3 ms·

If there is anything about the claims I highlighted in the article I linked to that you think is wrong, feel free to mention them.

by comice 5y ago

tablespoon 5y ago
> If there is anything about the claims I highlighted in the article I linked to that you think is wrong, feel free to mention them. Why would I bother reading it? That website demonstrated its utter unreliability in very clear terms, and I don't have the time or inclination to search for bits of edible food in piles of shit. One of the upsides of COVID-19 is that it's made a lot of conspiracy nonsense blatantly obvious, so I don't have to waste so much time.
- comice 5y ago
  I pasted the relevant claims in my comment, but point taken. Do you find Aaron Maté more credible? https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of... https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-whistleblower/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-wh...
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Do you find Aaron Maté more credible? The Grayzone is banned from Wikipedia because "there is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...). And pursuing the first link, I could also spot a couple of sloppy mistakes (text description showing a sloppy misreading of their document screenshot). So is he more credible than that website you posted earlier? Probably, but only because that website is such a garbage fire. Does that mean he is actually credible? Not so much.
    - comice 5y ago
      Wikipedia class the greyzone as Max Blumenthal's blog but one of the articles I posted is by Aaron Maté. I find him consistently honest and thorough - I don't know much about Max Blumenthal. I'm curious what your assessment of bellingcat as a source is? Surely it cannot stand up to your scrutiny.
    - whydoibother 5y ago
      The Wikipedia discussion is embarrassing to read. They cry about Blumenthal being on Russian media, while citing the nytimes and wapo without any sense of irony. They link to a SPLC piece by Alexander Reid Ross, a known hack and 'anarchist' that collaborates with people in the IC. No one actually has a serious argument against the site, and goes off on the delusional russian influence conspiracy. As far as what you said, why not address the real concerns brought up by Mate and how the OPCW covered up their investigative results about the Syrian 'chemical attacks'. They provide great evidence, and all you -- and it seems others -- can come back with is 'oh they overstated something that cant be definitively proven' or 'sloppy editing' or (lol) 'russian propaganda'.
- atatatat 5y ago
  Just scrolling through, but: please learn the difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theory.
spaced-out 5y ago
If there are any of Bellingcat's claims that you think are wrong, why don't you mention them? You began this thread by just blindly saying they're "not at all to be trusted" based on some article on a sketchy website.
- comice 5y ago
  The main focus of my comment was their funding sources, because the IEEE false suggest they are crowd sourced. The website I linked described those funding sources, and they can be corroborated elsewhere. I've since linked to articles by Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté detailing just some of the issues with Bellingcat's work.
  - spaced-out 5y ago
    Crowd sourcing has nothing to do with funding, it's about how they gather information. I'll copy a paragraph from they article where they explain it since you obviously haven't read it: "In 2014, he used a Kickstarter campaign to launch Bellingcat, an online platform for citizen journalists to verify and publish research that taps into the hive mind approach to worldwide, Internet-era collaboration and open-source sleuthing. Whereas traditional investigative journalism—commissioned and published by newspapers or foundations or blogs—is only as expansive and wide-ranging as the team of reporters assigned to any given project, Bellingcat is more like an online meritocracy of ideas à la Wikipedia: Start a thread or page or investigation or project, and if it yields something good, some will read while others will contribute. Get enough people involved, and things can even start to snowball."
    - comice 5y ago
      You're arguing about definitions of words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing > "Crowdsourcing is a sourcing model in which individuals or organizations obtain goods or services, including ideas, voting, micro-tasks and finances, from a large, relatively open and often rapidly evolving group of participants." The fact remains, Bellingcat are funded in ways that we could expect to compromise their journalism. The IEEE article doesn't mention any of that and only mentions the Kickstarter.

If there is anything about the claims I highlighted in the article I linked to that you think is wrong, feel free to mention them.

by comice 5y ago

If there is anything about the claims I highlighted in the article I linked to that you think is wrong, feel free to mention them.

tablespoon 5y ago

> If there is anything about the claims I highlighted in the article I linked to that you think is wrong, feel free to mention them. Why would I bother reading it? That website demonstrated its utter unreliability in very clear terms, and I don't have the time or inclination to search for bits of edible food in piles of shit. One of the upsides of COVID-19 is that it's made a lot of conspiracy nonsense blatantly obvious, so I don't have to waste so much time.

comice 5y ago
I pasted the relevant claims in my comment, but point taken. Do you find Aaron Maté more credible? https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of... https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-whistleblower/ https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/24/author-bellingcat-opcw-wh...
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Do you find Aaron Maté more credible? The Grayzone is banned from Wikipedia because "there is consensus that The Grayzone publishes false or fabricated information." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Grayzone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per...). And pursuing the first link, I could also spot a couple of sloppy mistakes (text description showing a sloppy misreading of their document screenshot). So is he more credible than that website you posted earlier? Probably, but only because that website is such a garbage fire. Does that mean he is actually credible? Not so much.
  - comice 5y ago
    Wikipedia class the greyzone as Max Blumenthal's blog but one of the articles I posted is by Aaron Maté. I find him consistently honest and thorough - I don't know much about Max Blumenthal. I'm curious what your assessment of bellingcat as a source is? Surely it cannot stand up to your scrutiny.
  - whydoibother 5y ago
    The Wikipedia discussion is embarrassing to read. They cry about Blumenthal being on Russian media, while citing the nytimes and wapo without any sense of irony. They link to a SPLC piece by Alexander Reid Ross, a known hack and 'anarchist' that collaborates with people in the IC. No one actually has a serious argument against the site, and goes off on the delusional russian influence conspiracy. As far as what you said, why not address the real concerns brought up by Mate and how the OPCW covered up their investigative results about the Syrian 'chemical attacks'. They provide great evidence, and all you -- and it seems others -- can come back with is 'oh they overstated something that cant be definitively proven' or 'sloppy editing' or (lol) 'russian propaganda'.
atatatat 5y ago
Just scrolling through, but: please learn the difference between conspiracy and conspiracy theory.

spaced-out 5y ago

If there are any of Bellingcat's claims that you think are wrong, why don't you mention them? You began this thread by just blindly saying they're "not at all to be trusted" based on some article on a sketchy website.

comice 5y ago
The main focus of my comment was their funding sources, because the IEEE false suggest they are crowd sourced. The website I linked described those funding sources, and they can be corroborated elsewhere. I've since linked to articles by Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté detailing just some of the issues with Bellingcat's work.
- spaced-out 5y ago
  Crowd sourcing has nothing to do with funding, it's about how they gather information. I'll copy a paragraph from they article where they explain it since you obviously haven't read it: "In 2014, he used a Kickstarter campaign to launch Bellingcat, an online platform for citizen journalists to verify and publish research that taps into the hive mind approach to worldwide, Internet-era collaboration and open-source sleuthing. Whereas traditional investigative journalism—commissioned and published by newspapers or foundations or blogs—is only as expansive and wide-ranging as the team of reporters assigned to any given project, Bellingcat is more like an online meritocracy of ideas à la Wikipedia: Start a thread or page or investigation or project, and if it yields something good, some will read while others will contribute. Get enough people involved, and things can even start to snowball."
  - comice 5y ago
    You're arguing about definitions of words. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowdsourcing > "Crowdsourcing is a sourcing model in which individuals or organizations obtain goods or services, including ideas, voting, micro-tasks and finances, from a large, relatively open and often rapidly evolving group of participants." The fact remains, Bellingcat are funded in ways that we could expect to compromise their journalism. The IEEE article doesn't mention any of that and only mentions the Kickstarter.