SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
[Editor's note: This story has an interesting viewpoint given the proliferation of "Deep Fake" videos we recently covered here. I see it as a portent of discussions to come. How much can we trust reporting? How much slanting and posturing of "reports" and "studies" are going to be promulgated in the lead-up to the next presidential election? Is this item all a bunch of crap or an indication of things we can expect to come? How much can we trust, and how to we go about assessing the veracity of what is presented to us by not only the main-stream media, but also social media, too? We hereby disclaim any assurance as to the credibility of the accusations made here and present it solely as an example of what may be coming -- and an opportunity to practice techniques at validating/corroborating or challenging/refuting it. The story submission appears after the break.]
NOTE TO READERS - this is scummy content and scummy journalism, at best. That said, it is news, as the story has been commented on by two congressional questionings and the president. Ugh.
Congressional testimony and comments by the president are being made on a Project Veritas video/report, which details how Google biases their search results to favor certain political narratives. REP Dan Crenshaw (TX) and SEN Ted Cruz (TX) have made comments on the Google reports (link below). President Trump made the comment "they're trying to rig the election".
Basically, Project Veritas had an internal whistleblower at Google who detailed how they bias content against conservative sources. The leaked internal project documents (which may be fake) present a relatively technical discussion on how to bias existing trained neural networks. These are somewhat correlated with leaked internal E-mails (which may be fake) describing how the algorithms are modified to create more 'fair' results as part of "search engine fairness". The whistleblower was interviewed, but their face was masked and voice changed (may as well be fake). This is then correlated against a certainly-illegally-obtained-and-selectively-edited interview with a Google executive, which appears to be at a hotel bar from Project Veritas "undercover" agent. This was all combined into a report from Project Veritas that indicates that Google is politically biasing search results as a byproduct of algorithmic tampering and human influence. Ugh.
Predictably, the Project Veritas video was banned everywhere (YouTube, Reddit, Twitter), with accounts suspended/banned from certain platforms. Some people would say that it is an attempt to silence the "report". Some other people would say that this "report" is dubious at best. I think reasonable people would say, at a minimum, posting illegally-obtained material to the internet warrants a ban. Personally - if Veritas wants to do this 'reporting' then it needs to *report* - and not produce material that is illegally obtained or fake.
Original Source: https://www.projectveritas.com/2019/06/24/insider-blows-whistle-exec-reveals-google-plan-to-prevent-trump-situation-in-2020-on-hidden-cam/
Summary: https://thinkprogress.org/trump-believes-google-is-trying-to-rig-the-election-project-veritas-video-cb82f03caee3/
Washintgon Times: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/24/google-exec-project-veritas-sting-says-only-big-te/
Congressional Testimony: (1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueCMWBixP4Y (2) https://youtu.be/ik_kzn3etsE?t=44
Final note:
Among other things, the "leaked internal E-mails" indicate that Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and Dennis Prager are Nazis. At the time of writing, this "story" was picked up by Fox News, TheBlaze, and the Washington Times, according to duckduckgo News ( https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jordan+peterson+nazi&iar=news&ia=news ). This "story" doesn't exist according to Google News ( https://www.google.com/search?q=jordan+peterson+nazi&source=lnms&tbm=nws ). The combination of the report, its details, and my own observations when comparing against DDG results have influenced me to switch my search engine to DDG rather than Google. Something is going on.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @01:26PM (50 children)
Given that James O'Keefe [wikipedia.org] and Project Veritas have repeatedly been caught manipulating photos, video and information [sourcewatch.org], it's hard to see why we should trust *anything* that comes from these folks.
Not that I trust Google farther than I can kick them, but Project Veritas? Geez Louise!
I get that this is meant to spur discussion about "Fake News" and how people are presented with information. But can't we at least have some decent counterexamples [cjr.org]?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SunTzuWarmaster on Monday July 01 2019, @01:32PM (26 children)
The representative from Google issues a public statement that indicates that their words were selectively edited. Presumably this means that the words were actually said (and that the whole thing isn't a deepfake).
Note that the "Peterson Nazi" story was recommended to me by Google Now, but doesn't exist according to Google News. I am convinced that Google is doing *something* to the results.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday July 01 2019, @01:46PM (13 children)
Google always does *something* to the results. Isn't that their business?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SunTzuWarmaster on Monday July 01 2019, @01:51PM (11 children)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday July 01 2019, @02:19PM (10 children)
Really, mate, I went over your link in DDG and I obtained a list of exactly 3 results - one from FauxNews, one from The Blaze and the final one from Washington times (so far, smells to me like a tempest in a glass of water, I wonder why should I get all inflamed over such a nothing?)
So, let me try to apply a modicum of Googlefu like general searching for your terms, but only happening last week [google.com]. Oh, wow, Google doesn't seem to be such a master of concealment.
So, again, why the heck should I get all triggered and inflamed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Interesting) by SunTzuWarmaster on Monday July 01 2019, @02:43PM (9 children)
It doesn't seem weird to you that the general Google Search results and the Google News results differ? That the Google Search returns results including the Washington Examiner and Fox News, but that Google News returns neither of these? For news that is already week old?
And that, when you use Google News to specifically search for news, specifically within the week, the result whose title *literally includes* all of the words is relegated to position 6? This is specifically what you are searching for... that is quite a few hoops to jump through to actually get your result, which, I remind you, is the first result from DDG.
(Score: 4, Informative) by c0lo on Monday July 01 2019, @03:06PM
Nope. Be it for the reason I don't actually expect whatever happened a week ago to be still classify at news and to find it on the Google news section.
No, really mate, you may call me weird for it, but I don't even expect that whatever makes the S/N front page is current news or even actual news. Do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday July 01 2019, @05:09PM (3 children)
Have you used Google in the past 15 years or so? Yes, it used to do things like return results with the literal terms you searched for. It hasn't done that in a very long time. Its algorithms are supposed to be "smart," but I fight them all the time, because verbatim search is broken (and has been for nearly a decade) and any attempts to get Google to pay attention to your actual search terms -- rather than what it thinks you mean -- is futile.
Look, I use search engines for actual research. Anyone who does knows these systems don't behave the way you apparently think they should. It's NOT because Google is trying to hide something by putting down at link #6, rather than #1. It's because the vast majority of people using the internet are morons who type in BS queries and never learned how to use a full-text literal search. So Google has tweaked their algorithms to serve the stupid masses -- guessing that you probably just meant to search for a cat video rather than an intellectual topic -- while making its results useless for people who want to do real research.
Now, it is possible that in tweaking these AI algorithms, they also put in some sort of bias? Sure, I suppose. But you haven't produced any evidence of that. And generally whenever someone claims this sort of thing, by trying a dozen different ways of searching, you can easily show Google pops up all sorts of different orderings and highlights different sorts of articles. I have yet to see evidence of consistent bias.
Instead, I see the same crap I always get from Google -- not returning what I literally asked for. That's no surprise. And most of my queries are not political in any way. Google's a crappy search engine if you actually know how to search -- you really didn't know that?
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @05:16PM
Yes, there was a paper I was able to easily find a few years ago that found evidence that lung cancer rates increase immediately after people quit smoking.
I can no longer find it anywhere, all I find is anti-smoking propaganda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @07:21PM
Google stopped returning what I was searching for in the past few years. None of it was political stuff or news either. Literally no way to search for exact things anymore. If its not mainstream, you literally get a sprinkle of relevant results and the rest filled with garbage or worse, no results found.
I've had to go back to other search engines like its 1998. On top of their terrible performance they hit me with captchas when using a VPN. Doesn't matter how many times I fill it out, next query I'm always a robot. As soon as the v3 captcha comes out I fully expect to be banned.. and at this point good riddance.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday July 02 2019, @01:51AM
I've said pretty much the same for years, but I think it's getting worse too.
A couple of years back I switched to DDG for search, and now every few months when I have to switch back to G for a specific search, it is ever harder to get decent results. It's like they aren't just nerfing results for the masses, but are actively trying to destroy targeted search.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday July 01 2019, @05:18PM (3 children)
Oh, and by the way:
Nope, not in the least. Again, I've spent a lot of time fighting Google's BS search algorithms. I first realized how broken Google was maybe 6-7 years ago when I was doing a Google Books search for a few very specific terms in the date range from 1910-1920. It returned maybe 6 hits. I don't know why but a little while later I tried a query from 1910-1915 with the same search terms. I got some NEW hits, and some of the ones from the 1910-1920 search were missing. I went back to the 1910-1920 search range, and it was the same list I got previously. Tried 1915-1920 and again got a different list. In any reasonable search engine, the 1910-20 hit list should obviously be a superset of the smaller lists of dates. Not in Google's world.
Google's algorithms are simply not literal anymore in any way. They don't behave consistently. They don't obey your queries, even when explicit. They decide what they THINK you want to see. Earlier this year, I specifically wanted to search for news stories prior to a final episode of a TV series to see what people were saying before the episode came out, and when I explicitly gave Google a range only BEFORE date X, at least half of the first page of results was actually from AFTER date X.
Bottom line: Google is an insanely stupid product that returns completely unreliable and inconsistent results. Noting the order of links is messed up or Google News results differ a bit from the search results is very minor compared to the BS you will see if you actually try to get Google to give you specific results. It's completely broken for real search, so never assume that it should give you results according to what any logical person would think. You'll be disappointed if you try.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Monday July 01 2019, @05:33PM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday July 01 2019, @06:15PM (1 child)
No. At least not for general internet search. Obviously if you're doing real research, there are lots of specialized databases, many of which will actual restrict results to terms you literally search for (as well as the fields you want them to be in). Some internet search engines will "take instructions" better than Google. DDG does somewhat better verbatim results than Google, but it too will add things you didn't ask for.
If I could have back the Google of pre-2007 or so, I would take it in an instant, especially if it could be applied to new content that has come up since then. Anyone remember Google of that era? You could click on a "cached version" of the target website within Google, and get a version that was stripped of scripts and BS with the search terms highlighted, so you could see right where they were. Obviously this ran afoul of copyright law for Google, so they stopped allowing that. But that was sweet. Fast, smart, included all the stuff I wanted, took out stuff I didn't want when I asked... followed instructions to restrict queries, etc.
The problem is Google still seems to win on the size of the database and content front -- there's all sorts of cool stuff in Google Books that is difficult to find elsewhere, if you want older content. If Google Scholar worked with the pre-2007 Google engine configuration, it would probably beat out many academic search engines too. And despite Google's inclusion of nonsense results I don't want, its algorithm to prioritize results still often will put good hits on the first couple pages (when it actually listens to what I ask it for).
I don't begrudge Google for trying to optimize results for its largest audience. Ultimately, it wants to sell ads, and I'm sure its algorithm is also optimized sometimes to help do that too.
But if I had to pay a fairly large amount to subscribe to Google pre-2007 or so, I'd do it. Definitely worth $100/year, maybe several hundred per year for me even for personal use. It would pay for itself in just a few weeks of decreased frustration and less wasted time. Unfortunately, I don't have that option anymore.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @11:45PM
Search all over the place sucks. Youtube has to be the worst. I've done a lot of legal research in my time -- always hated natural language searches and the waste of time they spit out. Give me boolean searches.
((get w/10 you w/10 want) and (roll* w/5 stone*) and lyrics) not ("[that stupid rap band that dominates the search results but I know I don't want]")
where w/x = number of words to span, so the first part of the above would require those three words to appear in a ten word span. Westlaw has an especially nice feature which will find words in sentences or paragraphs -- been awhile since I used Westlaw but I think it went like this: (get /s you /s want) for sentences, /p for paragraphs. Anyway, with wildcards, and, or, parens, not, and span limits, you can find the good shit fast.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 01 2019, @01:56PM
Tuned and tweaked from the beginning. They can get worse though.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @02:02PM
As I said, I don't trust Google farther than I can kick them. There may very well be some shenanigans going on, but I'm certainly not going to take James O'Keefe's word for it.
As you pointed out, this isn't good journalism. Your point about it not being a "deep fake" (has anyone made such a claim?) rings pretty hollow given the levels of manipulation that Project Veritas has used in the past, IMHO.
For example. If you wanted, you could (and correctly, as they did emanate from my keyboard) say that I said:
Those words definitely came from me, but they do not reflect the thoughts I expressed, nor to they accurately represent my point of view. As such, the statement that "the words were actually said," doesn't make me think this is accurate reporting.
No need for a "deep fake." This just seems like Project Veritas' stock-in-trade. Ask a bunch of questions and stitch the answers together to make them say what you want.
As for your issues with Google Now, I can't speak to that. Nor am I likely to ever be able to do so, as Google isn't a news source for me. If there is something to it, I suggest not using Google Now.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @02:09PM
It must be a Geo lock or something cause here google news return article for the query you gave.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday July 01 2019, @03:14PM (5 children)
"I categorically deny that I have ever been in Cancun, nor have I ever had sex with underage boys."
"I ... have ... been in Cancun. ... I ... had sex with underage boys."
Or at the very least you can remove any nuance that might be had. For instance, Jordan Peterson is popular with Nazis because he pushes the idea that the people who are in charge are in charge because they're among other things genetically better than those who aren't, which conveniently is exactly the belief system the Nazis had developed for why they should be in charge of everything and everyone. It wouldn't take a lot of "selective editing" to turn that into "Jordan Peterson is a Nazi".
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Spamalope on Monday July 01 2019, @04:19PM (4 children)
You write that while bashing the veracity of anyone else? What chutzpah. You're opinion of him must either be based on smears other people made or be dishonest. The guy's body of work could be summarized as 'Why authoritarianism is murderous; exploring WTF is wrong with human psychology that lets that happen and how to avoid it.' Part of that is describing what actually happens, including the fact that psychopathy is a common trait among leaders - as a warning (there is no praise anywhere). He goes on to detail social structures that limit the power of psychopaths emphasizing their importance for this reason.
I see people agitating for centralized control of social discourse attacking him because he became a lighting rod when he opposed compelled speech. Compelled speech and suppression of dissenting speech are two of the things authoritarians need to get, so it's not a shock he'd refuse to comply. Branding him as authoritarian is rich. Especially right authoritarian. The guys a liberal.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday July 01 2019, @04:58PM (3 children)
His famous (or infamous depending on how you read him) "lobster argument" boils down to: Lobsters have hierarchies of obedience, and are hard-wired to try to gain more control in those hierarchies. Human brains are like lobster brains in the way that matter for forming hierarchies. Ergo, humans should have hierarchies of obedience, and anyone saying differently is denying human nature.
That's not the argument of an anti-authoritarian. (It's also not accurate about the evolutionary relationship between humans and lobsters, but that's irrelevant to this point.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @01:15AM
Even if your simplistic summary of the lobster argument is correct, you really need to learn the difference between IS and OUGHT .
Arguing that something is true is not an endorsement of the morality or ethics of that truth.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @01:43AM (1 child)
His "famous" lobster argument is apparently not famous enough for you to actually know what it is.
Find me a quote where he says that or just accept that you are parroting your favorite political propaganda.
If you have any allegiance to the truth, you should wonder why is left (and not just far-left) so hell-bent on assassinating a professor's character who is literally talking about science.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 02 2019, @02:32PM
Jordan Peterson explaining his own lobster argument [youtube.com].
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by captain normal on Monday July 01 2019, @04:16PM
"I am...a...Nazi."
Those are your words, from your post. So how can you deny that? Now admittedly that is a rather shallowflake rather than a deepflake scam, but maybe you can now get the point.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday July 01 2019, @04:31PM
My search for "Peterson Nazi" (in quotes) returned numerous results. I don't know what you were doing wrong. Perhaps you were expecting to find some one particular story?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 01 2019, @04:44PM
Let me "selectively edit" SunTzu, here, if I may:
"the Nazi was me" Those words were actually said by SunTzu!
See how that works?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 01 2019, @11:07PM
"I am convinced. The ... story ... doesn't exist. The ... words were ... edited. [T]his means ... the whole thing is ... a fake."
Yeah, I included ellipses to show where I edited, but you can literally make anyone say anything with the right editing. And good luck catching it when they don't show you the originals or where they did said edits.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday July 01 2019, @01:42PM
Peddling bullshit is such a poor way to start a discussion about anything but, mayyybe, the need of sanitation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Monday July 01 2019, @01:42PM (13 children)
That source seems to have its own bias.
At the very least, something like the WaPo Roy Moore attempted sting shouldn't be a surprise since that's how the group works. It does show that they misjudge and underestimate some of their targets. Or in the case of the Open Society Foundations sting, made easily avoidable, amateur hour mistakes.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Monday July 01 2019, @01:53PM (3 children)
Just from curiosity, tak, have you entered in a competition for "the understatement of the year"? 'Cause, believe me, you have a serious contender just here.
Really? You expect us to accept a behaviour that goes well beyond lying as "Meh, just a bias"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by takyon on Monday July 01 2019, @02:01PM (1 child)
Put down the Foster's, nice and slow.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday July 01 2019, @02:23PM
I touched it only once, about 15 years ago.
Haven't repeated that mistake ever again, 'cause I don't drink piss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by Farkus888 on Monday July 01 2019, @08:15PM
Semi off topic... When announcing their surrender at the end of WWII, the Japanese emporer said, "It has not gone entirely well for us on the eastern front".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @03:17PM (8 children)
How about the other link [wikipedia.org]?
Is that "biased" as well?
I'd also point out that, with a few, possibly hyperbolic, adjectival exceptions, https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Project_Veritas [sourcewatch.org] appears to stick to published news reports, court filings and other public records in their descriptions of the activities of Project Veritas.
As such, I'm not really clear on the point you're trying to make about SourceWatch. Even this hit piece [washingtonexaminer.com] on them and their parent organzation [wikipedia.org] doesn't claim that they are lying or distorting the facts. They merely claim that their funding sources are progressive individuals and groups.
No one appears to be saying that anything SourceWatch has published is false or manipulated. Rather, the main complaint seems to be that they are "progressive" or "liberal."
While that may or may not be true (I have no knowledge either way), I have yet to hear anyone say that Sourcewatch is publishing false information or manipulating information to deceive others. Do you have some evidence that this is the case?
If so, I'd really like to see it.
tl;dr: Having a political stance doesn't make you a liar any more than putting salt on your food makes you a stooge for the mining industry.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Monday July 01 2019, @03:56PM (5 children)
All I'm saying is that a lot of the controversies listed relate to how they gather the information. Including lying to targets, breaking wiretap laws, acting like assholes, etc. That doesn't necessarily mean that the information they release is misleading. Some other group could adopt the same methods and produce better results. If you don't accept the "sting" as a valid investigation technique, then you are obviously going to have a problem with Veritas.
It's safe to say that employees at Google and Facebook believe that they need to alter algorithms to help prevent certain information sources from reaching more people, and that search and timeline algorithms could affect election outcomes. These companies also want to be proactive to avoid new government regulations or worse [nytimes.com].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @04:20PM (2 children)
Okay. You (as usual) make a bunch of valid points.
Given that Project Veritas (PV) has been documented not *just* to use stings and undeclared recordings, but to take those recordings and remix them to make others *appear* to be saying stuff that they're not, doesn't impugn their collection methods, but their manipulation of the information collected to smear others.
I'd note that I didn't call out PV for their collection methods. I called them out on their disingenuous manipulation of recordings.
But none of that (nor does your comment to which I'm responding right now) addresses your assertion that SourceWatch's article is somehow "biased." Is there any evidence that it is? Is there any evidence that SourceWatch (SW) engages in printing false and misleading information?
If there is, as I said, I'd really like to hear about it. In the case of SW's article about PV, there doesn't seem to be anything that's factually incorrect or intended to deceive. Whatever you might think about PV and/or their activities, information from *referenced* and easily checkable sources doesn't imply bias. At least not to me.
As an aside, I chose that particular link as it contained a fairly comprehensive list of controversial PV projects, rather than digging up a long list of articles in individual links. That saved time and effort.
Please note that I never said that such was or wasn't the case. I don't know. I did, however, say that I didn't trust Google.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Troll) by takyon on Monday July 01 2019, @05:06PM (1 child)
Right off the bat, they call O'Keefe a "right-wing provocateur", whereas Wikipedia calls him an "American conservative political activist". That sets the tone for the article.
The worst offense is this section:
Here they present O'Keefe's mugshot and trespass conviction from 2010 even though it has little to do with his group's 2016-2017 Wisconsin activities. It seems like that was put there as a bookend to not end the section with a ("threatened") AG "[appreciating] the work" that Project Veritas does.
The Wikipedia article is better and has more details of deceptive editing by the group.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @05:39PM
Fair enough.
I did say that there was some hyperbolic use of adjectives.
That aside, it's my understanding that from a practical standpoint, O'Keefe *is* Project Veritas, and pretty much everything they undertake is at his direction and behest. That may be incorrect, but I'm not aware of evidence to the contrary.
As I said, I used the SourceWatch link as it contained most of the controversial stuff about PV. That it also included details about O'Keefe is reasonable IMHO.
As for the bit you claim to be "the worst offense," once again aside from unflattering adjectives, I don't see anything factually incorrect here:
It does seem a bit speculative to claim that O'Keefe's comment that "We should investigate you and you should lose your job." was the proximate cause of the Wisconsin AG's change in attitude, at least based on the information provided.
Regardless, AFAICT, the article as a whole is generally factual, if a bit hyperbolic. I do agree that the Wikipedia page is good as well, which is why I included it in my post.
I suppose that reasonable people may disagree and I respect your position, even if I'm not as annoyed by the hyperbole as you seem to be.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday July 01 2019, @04:59PM (1 child)
Correct, it's the part where they edit that video to make it imply the opposite of reality that makes the information misleading.
The first parts are merely felonies...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday July 01 2019, @05:28PM
People committing mere felonies can be a great thing. Such as hacking the NSA, Stratfor, etc. Deceptive editing and/or not releasing anything useful? Not great.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday July 01 2019, @04:37PM (1 child)
Wikipedia is definitely biased. It's biased by whoever last edited the page. (Does Wikipedia still have those "editing wars" where people gain status by making changes to a page, which are then changed by the next person to gain status?)
NEVER trust Wikipedia. It may provide useful references, but don't trust it. Last I heard it was refusing posts by experts in the field in favor of those who reported on what those experts were doing...and introducing the inherent distortions even when they tried to be accurate.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @05:47PM
I never said there was no bias on Wikipedia. I asked specifically about the article I linked, not Wikipedia in general.
There have been, and are, issues with some Wikipedia content.
However, it doesn't (at least not to me) appear that there's significant bias on the James O'Keefe entry.
In fact, compare his page with the *only* Project Veritas Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] (in German), which is hagiography [cambridge.org] at *best*.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 01 2019, @06:07PM (3 children)
But can't we at least have some decent counterexamples?
No, that's the thing. You can't trust anybody. Did you notice all the trackers that hopefully you blocked? Hardly "decent"... The only safe site on the internet is http://www.slackware.com/ [slackware.com] None of that phony HTTPS crap there.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @06:29PM (2 children)
That means I can't trust you. By your logic, anything you say is obviously bullshit.
Thanks for clarifying. Any other pearls of wisdom for us to ignore because you're (by your own statement) untrustworthy?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday July 01 2019, @08:11PM (1 child)
That means I can't trust you.
That's right! Do so at your own peril!
Any other pearls of wisdom...?
Yes, don't even trust yourself! You could go nuts at any moment. Take heed!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Monday July 01 2019, @08:24PM
Here's a pearl for you, Fustie:
"Trust Ivanova. Trust yourself. Anybody else, shoot 'em!" [youtu.be]
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @05:09AM (3 children)
That link does not say anything about manipulating photos, videos, and information. The worst of what they have done is get double-played such as in this [politico.com] case. Vertias believes they caught a foul actor and lead him on to get more information. The actor, in turn, thinks Veritas is the bad guy and starts leading them on to get more information. Both then report on the activities of the other. Veritas publishing their video, the other calling the police.
Ironically, that article itself is rather deceptively edited. It claims that: "But O’Keefe was criticized for deceptively editing the videos. Most notably, he filmed himself walking into the offices while wearing a ’70s-style pimp outfit, but actually met with ACORN employees while wearing a suit and tie." Here [projectveritas.com] is the video so you can judge for yourself. In the start of the video it shows him, explaining he was pretending to be a man aiming to run for congress one day, walk into the office wearing a suit and tie and later emphasizes that again. The only "pimp outfit" reference was a clearly comical segue where he goes "Yes, yes, and yes" after getting them to deeply incriminate themselves and shows him walking around with his "prostitute" in a slow-mo stylized video that was clearly distinct from the actual recording. He seems to have taken out anything not directly related to his investigations for future videos - likely to avoid this specific disingenuous smearing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 02 2019, @11:07AM
I have some lovely beachfront property in the Florida Keys. I'm busy developing other properties and need to raise some cash, so I can give you a really good price, if you're interested.
PT Barnum would have loved you!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nobuddy on Tuesday July 02 2019, @01:55PM (1 child)
He was convicted of fraudulently editing his videos to defraud. Not rumor, proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 03 2019, @07:34PM
That's untrue. He's had one misdemeanor conviction of entering a federal building under false pretenses when his team dressed up as phone repair people to get access to a congressman. The only other significant case he had was the one I was talking about above. He was sued for unlawful recording and dissemination of a conversation. He ended up settling it out of court (though it did go to trial) for $100k. You actually made me double check the case and, no, it has absolutely nothing to do with fraud. You can see the settlement (which also provides an overview of the case) here [courtlistener.com].