0) That wasn't Ars' analysis, that was their reporting. [0] was the one that did the analysis.

1) The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.

2) You're just wasting your keypresses if you honestly can't tell the difference between reporting someone else's work and their own analysis.

3) The actual report card for those interested [1].

[0] http://www.engine.is

[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571681753c44d835a440c...

>> The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.

This doesn't sound like policy positions to me:

Candidates were ranked on "privacy and security" based on whether they understood the importance of strong encryption and supported reforming privacy and surveillance laws.

Did you read the pdf I linked? Read the parts where they explain the grades they assigned?

What came of the investigation?

Republican fanatics keep missing the part that comes next, or claiming that the lack of conviction is due to the system being rigged.

And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.

If they wanted to push that issue, there's a nice long email from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton detailing exactly how to dodge the Presidential Records Act.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

Use the "view original PDF" link.

>> And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.

This actually gave me a good laugh thank you. Invoking Bush close to a decade after he left office while simultaneously giving his own candidate a pass for using an unsecured email server.

The funny thing is all you see and hear on hacker news is stories about companies getting hacked all the SV techies calling them stupid and morons. Then you have their candidate doing the same thing and suddenly its ok??

I never understood that logic.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe you misunderstood the parent post. They were pointing out the hypocrisy of caring about unprotected email servers now while not caring when it was done by a member of the same party. I don't believe the parent comment was saying that unprotected email servers are a-okay, just voicing frustration at the hypocrisy of the Republican party on that particular issue. It's possible that it is not hypocrisy, that an entirely different set of people were Republicans during Bush than those who are upset at Clinton's email controversy now; however, I don't believe that is the case.

What is definitely the case is that hypocrisy is one of the "deadly sins" trump just demonstrated is mostly made of hot air.

In my opinion, hypocrisy is like cherry-picking data. It exists to validate your potentially false claims or misguide those viewing your results. Sometimes it's intentional and other times it is innocent. Sure, the results of the election shows that perhaps hypocrisy, at least the kind shown about the email servers, wasn't a deciding factor this time; however, should the hypocrisy turn into distinct lies and reveal any intended misguidance, I do hope it regains importance.

Anything not-pro-clinton gets downvoted without explanation on any social media platform I've seen, including HN (which is supposed to be less biased, more objective, and superior to the other networks).

Oh come on, do you still need to pretend to be a victim? Aren't those days over now?

I'm not even pro trump, it's just an observation of overt bias.

speaking of observations of overt bias, i've noticed that any time i question what i see as overt male chauvinism here i get downvoted without any explanation. i even got hellbanned once about it. this is only something i run into here, but the only other place i really comment is jezebel.

I've felt the same thing about the comments here. It has led me to stop trying to discuss any issues related to gender and avoid HN more on the whole.

Slashdot is worse, I stopped reading it for the same reason. :(

the polls are rigged! he actually won by more!

You were downvoted, but I have actually heard this precise sentiment - Clinton didn't demand a recount because it helps her hide the evidence that she cheated.

Presumably it's all the work of the vast anti-Electoral College conspiracy.

Well if you look at the behaviour and intellectual rigour amongst some Trump supporters i.e. http://reddit.com/r/the_donald then it's hard not to see why it would not be a good fit for HN. And many of the conspiracy theories that ended up on Fox News originated there so it's not without basis that this sub is representative of a significant number of Trump supporters.

Personally I have not noticed any particular bias here except for at backing up assertions with some facts.

There's a number of factors involved:

* Both parties have worked hard to polarize the population and make this election the most divisive ever.

* In the case of HN, your audience is from a most progressive or libertarian background, who have no love for most of the conservative agenda

* In the case of Facebook and Reddit, the Clinton campaign is paying people to bury any criticism of her. (Correct The Record)

Hackers news is just white people news, the influential type, which are all hardline progressive and will vote you down for anything non-progressive.

what would the email server have to do with policy on technology like net neutrality and infrastructure and a lot more? how come trump supporters reasoning for anything doesn't go to past the word 'emails'? It's her versus mister 'cyber'. perhaps he'll appoint baron as head of 'the security aspect of cyber'.