3 ms·

Still ignoring the underlying point that the emails were irrecoverably destroyed and summarizing with 'Claims Hillary Clinton "had her emails — 33,000 emails —

Still ignoring the underlying point that the emails were irrecoverably destroyed and summarizing with 'Claims Hillary Clinton "had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed ... a very expensive process' and a reductive "FALSE" rubber stamp. The vast majority of people won't read past the summary (or NBC's tweet). They will see the FALSE rating, and take from that that no emails were destroyed, which the wrong conclusion.

mikeash 9y ago
Oh, an even better quote: “In a very expensive fashion, used chemicals so that nobody will ever be able to see them." He literally said they used chemicals. Are we supposed to call this “true” just because some emails were in fact deleted? I’m not ignoring your supposed underlying point, I just disagree with it. The statement was clearly false. That there’s some truth to the general idea if you strip away the wrapping of confusion and lies doesn’t make the statement itself true.
- jsgo 9y ago
  If this were Snopes, they'd most likely use their True/False category where they state what is true and what is false: True: Clinton's team destroyed emails on the server False: the process didn't leverage "acid wash", but something called BleachBit Or something to that effect. Not a Snopes writer. To give a recurring example, this is like the debate on gun control and when someone says "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles" and the other party attempts to shut it down there. That is what the tweet effectively attempts to do (countering the intent of the message by discrediting verbiage).
  - belltaco 9y ago
    Bleach is alkaline, quite literally the opposite of an acid.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    This isn’t a mere semantic quibble. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of what was done, with an attack based on that. To make an analogy to gun control, imagine if a prominent person said that the Parkland attacker constructed the bomb he used to kill all those kids with a rare explosive that can only be obtained from the government of Ecuador, and implied there was something funny going on. Should we avoid calling this “false” because he did actually kill a bunch of kids?

mikeash 9y ago

Oh, an even better quote: “In a very expensive fashion, used chemicals so that nobody will ever be able to see them." He literally said they used chemicals. Are we supposed to call this “true” just because some emails were in fact deleted? I’m not ignoring your supposed underlying point, I just disagree with it. The statement was clearly false. That there’s some truth to the general idea if you strip away the wrapping of confusion and lies doesn’t make the statement itself true.

jsgo 9y ago
If this were Snopes, they'd most likely use their True/False category where they state what is true and what is false: True: Clinton's team destroyed emails on the server False: the process didn't leverage "acid wash", but something called BleachBit Or something to that effect. Not a Snopes writer. To give a recurring example, this is like the debate on gun control and when someone says "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles" and the other party attempts to shut it down there. That is what the tweet effectively attempts to do (countering the intent of the message by discrediting verbiage).
- belltaco 9y ago
  Bleach is alkaline, quite literally the opposite of an acid.
- mikeash 9y ago
  This isn’t a mere semantic quibble. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of what was done, with an attack based on that. To make an analogy to gun control, imagine if a prominent person said that the Parkland attacker constructed the bomb he used to kill all those kids with a rare explosive that can only be obtained from the government of Ecuador, and implied there was something funny going on. Should we avoid calling this “false” because he did actually kill a bunch of kids?