Google seeks to prevent lack of accuracy oversight in 2016 for 2020, Project Veritas tries to make the claim for a conspiracy below

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
e29CtUC.png

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019...on-how-do-we-prevent-it-from-happening-again/

Treason is ok when we do it says big brother.

Remember these are the types who loudly claimed manipulation was attack on the integrity of elections.

And before anyone brings up "free speech", just understand your standard is the same as Putins.

Ok dumdum
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
If Trump loses in 2020, I think we'll have to get out the popcorn... 0roo's going to melt down as his dreams of eternal right-wing dictatorship fade away.
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
If you run a public sector social media platform and have clear evidence that a foreign government account is posting false information in order to affect the outcome of a US election and is clearly violating the terms of service for the use of your platform, should you suspend the account? Tough choice there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,759
1,455
136
So what? O'Keefe is a proven grifter. It's his reason for living.

Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,519
136
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.
It isn't fallacious. Sure he could possibly be saying something true, but I'll wait until someone credible claims what he is saying is true, and until that happens, I'll assume he is lying.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,208
12,528
136
If Trump loses in 2020, I think we'll have to get out the popcorn... 0roo's going to melt down as his dreams of eternal right-wing dictatorship fade away.

From what I've seen so far, sadly, the Dems don't have a candidate who can beat Trump...so no worries about Oroo melting down over that.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.

Dude lies for a living. It's what he does.
 

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,040
136
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.
I've yet to see anything from O'Keefe that wasn't fabricated, until then anything he claims is not worth looking at.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.

Oh, please. The chances of O"Keefe providing an honest portrayal are so close to zero as to not merit the attention of anybody.
 

allisolm

Elite Member
Administrator
Jan 2, 2001
25,078
4,542
136
OP posts link to Project Veritas.

OP is a fucking loon.

Yup. Project Veritas - completely trustworthy unbiased source.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

" Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III who is an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations. O’Keefe’s videos are edited in a way that makes them difficult to fact check. Often his information is debunked, but it is too late as the information has already been watched by thousands or more."
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,022
2,872
136
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.

I disagree with that. Unfortunately, even when we know better, human beings are still vulnerable to influence by things that tingle our innate biases but are completely bogus. O'Keefe has clearly demonstrated that his professional work is intended to create a grossly false narrative through (in many cases illegal) secret recording and doctoring of video (e.g. editing things out of sequence and omitting statements to make it appear as though people he is secretly recording agree with whatever position O'Keefe is falsely representing even when they have clearly made statements to the contrary).

While it is a fallacy to state that whatever he presents is necessarily false, it is not a fallacy to assume they are until proven otherwise. In this case, given his serial intentional misrepresentation, it is most prudent to demand his work be independently corroborated before even considering viewing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.


But we have finite time. If someone lies repeatedly that will affect how much time or effort you are prepared to put into evaluating their most recent claims.

I suppose that's part of the point of the story of 'the boy who cried wolf'.

(Though in that case I do wonder why on earth, once the boy had lost all credibility when it came to wolf-alerts, they continued to give him the job of looking out for wolves. It was an accident-waiting-to-happen, surely? Those who employed the unfortunate youth surely have some questions to answer)
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. If O'Keefe says that 1 + 1 = 2, the act of O'Keefe saying so does not make it false. That's the essence of the genetic fallacy.

O'Keefe is a political animal with an agenda. It's fair to be skeptical. It's fair to point to certain portions and say "This looks suspiciously edited" if that's the case. But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.

It feels like people are arguing at cross purposes here.

It's not so much that everything O'Keefe says is false, it's that his business is designed to deceive. It's like asking a full-time burglar to keep an eye on your home... I don't care if they occasionally help old people across the street, their ultimate goal is to hurt people.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
From what I've seen so far, sadly, the Dems don't have a candidate who can beat Trump...so no worries about Oroo melting down over that.

Polls suggest Biden can, even with the messiness of recent weeks. We also have to remember that how we things is likely to change after both the debates and the eventual primary vote. Between that and the end to some Republican vote-rigging efforts and I suspect a lot of people will be eager to vote for the Democrat pick so long as they're not a complete mess.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,238
136
  • Like
Reactions: ElFenix

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,568
9,934
146
But it's fallacious to say that, just because any particular leak was facilitated through O'Keefe, that it's defacto not even worth looking at.
Otoh, if it looks like a fuck and lies like a fuck . . .
 

DrDoug

Diamond Member
Jan 16, 2014
3,580
1,629
136
OK, who said his name three times? Fess up and we'll be easy on you... :D