...but if it's no longer restricted to the visual cortex and they can extract the kind of horrific imagery as in the movie, I don't really want to see it.
I really like this film, especially with my photography hat on. A lot of the imagery taken from the mind of the serial killer is actually based on surrealist art, and some of the cinematography is superb, e.g. the sequences filmed in the Namibian desert
Tarsem Singh's next movie The Fall is visually similar (though in another genre), so watch it too if you didn't already: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/
From the aesthetic/cinematography side of things, it did stick with me for a long time; I haven't re-watched it since the early naughties and I do remember lots of scenes. It is just hard to take in that some people might experience a similar internal imagery and the very slight possibility exists that they also act upon it.
I saw that episode and I hated it precisely because it didn't really explore the idea. There was this profound, interesting, thought provoking premise which it completely relegated to the background in favor of an unchallenging police procedural.
I suppose it would depend on whether the claims in the video have been substantiated, e.g., by the intelligence community. A video talking about Russian interference via targeted facebook ads would be fine.
On the other hand, a video claiming Russian agents infiltrated thousands of voting centers with sleeper agents should probably not get through the filter.
Though as with any content filters, there will be edge cases, false positives, false negatives, etc. that will all pose a problem.
This is the fundamental problem of common user spaces on the web these days: a failure to impose standards will often result in a toxic environment. Yet attempting to impose standards is something of an arms-race game of whack-a-mole.
I think HN only manages the balance somewhat decently because the users themselves are also highly interested in productive conversation and mostly downvote -> dead comments that are likely to provoke flaming instead of discourse.
If you're hosting a party, it's not only your right to determine what kinds of behavior and conversations are allowed and not allowed, it's your duty to do so.
YouTube gets to decide what's on their platform. As an organization, they have decided that the election fraud stuff is not only false, but harmful. That's not only their right, it's their duty.
GoFundMe deplatformed Matt Braynard when he tried to raise money for the voter fraud research. He didn't even assert that the fraud happened or not and they still kicked him off for what they've said is "disinformation".
Historically in the US there have been only a handful of cases where voter fraud overturned an election, and it was in small elections with very narrow margins. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the likes of which will not happen in a GoFundMe. The effort was meant to sow distrust and repeat the weaponized cynicism.
But if you insist, Matt Braynard managed to raise the money on some other platform and he did found enough potentially illegal votes to swing some states. Mainly people who moved out of state and things like that. So here are your facts.
He says he's found evidence. All he's posted that I can find is a 42min long video I can't be bothered watching properly, but skipping through it his methodology seems to rely on surveying people now and comparing to voting records. This - of course - isn't "finding potentially illegal votes".
But maybe I missed something. I do think it's interesting that his Twitter profile says he's releasing "data and reports" a week from Nov 24, and there is nothing.
It's also interesting how much of his video is about asking for donations......
Surveying people was just one thing that he did. He also matched the voters with NCOA database, that could indicate that people from other states voted and things like that.
One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett:
As much as I'd love to have the actual data myself, I don't think he's going to just post it publicly. He started the project to verify whether the lists of supposedly dead voters that were floating around the web were real. The thing is that people who were posting them were all almost immediately banned for doxxing. So unfortunately, he will only give you the actual data if you're someone trustworthy, so a lawyer, politician, journalist or something like that. His research is included as evidence in some of the ongoing court cases.
From what I've seen a lot of people have said that he might just be a grifter. I personally don't care, since I never donate to anything like that, but if you're considered about this, he posted the expenses on twitter. I believe a lot of money went to the call centers.
And look, it very well might be, that it's literally nothing. But this type of research is realistically as best as you can possibly get. What would confirm whether it's true or not is the state or the feds doing an investigation, but they don't seem to be interested in doing anything. But one way or another, removing his fundraiser was a complete bullshit.
> One of the people they've surveyed was Nahshon Garrett
Yeah so here's the affidavit he has signed[1]. There's no evidence at all that he voted in AZ, only that his voter registration record was active, and his affidavit doesn't claim he voted or that he found that he voted, only that Braynard's organisation claims he did.
If you listen carefully to the interview, the story is the same there. When she asks what kind of vote it was he says "oh I don't know - I think it was an early vote or a provisional vote or something". He hasn't checked!
Braynard claims that he voted. But there is nothing verifying that at all that this is the case, and Braynard couldn't verify this independently. (I just checked - you need your Voter ID and/or SSN).
> As much as I'd love to have the actual data myself, I don't think he's going to just post it publicly. He started the project to verify whether the lists of supposedly dead voters that were floating around the web were real. The thing is that people who were posting them were all almost immediately banned for doxxing.
This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't.
One of the reasons everyone is so annoyed about this is because of this shitty grifter wrecking democracy to make a few bucks for themselves.
> What would confirm whether it's true or not is the state or the feds doing an investigation, but they don't seem to be interested in doing anything.
This of course is complete nonsense. There have been vast numbers of state and federal investigations into every alleged piece of fraud. But there is nothing there, especially not on the scale claimed.
> But one way or another, removing his fundraiser was a complete bullshit.
It really wasn't. He was raising money by alleging fraud occurred and he was going to blow the lid on it all.
Carefully trying to work around their restrictions by pretending it was "just in case" - when the President of the United States is making these claims - is clearly bad faith.
> This is a BS excuse. He hasn't lodged it in any court cases, his page says he will post it but he hasn't.
Well, I saw with my own eyes that people were banned for posting the information like that, so that's why I believe it.
I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea.
Looking on the bright side, I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.
No, him using that as an excuse is the BS. If he could actually prove anything - instead of it just being yet more allegations - would be explosive, and being "banned" (by who exactly) wouldn't matter.
> I'm not familiar with US law, so tell me, if you'd have some kind of sensitive data, can you decide that you will only present the data straight to the judge or should every relevant piece of information be included right away? Just to entertain the idea.
Of course, there are plenty of closed court methods of doing this.
> I guess that we hopefully won't have to wait too long to find out what's bullshit and what's not.
Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least.
Put it like this: is there anything that would convince you that these claims are all BS? I mean - Trump appointed judges keep throwing the claims out of court. - what more do you need?
I already believe that at least 90-95% of those claims are BS, and no one had to convince me to believe anything. However, considering the fact how many people seriously consider Trump to be the next Hitler, there is no doubt in my mind that someone for sure did try to cheat is some way. Another question is whether there was enough of it to change the outcome and to that - I have no idea.
The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots. This fact alone makes the election illegitimate, as far as I am considered. Poll observers should be there to ensure that there is no fraud in the first place, and without that it's really hard to figure out what happened. If the poll observers were allowed to do their job, I don't think I could complain about anything.
Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits. Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet. But I guess it's possible that it's just propaganda from the Trump side, so I have no idea on this one either.
And could you please look again at that Nahshon Garrett affidavit, exhibit 2? Doesn't that mean that "he" in fact did voted in AZ?
> The most damning thing for me is preventing poll observers from challenging the ballots.
Citation please.
The closest that occurred was that when Republicans tried to put more observers in place than was the agreed number (the number has to be equal between Democrat, Republican and Independent observers) they weren't allowed.
> Regarding the judges throwing them out, this is my understanding of the situation: First, people are claiming that Trump lost 60 or however many lawsuits. That's just not true, his team haven't filed anywhere close that number.of lawsuits.
Well he does keep changing who "his team" is. But the all the Guilliani lawsuits have been thrown out, and all the ones he has tweeted about have been.
> Second, the evidence wasn't yet presented, allegedly because the courts didn't gave them the chance to do so yet.
Citation needed. The cases I've read (and yes I've checked because of people like who do the fake lazy "oh I don't know but I've heard..") say the evidence doesn't support the claims.
Here's a typical judgement against the claims:
One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens. That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence.
Here is what I am basing the poll observers not being able to challenge the ballots claim on. From the day one, a lot of people from all over the place have been alleging the following thing. They weren't able to come any closer than at least 6ft, and if they tried to challenge a ballot, the poll workers would basically scream at them and call 911 or the security. The story is consistent among everyone who've been saying that and the video evidence supports that. The claim has been also repeated on various hearings. I wish I had time to go through all of the thousands of pages of court documents and point you to exact claims, but I unfortunately I have a work too, so if you're interested in that, you'd have to find it on your own. Giuliani said that they have it on sworn affidavits and I don't really have any reason to suspect that this is not the case. You can probably find the actual affidavits on the same court cases that Braynard is a part of.
Here is one of the videos of poll observers being forced to stay at the 20ft distance. Keep in mind that there are 3 or 4 rows of tables, 20ft is just from the first row.
Here is the leaked audio from the Detroit poll worker training. Normally it could be dismissed as it has the "conspiracy theory" vibe to it and is hard to watch, but since the story is consistent with the claims above, I found it to be believable. I don't know why people do this kind of thing instead of just posting a full, unedited audio, but whatever. I believe there is also an interview with the dude behind the leak on a Youtube channel called "Rekieta Law", if you're interested, but I haven't personally listened to it.
> Well he does keep changing who "his team" is. But the all the Giuliani lawsuits have been thrown out, and all the ones he has tweeted about have been.
That might be true, but the vast majority of the lawsuits had nothing to do with Giuliani.
> Citation needed. The cases I've read (and yes I've checked because of people like who do the fake lazy "oh I don't know but I've heard..") say the evidence doesn't support the claims.
Let me correct myself, my understanding is that the Trump team waited a long time to file the lawsuits with actual evidence. Their first lawsuits weren't even alleging any sort of fraud or irregularities, but to allow the poll observers within a 6ft distance when challenging the ballots and things like that. Can't speak to why were they waiting so long.
> Unfortunately this isn't true. It's already 100% clear what is bullshit, but some people keep claiming otherwise, and will continue to do so for the next 4 years at least.
Going back to your previous comment, as far as it would be indeed very annoying, I don't think that it's a fair criticism, since we've all heard the Russia collusion allegations for the previous four years. I'm not saying that you specifically are guilty of this, but still, you can't criticize someone for doing that if you did the same thing.
Regarding the Nahshon Garrett affidavit, I searched for the `Your ballot was signature verified and counted` string on twitter, and it seems like it means that your vote was indeed counted, so it seems that what Braynard says might actually be true. Which brings me to the same question that you've initially asked me: is there anything that would convince you that some of these claims are true?
> is there anything that would convince you that some of these claims are true?
Oh yes of course. From what I can see, it looks like Nahshon Garrett is either lying or someone else voted for him. I think it's mostly likely he's lying, but maybe otherwise.
But I don't think that is any evidence of systematic fraud at all.
> since we've all heard the Russia collusion allegations for the previous four years.
Yes, and as I'm sure you realize, these allegations have been found true. Russia did act in 2016 to support Trump, people in Trump's circle worked with Russian agents etc. The best that can be said was that Trump was unwitting ( which I actually think is likely) and that his people working with the Russians didn't realize what they were doing (in general I think this is also likely).
If Nahshon Garrett is lying then he is going to prison for perjury.
The only thing that I remember from back when I was still paying attention to this is that they've worked with Russian businessmen or journalists or whatever. And that Russia bought some facebook ads. And if you're concerned about this type of thing then apparently the FBI is now looking into the Bidens regarding their dealings with Ukraine and China, because of the things that they found on his Hunter's laptop, which by the way, media and social media did a complete blackout on.
Do whatever you want, but the caveat with that is that according to him, the journalists didn't even bothered to ask him about his actual findings, so don't expect the articles to be unbiased.
Just because you and they repeat it doesn't make it true. If he had findings, that is the news, and if no outlet is publishing them, they must not warrant attention.
That's cool, but he started the campaign on November 6 and they kicked him out the next day. He didn't say anywhere that the fraud happened or not. He was just raising money for the research.
Will they let people raise money to see if theft of a bank is feasible, or to design business models for heroin dealers? They're not robbing banks or selling heroin... Where does your argument even end? It doesn't matter because it is a private platform, and if they smell BS they are free to get rid of it.
What are you even talking about? You can't compare teaching people how to sell heroin or rob a bank and conducting a research. What I take issue with is that they kicked him out for something that he did not do.
He was part of the Trump campaign in 2016 and from the 3rd to the 6th he interacted with various Twitter accounts that fueled the conspiracy and his fundraising was clearly attracting an audience who read between the lines.
GoFundMe is in their right to believe there was dog-whistling.
"Even just a few matches would be indicative of a much more substantial voter fraud operation" said by a Trump supporter who get's the support from a majority of misinformation spreaders when he opens the GoFundMe:
I often see in twitter bios disclaimers like "opinions are my own" and "retweets are not endorsement". I'm guessing people should now start putting a new disclaimer, them simply being retweeted by someone else doesn't mean that they have anything to do with that person.
If your audience reacts to content like it's a dog-whistle, maybe don't be surprised when you're banned?
Talking about "investigating voter fraud" when Trump was claiming voter fraud with no evidence and then getting retweeted by supporters who already had made up their mind isn't helping GoFundMe determine they are not faced with a dishonest actor.
Agreed about disclaimers: Why not go with a disclaimer that says "The president's claims are currently unfounded and have no legal merit and could endanger trust in our democratic process. Some of my analysis could reveal the impact of COVID-19 deaths in some districts or active voter suppression in some states". Enough to tune out misinfo sharers and be a bit more honest about what most analysts predicted would happen.
Actually yes, I would be surprised, because it would be completely fucked, excuse my language. Punishing someone on the basis of other people's reaction is just one step away from collective responsibility, and that's what happens during wars and occupations. A lot of innocent people were murdered because of reasoning like that.
I might have sounded a little bit too dramatic considering the fact that the tweets in question didn't even say anything bad, but whatever. Also, "dog-whistles", lol. You're clearly just making stuff up at this point. Braynard didn't do anything wrong and removing his fundraiser from GoFundMe was baseless and unfair.
Speech is dependent on context and audience. I realize there are some basic concepts around speech we don't seem to share.
Your argument that anyone can write anything no matter context or audience reactions and face no consequences is baffling. I guess no one was ever murdered because of that...
A Trump political operative is expected to have taken some level of history and political science classes though. GoFundMe probably thought he had a better understanding of the impact and context of his online discourse than a libertarian college drop-out might argue.
This is not speech, it's just a fundraiser for research. And Braynard already achieved his goals, he did the research that he wanted and the results are included in lawsuits as evidence. Deplatforming him, if anything, only gave him more exposure. GoFundMe was wrong about their decision, end of story.
You keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. Please stop. The claim was that evidence is not being suppressed and I've presented that the research of the subject is being deplatformed. In your attempt to undermine this simple fact you had to go as far as to make up conspiracy theories about "dog-whistling". It doesn't make any sense.
In retrospect, using the term "deplatforming" reveals to me you are not equipped to debate about this. His fundraising was removed but he wasn't banned from GoFundMe or any other fundraising. You seem to dismiss dog-whistling as a term but happily employ the wrong words.
I was discussing the framework and tools the people at social platforms are currently employing to decide weather they are being weaponized. I thought the discussion would start around the finer details of online moderation and operating these tasks at scale. You see evidence being suppressed, I see an overwhelmed company in the middle of its country's political crisis being asked to manage a surge in new bad-faith actors.
I've provided plenty evidence myself that they had elements to confirm his behavior could be interpreted as being linked to disinformation campaigns. Maybe they were wrong but I disagree with your take that this Trump advisor can't wrap his head around why GoFundMe believed it.
Publicly Matt Braynard showed no attempt at understanding what he could change to be accepted and leaned hard into this removal to galvanize extra-donations on another platform.
In the end, the circumstantial evidence he uncovered turns out not to be admissible in court or is improperly used by the Trump campaign (given their constant lost legal challenges). It must sting, especially when he see's all the grift around those legal battles.
No, I'm not dismissing dog-whistling as a term. What I'm saying is that this is not the case here and you're making it up as a desperate attempt to rationalize what GoFundMe have done.
Bring the evidence to the court? It's funny how the side claiming there was fraud apparently has trucks full of evidence and affidavits on news channels and social media, but when it comes to an actual courtroom, where lying has real consequences, suddenly, they don't claim "fraud" anymore and they don't have any real evidence.
Who would you have it be? The government? A committee? Honestly, a private company making the decision seems like the least problematic of all options. You're free to "vote them out of office" with your dollars if you wish.
The US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which concluded there existed close ties between Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence, and the Trump campaign.
"Special counsel Robert Mueller did not find evidence that President Trump's campaign conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, according to a summary of findings submitted to Congress"
Impressive, a throwaway account that uses the very controversial summary that Barr wrote quickly before the report was released and without Mueller's re-reading.
Here's the follow up from NPR where Mueller later distanced himself from this obviously misleading summary: https://www.npr.org/2019/04/30/718883130/mueller-complained-...
There's at least two accounts trying to conflate the Mueller investigation with the Senate Committee. It's kind of amazing how ... clearly identical their arguments are.
Yeah. In a thread where the debate is about "people being able to form their opinions on their own" it seems like they really like to depend on spoon-fed talking points.
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
Unfortunately it has to be a throwaway because these kinds of facts might as well be thought crimes here.
Once again, you're not linking to a source document that explicitly presents evidence. In fact there are clearly more than a hundred pages about Trump and Russians engaging in activity around the 2016 campaign.
You link to a partisan Senator who, by the way contributed to the Donald Trump campaign, says he found no-evidence.
The thought crime here is leaning into the weasel-word of "collusion" when it isn't clearly defined by Rubio or even the report or "Russian government" to cop out of the deep involvement of ex-spies and oligarchs out of Russia.
>Once again, you're not linking to a source document that explicitly presents evidence.
This is the exact document that Rubio is referencing in his press release I linked above. The evidence presented explicitly presents no evidence of Trump colluding.
>You link to a partisan Senator
Rubio was the head chair of the investigation, not some random senator.
>The thought crime here is leaning into the weasel-word of "collusion" when it isn't clearly defined by Rubio
Facts and legal definitions are not "weasel-words".
Your linked source just proves the following statement:
"We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
You can continue to believe fake news, but that doesn't make it reality.
Collusion in the context of election campaigns has no legal definition. If I'm the one who believes in fake news I wonder why you're the one sourcing your beliefs from controversial and disavowed summaries and partisan actors.
>I wonder why you're the one sourcing your beliefs from controversial and disavowed summaries and partisan actors.
NPR, official press releases from the chairs of senate intelligence committees, etc. have not been disavowed and the facts agree with me.
Again, if you stop believing fake news and actually read what has been linked above, you will find that:
“Over the last three years, the Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a bipartisan and thorough investigation into Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election and undermine our democracy. We interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over one million pages of documents. No probe into this matter has been more exhaustive."
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
I've read your links but somehow it feels you haven't read mine as they offer later rebuttals to your sources.
You may insist that Rubio said something about the report is an official source but his words are contradicted by the report itself.
But ok I'll concede your following point that relies on "collusion" and "government" : the report didn't find "evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
You are not addressing the central point of the SIC volume 5 report: Trump and his campaign engaged in criminal and unethical activity with Russian ex-spies, agents run by Russia and oligarchs.
>I've read your links but somehow it feels you haven't read mine as they offer later rebuttals to your sources.
They offer no rebuttals, they only strengthen and agree with my points.
>You may insist that Rubio said something about the report is an official source but his words are contradicted by the report itself.
Except they're not. Rubio is the head chair of the committee that drafted the report. The report agreed with him.
>You are not addressing the central point of the SIC volume 5 report: Trump and his campaign engaged in criminal and unethical activity with Russian ex-spies, agents run by Russia and oligarchs.
Funny how various US courts of law disagree with you and Rubio. The information the SIC vol.5 regroups was used to convict quite a few of Trump's campaign associates.
> Not for anything related to collision or election fraud.
Manafort was charged with crimes not related to Russian collusion in hopes of getting him to flip on Trump. It was working too, which is how Mueller’s team learned Manafort was feeding internal campaign to a Russian Intel officer, while Russia was waging a psyops campaign against American voters. This strikes at the heart of the collusion claims.
That was until Trump started dangling the idea of a pardon and Manafort clammed up.
The link I provided was not referring to the Mueller investigation.
In August, of this year, the a US Senate Committee on Intelligence found that the Trump campaign colluded with Russian nationals, and possibly Russian intelligence.
"The committee's findings are a more in-depth look at the interference than Mueller's investigation, but the findings run parallel to the conclusions of Mueller's probe, which found overwhelming evidence of Russia's efforts to interfere in the election through disinformation and cyber campaigns but a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election."
Your own source literally disproves what you're claiming.
I'll say it again, from your source:
"lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election."
Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed.
However, the article is _about the Senate Committee_. This is a different thing than the Mueller investigation, and it succeeded where Mueller failed.
FTA:
> Among the probe's newest revelations is that Konstantin V. Kilimnik, an associate of Manafort's, was a "Russian intelligence officer." Manafort's contacts also posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the report.
> "Manafort worked with Kilimnik starting in 2016 on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election," the report added.
> "At nearly 1,000 pages, Volume 5 stands as the most comprehensive examination of ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign to date — a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections," Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the panel's vice chairman, added in a statement.
>Yes, that quote says that the Mueller investigation failed.
It says nothing of the sort, it actually agrees with the Mueller investigation, and only adds to its legitimacy.
Nothing that you quoted points towards collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. There were contacts with Russians from both the DNC and RNP, but once again:
> a lack of sufficient evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to impact the outcome of the 2016 election.
Lack of evidence that Trump conspired. There is no collusion.
In stating they ran parallel they meant that they're investigating the same offences at the same time. It ran parallel, but did not collaborate with, the Mueller investigation. It found more evidence and drew stronger conclusions.
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election."
Similarly, Google quality is in big part due to invaluable information of what URLs were clicked for what queries.
If duckduckgo had access to that information, their quality would've been way higher, and there's no reason I as a user shall not be able to give access to the information I generated for Google to another service.
The advise I give to all the YC companies is: prepare for the investor day as much as you prepare to the demo day.
The investor day can save you a lot of time fundraising later if you close few people on the spot, so make sure to be ready for a 20 minutes session with a longer coherent pitch and answers to the common questions.
In my batch (W17) the investor say was completely deemphasized for some reason, and many companies came unprepared, myself included
Since there's no barrier to start a startup, there will always be companies at which the growth will be slow.
A good startup with strong engineering team and fast shipping cycle will provide with way more learning opportunities than FAANG.
Personally, I think for a fresh grad going to an early stage startup or to FAANG is a close call in terms of value. 1.5-2 years at FAANG gives a good boost to the resume to pursue better opportunities later, while 1.5-2 years at a startup can provide more learning and potentially some upside already. At that stage there's time to take chances either way. A close-to-IPO company is also a viable option.
My goal in the article was not to say startups are bad (or good), but rather to provide insights so that people can make more informed decisions.
