6 ms·

> There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. The only accusations against Project Veritas is that

> There are very good reasons to find what Project Veritas has been credibly accused of quite distasteful. The only accusations against Project Veritas is that they doctored their videos, but it seems to me that they usually publish the full length videos.

pstuart 5y ago
Plenty to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
- mansion7 5y ago
  On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.
  - gaganyaan 5y ago
    Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then.
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      They quote opinion pieces as fact.
      - gaganyaan 5y ago
        Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then. Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        That's what I did, their "sources" are opinions. That's not what "well-sourced" means.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        Scrolling around to a random place in the article: > Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement.[185] That links to https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html, which seems like a factual account to me. You should consider that facts that you don't like aren't "opinions", they're just facts that you don't like.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        > Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement Settlements doesn't prove anything
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        Settlements prove nothing about the truth of the litigious question. It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. Also the Wikipedia article begins by labeling PV as being "far-right", which is in and of itself an opinion and they proceed to quote opinion pieces. Why do I have to explain this tho? I feel like a high school teacher explaining yet another time to his students why they can't cite Wikipedia.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        > It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks. Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!" Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like. For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  Quoting Wikipedia is a meme at this point. Sorry but Wikipedia is a very poor source of information when it comes to sensitive and politically charged subjects. The articles starts with qualifying them as "far-right" and then quotes opinion pieces or other irrelevant factoids.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
knodi123 5y ago
Going big, public, and viral with an attention-grabbing piece of doctored footage, while saying that the full-length video is technically available to anyone willing to dig and compare the viral fake to the looooong raw footage, is textbook new media dishonesty.
- TeeMassive 5y ago
  Examples?
  - trs8080 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223684
    - TeeMassive 5y ago
      You just reposted this trhead

pstuart 5y ago

Plenty to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

mansion7 5y ago
On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.
- gaganyaan 5y ago
  Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then.
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    They quote opinion pieces as fact.
    - gaganyaan 5y ago
      Well it's a good thing that article is well-sourced, then. Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
      - TeeMassive 5y ago
        That's what I did, their "sources" are opinions. That's not what "well-sourced" means.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        Scrolling around to a random place in the article: > Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement.[185] That links to https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html, which seems like a factual account to me. You should consider that facts that you don't like aren't "opinions", they're just facts that you don't like.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        > Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement Settlements doesn't prove anything
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
        TeeMassive 5y ago
        Settlements prove nothing about the truth of the litigious question. It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. Also the Wikipedia article begins by labeling PV as being "far-right", which is in and of itself an opinion and they proceed to quote opinion pieces. Why do I have to explain this tho? I feel like a high school teacher explaining yet another time to his students why they can't cite Wikipedia.
        gaganyaan 5y ago
        > It's factual to say they settled, it's not to say it proves anything. So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks. Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!" Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like. For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
TeeMassive 5y ago
Quoting Wikipedia is a meme at this point. Sorry but Wikipedia is a very poor source of information when it comes to sensitive and politically charged subjects. The articles starts with qualifying them as "far-right" and then quotes opinion pieces or other irrelevant factoids.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

knodi123 5y ago

Going big, public, and viral with an attention-grabbing piece of doctored footage, while saying that the full-length video is technically available to anyone willing to dig and compare the viral fake to the looooong raw footage, is textbook new media dishonesty.

TeeMassive 5y ago
Examples?
- trs8080 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223684 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29223684
  - TeeMassive 5y ago
    You just reposted this trhead