4 ms·
The problem with stating stuff like this is it can be used as an example of how deep the conspiracy goes rather than a refutation.
by SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
The problem with stating stuff like this is it can be used as an example of how deep the conspiracy goes rather than a refutation.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoTo the conspiracy minded, sure. How can any discussion be had with these people who don't require evidence in order to make bold claims?
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoHonestly, no idea. Seems a fool's errand.
- ipaddr 4y agoDropbox working with the fbi is a fact here. Jumping to dropbox working with the fbi regarding other files is fact as well. Dropbox knowing what is in your files is known as well. It stops being a conspiracy when everyone admits to the facts
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoThe poster insinuated that the FBI planted CSAM on a reporter's devices.
- vuln 4y agoWell at one point they were paying GeekSquaders to _find_ and report it. > "how does the government intend to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Geek Squad employees themselves didn't put the alleged porn pictures on the device?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13841504
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoAt what point is it more plausible that the FBI did their job? How does the government intend to prove that the CSAM wasn't created by cosmic ray bit flips? Threads like these are insufferable.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoI'm not the person you're arguing with, but please refer back to me an hour ago saying "Seems a fool's errand."
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y agoRight. Best to walk way.