I really don't think it's bots. Being contrarian, anti-US government and skeptical bordering on conspiracy are all strong HN norms.
I'm not really saying that to be dismissive but it seems like a shared culture on this site since the fallout of Snowden (right or wrong, I'm just describing how I see things play out here).
HN seems to lean more towards the conception of reality where we're playing 9-Dimensional chess vs "attribute things to ignorance not malice."
It's hand-wavy for now, but I've generally found that older more connected accounts are much less likely to be conspiratorial about this type of thing. Not attributing cause, just gives me pause sometimes.
Take your account for example. Your username doesn't obviously connect you to a real person, you don't have details in your profile, your submission history is a single article of the NYT but then again, your comment history seems real / thoughtful so you're probably a real person operating a single HN account, but when a whole topic is flooded with the same type of thinking and mostly from accounts that haven't been around that long I get a little suspicious. Of course I'm never bothered enough to put in the work to figuring it out.
I actually have yearly reminders set in my calendar to make new usernames on sites I frequently comment on (with new registered emails, etc).
People with deviant opinions value anonymity. People who have to live and work in the US don't want to be associated with anti-US opinions for pragmatic reasons.
I'm not really saying that to be dismissive but it seems like a shared culture on this site since the fallout of Snowden (right or wrong, I'm just describing how I see things play out here).
HN seems to lean more towards the conception of reality where we're playing 9-Dimensional chess vs "attribute things to ignorance not malice."