Unfortunately that's not how the state thinks.

Washington knows that it has a lot of levers that it can pull to influence public opinion and narrative (just look at the poor quality and compromised character of international reporting in the US).

Snowden as a concept is a threat to Washington's legitimacy. Not only because he exposed massive illegality and wrongdoing on their part, but because if he's considered a hero then:

1. they are the villian. That's bad for state power.

2. it could inspire more leaks of more illegal and ethically questionable behavior. Which could start a spiral.

From a purely game theoretical point of view, Wasthington has to insist that it's the good guy in this situation and it was Snowden who was behaving irresponsibly.

Given the collective approach that the US government is known to take (e.g. it gets to write the history books that children are educated with) and the opposition to this narrative track among informed and disillusioned Americans are not collectively organized over the long arc of history probably Washington can have its way.

This is a very insightful comment, not sure why anyone would vote it down.

Indeed the wrongdoing revealed has compromised the legitimacy of the state significantly in my mind. When you combine deliberate PR/propaganda with a surveillance state the result is pretty scary.

The worst part is that our president has not even addressed the issue head on and acknowledged blatant excesses and offered reassurance that something (even in secret) is being done.

I'm sure that if I worked at the NSA I'd take it for granted at some level that the work I was doing was inherently good, and thus I'd read critiques like this thread as horribly misguided.

But there is such a thing as consent in a democracy, and while we don't have a direct democracy there are certain rights which the government is not supposed to violate under any circumstances.

Maybe it was downvoted for being "tinfoil"?

I know there are some ridiculous conspiracy theories out there, but is it too tinfoil to assume powerful actors had a hand in stigmatizing the concept of conspiracy and abuse of power in the U.S. government?

I take comments like this very seriously, having been accused of "tinfoil" when pointing to evidence of global surveillance programs (e.g. Office of Strategic Influence, Total Information Awareness, etc) before journalists broke the Snowden story.

Luckily, I think most people on Hacker News are realistic people not easy to excite into witch hunts and victim-blaming like you suggest. I think most people on Hacker News believe that the governments of Russia, France, Turkey, Germany, China, and others including the United States, manage their appearance to the publics they represent, making appeals for and finding evidence to build the case for their own legitimacy. That's not an extraordinary claim, you can find media reporting that suggests a wide range of policies and rhetoric from around the world are motivated by public appearance and appeals to legitimacy. Much of the censorship that people experience in the world is similarly motivated.

The character attacks against Snowden have evolved over time: "he didn't understand the programs / he was just a low level employee", "his girlfriend was a stripper", "he's a Russian spy", "he didn't go through the proper channels", "he just wants to be in the news", "he was a disgruntled employee".

These slanderous rumors, spread by anonymous officials and PR contracts, belie the fact that there is no desire to discuss the abuse disclosed by the whistleblowing. What anonymous officials, press offices and paid PR coverage want to talk about are rumors and opinions about Snowden's intentions - topics that not only distract from the documents (which are conclusive evidence of highly illegal and unethical behavior) with inconclusive speculation but topics that have a specific effect on the public attitude and narrative understanding of the events that unfolded.

Those who think that there has to be some wide ranging conspiracy for officials to react in a self-defensive manner are unrealistic. Those who think the human nature of American officials deeply differs from Chinese officials, French officials, or Turkish officials (etc) are unrealistic and unconvincing.

So to the first question you posed: no. I have a higher opinion of Hacker News commentators than that. I don't think they are dumb or immature or unrealistic. At least, not to that extreme degree.

I didn't mean to accuse you of being "tinfoil", I'm sorry if it came across that way.

HN may be very reasonable compared to the average when it comes to Snowden and dragnet surveillance, but the existance of that surveillance has been plausible and even likely for a long time before Snowden came, and before Snowden it was considered tinfoil by most (I heard) that knew of the possibility at all.

It is now "in" or "socially acceptable" to acknowledge this possibilty now, though once you start thinking about it and try to find ways of living that reflect this knowledge (e.g. refusing to use smartphones, social media or the internet in general) you again tend to enter "considered tinfoil territory". What I'm trying to say is, I think "tinfoil" is mostly a label used to stigmatize and supress a concept or person, based on social convention or "perceived consensus" (which is manipulated by media, which are manipulated by all entities with enough power and the incentive to do so). I perceived GGP to be at risk of that and wanted to indicate that in my comment.

Kind of like how saying the Intel ME is a backdoor is viewed now (while it is literally an autonomous remote management module, that is included in almost every consumer PC and which cannot be removed or inspected).

That's why I don't trust other people's opinion on what is "tinfoil", and can be a little cynical about it.

I am 100% with you and thank you very much for your well thought out comments. I did not reply earlier because of end-of-year vacationing.