stick with your first company at least a year. I am not suggesting staying a year, but you should plan to be at your next company 2-4 years at least.

</comment><comment><USER5> I suggest you should follow what genuinely interests you. But before you quit your current job, do some course on CS on courseera or edx or MIT. They are available online for free and if you need a certificate or course credits that option is available too. By doing a course you will be able to know if you really like programming or not. Also once you complete it properly (most shouldn't take more than 3 months), you will be in a better position to start working as a programmer if you still want to. This will also be the safest option as you will have an year experience in current job. You can experiment with your programming ideas and who knows where that would take us. Be passionate about it. Even if you will be working for no one other than yourself, without some structured hours, its going to be a bite back long term. Hating structure is a common feeling with first time job. Part on good terms. Do not quit abruptly on any job without proper notice period and don't make enemies.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a lot of experience in programming, and one of my internships was extremely programming intensive. As well, I have a few side projects where I am the sole programmer working on them. I really love it, but more from a higher-up, project perspective. I can get my hands dirty with code, but I feel like I am best when I can see the forest rather than the trees. I want something where I have to do a little bit of both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interview at a few places before leaving your current job. Try to find a place you're really excited about. But also realize that you might have to repeat this process multiple times to find a really good match.

The job market is very inefficient. There are are limited number of great jobs available, so you're unlikely to find them if you don't put in some effort. It's so hard to find a great job that lots of people start their own companies (and then fail to create very many great jobs)...

</comment><comment><USER7> Most recruiters make their placing fee within 90 days of placing their candidates, so for most of us, I would consider 3 months or less to be too soon. (That said, new agencies pop up daily, so finding someone else to place you isn't hard.)

Six months? You're fine. I left my job at Google within 8 months and didn't have an issue landing an awesome gig. (I got a lot of questions for it though)

</comment><comment><USER8> \- "When is too early to start applying for new jobs?" Never, imo. Just be ready to be able to have a good answer when the recruiter/HR asks you why you are looking for a new place. However people that tend to only work short stints and jump around might get frowned upon (just my personal guess..)

You cant really know if the grass is greener on the other side, that is the beauty of life.

</comment><comment><USER9> 3pm is too early, I'd stay till 5pm

</comment><comment><USER10> I left my job at a big consulting firm 6 months after i finished college. It was one of the best decisions I made. I left only after i had another job offer in hand.

</comment><comment><USER11> Never, never allow an employer to dictate your next move. This is your life, and your career.

</comment><comment><USER12> Do you have debit? If yes, make a big dent in that now.

Do you have savings? If no, get some of that too.

Then you can comfortably find the right gig.</comment>


Show HN: Java Solitaire Game University Project - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Cristy94/Java-AWT-Solitaire-Game <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN!

I was looking through my older Github repos and found this Solitaire game I made as an university assignment a while ago. I tested the game and it still runs fine.

I also changed the license to MIT. Maybe it's useful for someone in any way. :)</comment>


Why we should celebrate shyness - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160830-why-we-should-celebrate-shyness <comment><USER2> Having worked and lived in both North America (USA and Canada) and the UK I find it's easier to be a shy or introverted person in the UK and I observe more shy people in the UK too. That's just my experience but the point is whether or not it should be celebrated there are strong cultural and societal differences about acceptance of it even within countries that are close culturally.</comment>


Show HN: Online Mass Customisation from CAD Parametric Models - <AUTHOR> http://streams.speckle.xyz/#!/ <comment><AUTHOR> As a little extra introduction, what this tool allows for is essentially the online mass customisation of parametric designs of any sort (from iphone cases to urban planning). The novel approach is that content creators are not required to hard-code their design logic in js, or threejs, etc but can use a standard design software package [1].

[1] [http://streams.speckle.xyz/#!/parametric](http://streams.speckle.xyz/#!/parametric)</comment>


Composability: From Callbacks to Categories in ES6 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@homam/composability-from-callbacks-to-categories-in-es6-f3d91e62451e <comment><USER2> Interesting: as far as I can, this is promises, except there is a final strictness point at the end of the composition. That is, in turn, analogous to a one-shot form of old FRP formulations, where there is a final strictness/execute call. We already see that in JS libraries, like 'subscribe' in Rx: [https://github.com/Reactive- Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/...](https://github.com/Reactive- Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/api/core/operators/subscribe.md)

FWIW, I'm actually not that thrilled about this sort of deferred approach. In Rx, that is part of the reason 'hot' vs 'cold' documentation has to exist, and I've seen many people struggle with it in theory & practice.

<comment><USER3> This comment is correct - promises in JavaScript started like this and settled on their current API for ergonomics. Here is a standard promise implementation with deferred execution that never took off: [https://github.com/then/lazy- promise](https://github.com/then/lazy-promise)

A lot of tough calls had to be made and pragmatic best interest of users typically triumphed over purity.

A promise is monadic if you drop exceptions and use the `then` overload which is `bind`. You have a `pure` - `resolve`.

The promise constructor has to exist to interop with callbacks but for no other reason really.

<comment><USER4> Come to think of it, the "strictness" of the Promise constructor is more ergonomical for concrete, day-to-day usage, where you're binding specific things together.

It became a pain point for me when using Promises as part of a larger abstraction, where the exact use was not known. Then I've worked around the strictness by embedding a "trigger" into a set of Promises so that I can set them off all at once, after they are all created.

Good article, btw. One of these days the Monad/Category lightbulb is going to go off for me, and this brought me closer to that using a familiar example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> As you start to look at these concepts, and Ramda, I highly recommend playing with ramda-fantasy[0] and the fantasy-land[1] spec that it implements. Super useful, and really made this sort of functional programming "click" for me (and, has really cleaned up some abstractions in a couple production projects, too!)

[0] [https://github.com/ramda/ramda-fantasy](https://github.com/ramda/ramda- fantasy)

[1] [https://github.com/fantasyland/fantasy- land](https://github.com/fantasyland/fantasy-land)

<comment><USER6> Here[0] is a Node REPL with rambda and rambda-fantasy functions as globals. It feels so fun to use, like a whole other language.

E.g. `map(x => x*2, [1, 2, 3])` (no need to write `R.map`)

[0] [https://github.com/hemanth/ramda-repl](https://github.com/hemanth/ramda- repl)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Note his call back hell is exacerbated by the unnecessary 'else' after checking for errors and returning.

I'm not sure that .bindTo() chaining reads any better than .then() chaining or async.waterfall().

<comment><USER8> The point isn't really to argue for another naming scheme for Promises. The construction of the Callback class is used to build up the reader's understanding the Monadic structure before introducing Categories and Kleisli Categories. The comparison of the structure of these abstractions comes up several times.

I think the final example (of myLongOperation) reads extremely well, and is pretty minimal, as the author states.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks like a new hell!

<comment><USER10> How is this a new hell? This is some elegant, mathematics-derived abstraction.

<comment><USER11> It will turn into a hell because JavaScript lacks Haskell's strong type system. The tooling will not give you early warning if you pass a plain function into a construct that expects a promise etc.

<comment><USER12> That's very true. But on the other hand dynamic typing is what enables us to play with JavaScript and re-create many concepts from FP in plain JS. This is not easy in many strongly typed languages which their type system falls short of Haskell's (that supports ADTs, kinds, recursive types, etc.).

<comment><USER11> Yes, dynamic typing allows experimentation. But just because you can make JS look like Haskell doesn't mean it's the most effective way to get stuff done. You'd be better off writing Haskell and transpiling it, IMO.

Note that I'm talking about writing an entire application in this style, not just sprinkling categories here and there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was recently thinking while working with ES6 Promises that I liked to have something equivalent to Haskells `do` notation. Or Scalas `for` comprehension.

Does something like that exist?

If not maybe I should try Kleislis instead. But I'd like my code to be accessible for my colleagues. And it's my rule of thumb that I try not to use point free constructions (like Kleislis) because a lot of colleagues will no longer understand my code easily.

<comment><USER13> On second thought: I guess Async Await are like a `do` notation specifically for Promises...

<comment><USER12> That's true. await sequence actions much like do notation.

<comment><USER13> ..and it's flat instead of nesting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article didn't really sell that arrows have an advantage over monads as far as callbacks are concerned.

<comment><USER12> Do you have any particular use-case in mind for arrows in JS?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Really fun read!

</comment><comment><USER15> Arent you guys around JavaScript tired of changing your programming paradigm every half a year?

<comment><USER16> Why would anyone made such a change every year? Many people write articles about better ways to do X in many languages but that doesn't mean you change everything to follow that today. Maybe it informs your decisions tomorrow, maybe it doesn't. Ultimately you don't need to do anything here.

Personally I don't use promises and won't use this either but that's only because I am working on a code base that needs to work in more places (so no ES6 for me and no I don't need the extra complexity in my build and debugging steps to do a transpile).

<comment><USER12> I'd love to know which runtimes do you have to support which don't support ES6 if you don't mind? I imagine you're dealing with old browsers.

<comment><USER16> At my previous job it was older browsers but my primary avoidance of ES6 is related to my open source project (msngr.js) where I want to ensure I support not only older browsers but also node.js 0.10. I could use ES6 and transpile with babel but I try not to do that when possible to keep the build process as simple as possible.

If there was a specific ES6 feature that I think would hugely benefit my productivity or if I was working on a project that could utilize ES6 in other ways I would certainly use it more.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Truth About Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://adage.com/article/the-media-guy/truth-reddit-unnecessary-apology/241277/ <comment><USER2> >You know what? Humans, especially during times of crisis and confusion, speculate. They do it offline and, in 2013, they increasingly do it online. The fact of the matter is that one of the Boston suspects (later revealed to be Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) seen in the early grainy surveillance-video stills released by the FBI did resemble Tripathi.

I dont really understand this section. Is the author trying to defend reddit's holier art thou attitude towards the world and their tendency to stick their nose in matters they shouldnt in the name of internet justice?

>And Reddit actually has much better checks and balances in place -- thanks to a combination of the upvote system and moderator intervention.

This is just plain false. Subreddits are not moderated by reddit employees, only by the people who founded the subreddit and whoever they choose to moderate the subreddit with them. This is why hate groups like /r/atheism and fox-news-tier biased news subreddits like /r/poltics can exist. Hell, the only visible admin-intervention I've ever heard of on reddit was when they took down the child porn reddits, and even that required -two- pieces by major news outlets on how reddit was hosting child porn.

The upvote/downvote system is literally only useful for propagating viral/interesting content. Far too many people are relying on reddit as a news source nowadays, and thanks to the upvote/downvote system, all it takes is 51% disapproval for an article to virtually disappear. Since everyone uses the downvote button to say "i dont like this content" rather than "this content isnt good/isnt relevant", you get lots of wonderful skews. This is why /r/poltics has such a intense liberal bias - all it takes is a 51% of the users to disapprove of an article that supports republicans in order for the submission to disappear from view of everyone else. Imagine how horrible the news would be if an entire political viewpoint is censored just because the majority believes differently. That's news on reddit.

<comment><USER3> > Subreddits are not moderated by reddit employees, only by the people who > founded the subreddit and whoever they choose to moderate the subreddit with > them

That's still moderation - the article didn't say that the moderation was from admins or reddit staff. Also, there are reddit-wide rules[0] that apply regardless of sub.

Also, r/atheism isn't a hate group. There's plenty of asshats and the occasional hateful post, but it's not a hate group in general. Take a look at the sub[1] on any given day, and most of it isn't hateful

[0]: <http://www.reddit.com/rules/>

[1]: <http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/>

<comment><USER4> OK, easy example. Top item right now on r/atheism (only sample taken, you couldn't pay me to visit that subreddit):

[http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_a_god_words_carved_into_the_cell_wall/)

A few comments down (above the fold on even a tiny monitor) we have this exchange:

Poster talking about his Holocaust-surviving grandfather (32 upvotes):

"My grandfather became a believer, but he didn't go all orthodox. He just believed. His reasoning was that if it weren't for god - he would have died many times during the war."

The reply, with 100 upvotes:

"Explanations like that are precisely what makes me hate religion. When people tell themselves these things, they betray an inner conviction that they are somehow better and more special than the countless men women and children who died at the hands of the Nazis. Makes me sick when people say things like that."

Link to comment: [http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1e0vcv/if_there_is_a_god_words_carved_into_the_cell_wall/c9vtodx)

<comment><USER5> So what's your point exactly? You could argue that that comment is insensitive, maybe even caustic... you could argue that the person who posted it is a bit of an ass probably. But how does any of that support the idea that /r/atheism is a "hate group"?

<comment><USER4> I agree "hate group" is stronger wording than would be appropriate (at any rate I don't want to quibble over a definition of that term) but I personally dislike intolerance - and I avoid forums[1] where it is considered upvote- worthy rhetoric.

There are insensitive and caustic comments _everywhere_ \- but when they are promoted through upvotes they discourage participation from affected individuals, breeding an environment where people only feel welcome if they subscribe to the dominant opinions. This results in a hollow echo chamber, which is not a satisfactory equilibrium for any forum trying to encourage healthy discussion.

1\. Pre-internet definition of forum.

<comment><USER5> Fair enough. I also _generally_ dislike intolerance, but I do have my areas where I find it hard to be tolerant. As an atheist, I have very little use for religion, religious dogma or teachings, etc., and I think that religion is actively harmful to society. So in that regard, I'm probably not so far removed from the guy you quoted above. But... I have no problem being tolerant of religious _people_ in that I don't find much need to go around trying to convince everybody who isn't an atheist that they are an idiot, or doing the inverse of what I have having done to me - excessive proselytizing. I'm not out to convince Christians or Hindus or Muslims, etc. to disavow their faith. But when I come across situations (public education, for example) where religious beliefs start affecting things that I believe belong outside the bounds of religion, then I start to get a bit prickly about the whole thing as well.

I guess that was just a long-winded way of saying "it's complicated".

The other thing I'll add is this: I do visit /r/atheism, albeit infrequently. And you're probably right that it's not a particularly nice place to visit for people who are actively religious. That doesn't bother me only because I go in with the assumption that they aren't going to be there, aren't interested in being there, and that the few who do come in and stick around are the kind of people who can look past the stylistic stuff and still engage in a conversation which is - hopefully - enlightening for both sides.

I guess that was a long-winded way of saying "it's all about expectations".

Nonetheless, I can understand why you might shy away from /r/atheism. That place has it's own character and it's not for everybody. But what forum is?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > _3\. If you regularly read Reddit, it makes the rest of the internet seem > stale._

This is absolutely true; it's actually very interesting watching a new 'meme' make its way through the internet, and then the personal, pipeline. In the morning you'll see a reddit post, in the afternoon your friends will send you links to it, and your mom will mention it to you when you call her that night.

> _it's not like Reddit is a major focus of corporate attention, either._

And thank $DEITY - the last thing we (it) need(s) is an owner trying to exploit it for another subsidiary's benefit.

On the other hand, it's been long speculated that Reddit is constantly being gamed, that corporate voting cabals are responsible for advertising content rising to the front page, and plenty of other news sources lift information without bothering to credit Reddit or its users.

<comment><USER7> _> In the morning you'll see a reddit post, in the afternoon your friends will send you links to it, and your mom will mention it to you when you call her that night._

Increase that timescale to days for friends and weeks for parents, and you'll be about right.

<comment><USER8> It's interesting how some nerdy phrases/memes have made their way into the mainstream.

I was watching the UK Apprentice the other day and during the "boardroom" scene they were showing a group of stylish , upwardly mobile, adult business women arguing about whether or not something was an "epic fail".

The term "epic fail" is a reference to an obscure neogeo game called blazing star which I doubt any of these women would ever have played.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think this article may be overstating the point through its use of the term "mainstream media" to refer to sites like the Gawker Media network. Those guys have had the same business model for upward of a decade, and the only change the rise of sites like Reddit has made to that model is that it's now even easier for them to find content to syndicate.* When The Washington Post and the New Yorker and the BBC are sourcing their big stories from Reddit -- that is when I'd be alarmed.

*...err, syndicate implies paying the original content owners. Is there a word for credited and monetized reproduction of media without profit sharing?

<comment><USER10> Indeed. Nice little sleight of hand where the article reference "mainstream media" and then switches to "mainstream blog media" before citing any examples.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Reddit's gradual decline has long ago tipped the scales. I was on reddit starting '08 I think, so I didn't see what the initial community was like, it was already fairly big by then, but nowhere near what it is today.

Just a few days ago, there was this trailer on the front page, for a movie with mecha robots fighting godzillas or something, and it was just... terrible. For whatever reason, maybe to get some reassurance, I read the comments. 3000 people falling over themselves wanking over it. In disbelief I loaded more and more comments just to try and find at least one negative comment. What are these people, 17 year-olds? And then it hit me. They ARE 17 year-olds.

I get it, subreddits blah blah blah, but there's no point. Sticking to subreddits destroys the sense of community which is so important for online forums. When the front page is dominated by teenagers, how long do you think others will stick to the site? Not to mention, having to log in to see your own specialized front page is a hassle when you're on many devices and don't really care enough to have an active account. Subreddit discovery is also too difficult, and then there's the whole filter bubble going on. I'd prefer a general purpose forum with higher quality people than hiding in some corner of a site dominated by teenagers.

More and more, HN is filling that purpose for me, with a healthy balance of tech and non-tech. I sort of wish there was a separation between "tech" and "general" though, so that the general discussions could expand without affecting the tech side of things.

<comment><USER12> What movie was it? If it was Pacific Rim as it sounds like, then that reaction could make sense. Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) is directing it.

It might not be that movie though. Still, have you seen the top raved about films on HN (there was a frontpage show hn on this recently)? Pretty obvious, typical choices. And there is nothing wrong with that. I'm cool with your reddit opinions. Just weird to use comments about a movie as an example against reddit and then swing over to endorsing HN.

<comment><USER11> It was Pacific Rim, but regardless of director (loved Pan's Labyrinth), this movie is clearly catering to the Michael Bay mindless action crowd which, while having fans of all ages, generally are targeted at teenagers. Maybe that's disputable? Personally I don't think so... Also, it's not so much that people loved the trailer, more that it was 3000 comments of people explaining how much they "just came", and not a single critical voice. I really doubt that would be the case on HN if it had been submitted/allowed here.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, HN probably wouldn't have gushing, juvenile, and repetitive comments, one after another like reddit did.

But still, the movies that are gushed about here are so typical and mainstream and many times mirror imdb's top movies that it really makes any case of trying to use movie opinions to show HN as better than Reddit rather silly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the submission: "Reddit's longtime tagline is 'The front page of the internet,' but it could just as easily be 'The crib sheet for weary bloggers who need to hit page-view quotas.'"

Yep. I've learned mostly to tune out any incidental mention I see of such "stories" in the news-seeking methods I use. I'm not a fan of linkbait-style stories wherever they come from.

"If you regularly read Reddit, it makes the rest of the internet seem stale."

I don't regularly read Reddit, so I don't put the hypothesis of this statement to the test, but I find plenty of interesting things to read online without Reddit, so I think I can live without Reddit.

"Simon Dumenco is the 'Media Guy' media columnist for Advertising Age."

I was expecting him to explain how Reddit might actually make money to recover the large investment that went into buying out Reddit from its founders, but I see no explanation of that in the article. It's still not clear to me how Reddit can ever become anything other than a community of free-riders.

<comment><USER14> Maybe I should have wrote the article. I have a 6 year badge on Reddit. In a few more months it'll roll over to be a 7 year badge.

Currently the various revenue streams:

1\. Reddit Gold. Pay $3 for a month of pure margins for Reddit. In return the user gets account modifications, minor UX tweaks, ability to save links. Within the community it's often used to reward others for their posts or contributions. Often gets handed out in the larger more mainstream subreddits, especially AskReddit where the user generated content worthy of merit earn one or two or sometimes even ten little gold stars.

2\. Ads. Self-service model, pay $20 and get crazy CPMs from a group of people that have adblock on.

3\. Merchandise. T-shirts out the wazoo. Reddit makes $5 to $8 a shirt from official channels and various other knick knacks from redditgifts.com

4\. Exchanges. You buy exchange credits to trade amongst each other in the community, things like socks, shirts, snacks. They keep exploring new verticals, now there are comics and a variety of other things.

Reddit has the same problem as Tumblr. They both essentially are feeds that's replaced Facebook for a big demographics that in turn has replaced television with said feeds.

Tumblr is embracing native ads, they opened an LA office to better interface with media buyers. They're shooting for the moon on closing 6 figure accounts to sell more native ads.

Reddit is going the less glamorous route.

We'll see who wins.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Most of the default subreddits could be classified not only as mainstream but also much diluted from what they were a few years ago. The way I use the site nowadays I entirely unsubscribed from most of the default subreddits.

In the smaller subreddits, karma doesn't matter as much as the rest of the site, which is what makes them better IMO. YMMV though.

</comment><comment><USER16> a few years ago Reddit was a totally differant community. I think word got out and more and more people got into it and it evolved into what it has become...i still head over there once in a while, but most of the posts are not any good anyhow...reminds me of the old DIGG

<comment><USER17> Eh. I absolutely agree with this analysis for the major subreddits. The ecosystem and quality of content has definitely decreased.

However, I still find plenty of very high quality content in smaller subreddits. I wasn't a Digg user myself, but I suspect the subreddit aspect of reddit is the difference maker: folks seeking HQ content can stick around in the smaller corners while the more popular corners of reddit become mainstream.

And here's an anecdote: over the years, I've noticed more and more of my non- technical friends becoming reddit users. But most of them seem almost oblivious to the fact that there are subreddits outside of the ones you're subscribed to by default.

[EDIT] - spelling, thanks sliverstorm

<comment><USER18> I completely agree. Reddit, for me, would be useless without niche subreddits. There was a time when you could go to the front page and find links to some really interesting articles or videos, but these days its "guess which celebrity I met and look at the funny pose they made." Thats fine and all but just not for me. However, I can still subscribe to smaller subreddits and have good discussions with people.

I'm finding the same thing with friends as well. The popularity of that site has jumped so much in the last two years or so. I feel like an old man.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I find subreddits that have disabled image posting to be far more insightful and interesting. Once a subreddit allows image posting it degrades to memes, unless it's properly moderated.

</comment><comment><USER20> This was not an informative article--quite superficial unless one knows nothing about Reddit.

</comment><comment><USER21> > state-of-the-art-circa-1998, text-centric user interface

Said like it's a bad thing... reddit works great on less powerful devices, and doesn't crash my browser, unlike mainstream websites usually do (actually, almost always).

Dear "Mainstream" "Print" media: 1. if it only runs on later devices, it's not _mainstream_ , it's niche; 2. _print_ can be done with text, it doesn't need to be pictorial, video, audio, interactive, nor assembling 20 webservices and APIs from across the universe.

</comment><comment><USER22> Reddit is also a great tool for marketing and sourcing talent.

</comment><comment><USER23> I thought this would be able the misogyny, racism and paedophilia.

<comment><USER24> That's just the internet in general.

<comment><USER10> And yet reddit is corporate-owned, being hailed ITT as "the mainstream media", and there's plenty of evidence of senior Reddit moderators showing solidarity for the more criminal subreddits. Defending Reddit's dark side by comparing it to the wild world of message boards and comment sections is disingenuous: Reddit has a pervasive culture of "free speech" at all costs, and this is a consequence of it

<comment><USER25> >showing solidarity for the more criminal subreddits.

Like?

<comment><USER26> /r/picsofdeadkids /r/beatingwomen

<comment><USER27> I know the original remark was "more criminal", but are these criminal or tasteless and ugly?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Threads like these show the ongoing decline of hacker news.

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure what criteria you are using to form this opinion. I took a look at the front page from 2 years ago and it looks about the same to me.

[http://web.archive.org/web/20110505135841/http://news.ycombi...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110505135841/http://news.ycombinator.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The truth about Reddit is that it's a clone of Digg, and Digg was a clone of Slashdot.

Hacker News is a clone of Slashdot too. Just giving credit where credit is due.

<comment><USER31> They are technical clones but not social clones. The technical part in some way is irrelevant.

<comment><USER32> It's a mix, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message>

Certain commenting schemes lend themselves to "loudest retard gets most visibility" and some attempt to steer towards the opposite.

<comment><USER33> >FIRST</comment></comment></comment></comment>