5 ms·

Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, but if the commentary they have appeared to capture in this case is accurate, it is a disgracef

Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, but if the commentary they have appeared to capture in this case is accurate, it is a disgraceful embarrassment for google if not actually illegal. I am betting she'll be fired over this.

calimac 7y ago
The facts are clear. Smearing Veritas will not save google from being exposed committing an undeniable atrocity against our modern society. Even if you voted for Hillary you should be terrified! This is a RED LINE THERE MUST BE INDUSTRY CONSEQUENCES
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
"This machine designed solely to lie and mislead in order to drum up and target hatred and rash action cannot be trusted, on account of its history of doing nothing except lying and misleading. However, if this machine designed solely to lie and mislead others is telling the truth this time, that makes me very upset!"
- colpabar 7y ago
  You should post this on reddit too; it'd get more upvotes. In all seriousness though, this isn't a helpful comment. The comment you're replying to makes it abundantly clear that Project Veritas should be taken with a yuge grain of salt. An explanation of your own position is a much better discussion that mocking the position with which you disagree.
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    That's a fair criticism, thanks. That said, I don't think "taken with a grain of salt" takes it nearly far enough. Project Veritas is not an unreliable news source. It is a propaganda agency led by criminals. I don't know of a single completely true news story ever produced by them. Beginning an argument with the antecedent "If Project Veritas is telling the truth about this" brings us into the realm of fun and fancy. If someone said "If unicorns are real and produce large quantities of greenhouse gases, then man man may not be responsible for climate change," it'd be a reasonable logical statement, but it's still not useful in a serious discussion about anything.
    - chaosite 7y ago
      "Project Veritas" is James O'Keefe's thing. It's infamous for trying to sting the Washington Post with false rape allegations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#Failed_attempt_to_sting_The_Washington_Post_(2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#Failed_attempt...
    - colpabar 7y ago
      No problemo; I appreciate the response. But I have to say that it's a pretty yuge red flag for me when someone makes claims as bold as "It is a propaganda agency led by criminals" and doesn't provide a single link to back it up.
      - yourbandsucks 7y ago
        I mean, you can Google them yourself, too. They've been front page news multiple times for doctoring videos, lying, etc. The acorn "sting" and WaPo incident are probably their greatest hits.
      - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe Project Veritas is the name of the organization run by this guy: James O'Keefe. His modus operadi is to set up some sort of meeting with a liberal target under false pretenses, secretly record video, and then edit the video as much as possible to make them look bad. He made a name for himself doing this to ACORN back in 2009 (which successfully destroyed ACORN but also led to O'Keefe later paying the poor defamed ACORN worker $100,000). When I say "criminals," I mean he and his employees pled guilty to disguising themselves as telephone workers and sneaking into the office of a U.S. Senator. https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans... Examples of his recent work include having his employee try to convince the Washington Post that Roy Moore raped her, for the purpose of discrediting the Washington Post's other stories about Roy Moore.
        7y ago
- root_axis 7y ago
  I'm not so arrogant as to assume that everything I think I know is absolutely true. Just because O'Keefe is a criminal doesn't mean it's impossible for him to ever discover something untoward. Your unwillingness to consider the nuance of the situation actually feeds into O'Keefe's strategy of disinformation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
    You've moved from "I am betting she'll be fired over this" to "it's not impossible that this is true."
    - root_axis 7y ago
      I haven't moved from anything. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
  - OBLIQUE_PILLAR 7y ago
    Immediately dismissal anything connected to James O'Keefe as garbage is perfectly valid.
magicalist 7y ago
> Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, but if the commentary they have appeared to capture in this case is accurate, it is a disgraceful embarrassment for google if not actually illegal Uh, what commentary, specifically? Everything seems to be hanging on the single phrase "preventing the next Trump situation", which of course we don't have the rest of the conversation to know what that's referring to. Could just be the whole fake news/algorithmic gaming situation in the election talked about conversationally by someone who obviously didn't vote for Trump? Seems like much less of a stretch than secret plans to interfere in elections, especially considering all the other "evidence". Everything else seems like it's talked about here all the time. Bias in ML, prioritization of news sources, re-clustering youtube recommendations, etc. There's literally nothing here they haven't outright said that they're doing, and sometimes even published papers on.
- root_axis 7y ago
  I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president, I said the commentary is embarrassing and disgraceful but not illegal. It is ok if you disagree with my opinion. > Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump. The exec didn't say "the fake news situation" she said "the Trump situation" and in google's position combined with the context of today's political environment it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved. Personally, I regard Trump as a criminal who deserves to be impeached and jailed, but google shouldn't be speaking in a manner that suggests they are laboring with intent to stifle Trump.
  - magicalist 7y ago
    > I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president I didn't say you said that, I was referring to the site's accusations as they try to drum up a narrative. > Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump Well Google didn't, this person did in a private conversation, and as long as we're being precise, she didn't refer to Trump, she referred to companies being "charged with preventing the next Trump situation". > it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved I mean you're saying that devoid of context, a bad interpretation is just as likely as a good interpretation, which is at least "embarrassing and disgraceful" on her part. Which is the whole issue with project veritas and context, isn't it? We don't actually know what she was referring to, but I'll refer you back to your own "Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy" comment for where we shouldn't be putting the benefit of the doubt. And again, that ambiguous clause said by someone in casual conversation is all that's going on here. There's nothing else revealed in this "case".

calimac 7y ago

The facts are clear. Smearing Veritas will not save google from being exposed committing an undeniable atrocity against our modern society. Even if you voted for Hillary you should be terrified! This is a RED LINE THERE MUST BE INDUSTRY CONSEQUENCES

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

"This machine designed solely to lie and mislead in order to drum up and target hatred and rash action cannot be trusted, on account of its history of doing nothing except lying and misleading. However, if this machine designed solely to lie and mislead others is telling the truth this time, that makes me very upset!"

colpabar 7y ago
You should post this on reddit too; it'd get more upvotes. In all seriousness though, this isn't a helpful comment. The comment you're replying to makes it abundantly clear that Project Veritas should be taken with a yuge grain of salt. An explanation of your own position is a much better discussion that mocking the position with which you disagree.
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  That's a fair criticism, thanks. That said, I don't think "taken with a grain of salt" takes it nearly far enough. Project Veritas is not an unreliable news source. It is a propaganda agency led by criminals. I don't know of a single completely true news story ever produced by them. Beginning an argument with the antecedent "If Project Veritas is telling the truth about this" brings us into the realm of fun and fancy. If someone said "If unicorns are real and produce large quantities of greenhouse gases, then man man may not be responsible for climate change," it'd be a reasonable logical statement, but it's still not useful in a serious discussion about anything.
  - chaosite 7y ago
    "Project Veritas" is James O'Keefe's thing. It's infamous for trying to sting the Washington Post with false rape allegations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#Failed_attempt_to_sting_The_Washington_Post_(2017) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe#Failed_attempt...
  - colpabar 7y ago
    No problemo; I appreciate the response. But I have to say that it's a pretty yuge red flag for me when someone makes claims as bold as "It is a propaganda agency led by criminals" and doesn't provide a single link to back it up.
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      I mean, you can Google them yourself, too. They've been front page news multiple times for doctoring videos, lying, etc. The acorn "sting" and WaPo incident are probably their greatest hits.
    - CobrastanJorji 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe Project Veritas is the name of the organization run by this guy: James O'Keefe. His modus operadi is to set up some sort of meeting with a liberal target under false pretenses, secretly record video, and then edit the video as much as possible to make them look bad. He made a name for himself doing this to ACORN back in 2009 (which successfully destroyed ACORN but also led to O'Keefe later paying the poor defamed ACORN worker $100,000). When I say "criminals," I mean he and his employees pled guilty to disguising themselves as telephone workers and sneaking into the office of a U.S. Senator. https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans... Examples of his recent work include having his employee try to convince the Washington Post that Roy Moore raped her, for the purpose of discrediting the Washington Post's other stories about Roy Moore.
      - 7y ago
root_axis 7y ago
I'm not so arrogant as to assume that everything I think I know is absolutely true. Just because O'Keefe is a criminal doesn't mean it's impossible for him to ever discover something untoward. Your unwillingness to consider the nuance of the situation actually feeds into O'Keefe's strategy of disinformation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CobrastanJorji 7y ago
  You've moved from "I am betting she'll be fired over this" to "it's not impossible that this is true."
  - root_axis 7y ago
    I haven't moved from anything. Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
- OBLIQUE_PILLAR 7y ago
  Immediately dismissal anything connected to James O'Keefe as garbage is perfectly valid.

magicalist 7y ago

> Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, but if the commentary they have appeared to capture in this case is accurate, it is a disgraceful embarrassment for google if not actually illegal Uh, what commentary, specifically? Everything seems to be hanging on the single phrase "preventing the next Trump situation", which of course we don't have the rest of the conversation to know what that's referring to. Could just be the whole fake news/algorithmic gaming situation in the election talked about conversationally by someone who obviously didn't vote for Trump? Seems like much less of a stretch than secret plans to interfere in elections, especially considering all the other "evidence". Everything else seems like it's talked about here all the time. Bias in ML, prioritization of news sources, re-clustering youtube recommendations, etc. There's literally nothing here they haven't outright said that they're doing, and sometimes even published papers on.

root_axis 7y ago
I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president, I said the commentary is embarrassing and disgraceful but not illegal. It is ok if you disagree with my opinion. > Elizabeth Warren is saying we should break up Google. And like, I love her but she’s very misguided, like that will not make it better it will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump. The exec didn't say "the fake news situation" she said "the Trump situation" and in google's position combined with the context of today's political environment it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved. Personally, I regard Trump as a criminal who deserves to be impeached and jailed, but google shouldn't be speaking in a manner that suggests they are laboring with intent to stifle Trump.
- magicalist 7y ago
  > I didn't say that google was planning a conspiracy to oust the president I didn't say you said that, I was referring to the site's accusations as they try to drum up a narrative. > Google shouldn't be speaking in such a cavalier fashion about Trump Well Google didn't, this person did in a private conversation, and as long as we're being precise, she didn't refer to Trump, she referred to companies being "charged with preventing the next Trump situation". > it is unacceptable to speak in a fashion that suggests a specific candidate is a problem to be solved I mean you're saying that devoid of context, a bad interpretation is just as likely as a good interpretation, which is at least "embarrassing and disgraceful" on her part. Which is the whole issue with project veritas and context, isn't it? We don't actually know what she was referring to, but I'll refer you back to your own "Project veritas has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy" comment for where we shouldn't be putting the benefit of the doubt. And again, that ambiguous clause said by someone in casual conversation is all that's going on here. There's nothing else revealed in this "case".