Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by lawlessone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

lawlessone

"project veritas" flags

if you want to see what kind of things they get up too.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/acorn-foe-james-okeefe-sought-t...

View on HN

The article you link is from 2010, granted it is ridiculous and does show how ridiculous PV is.

Still, would it be not wise to judge a book by it's contents than it's cover?

This particular person, Zachary Vorhies, is telling the truth, and the documents are correct could shed some light on the internal workings at google and potentially how they misinformed the public.

He was making according to his own testimony, $250,000+ (including the stock options). What would cause someone to just leave that and turn against the company?

I take anything from PV with a grain of salt, however to instantly dismiss something without actually looking at the contents is not very wise.

Its cover is really bad in this case.

Vorhies' twitter is a trove of conspiracy theories (qanon, pizzagate, birtherism, trutherism) and intense antisemitism.

What does it matter if he believes the moon is made of cheese or if he emulates Ilhan Omar on Twitter? He provided documents. Shoot the messenger all you want but the substance of what was exposed can’t be denied. He provided way more documents than can be humanly faked, and we all know Google’s internally accessible troves of documentation are easily verifiable.

"Birtherism" isn't even a thing. Obama met the citizenship constraints for the Presidency regardless of birthplace.

> What would cause someone to just leave that and turn against the company?

He didn't leave, he got fired because he was stupid and got caught.

Got caught doing what?

Everytime PV makes front page news its followed by obvious accusations of bias, editing, taking quotes pout of context, and recently was under felony charges. It's an attention seeking "Whistleblower" group with minimal intellectual value.

Like racist sites like the Daily Caller sometimes their reporting has facts in it. But also like the Daily Caller, it's a known terrible source until confirmed and expanded by a journalist with ethics.

Every major media group, from popular newspapers to television hosts, has on a regular basis committed the same sins you list - from bias to selective quotation to making statistically misleading “racist” pronouncements to facing litigation and settlements to occasionally mentioning facts in the fourth paragraph. Where are these mythical ethical gatekeepers you describe?

Ethics in journalism has fallen hard but was a huge chunk of my college roommates (polysci/journalism major) coursework. In the case of PV, they are 90% unethical disproven fraud and 10% at best real issues. Almost every major headline they produce is edited, photoshopped, staged, or aggravated whereas the opposite is true for major media outlets like the NYT, WaPo, and others. 105 might be partisan coverage or leaning but 90% is real information or at least not photoshopped evidence.

That's pretty terrible if true. Not sure how it's relevant here. I suppose the entire recorded interview with Zachary Vorhies could have been taken out of context, but it sure looks like that's not the case.

>Not sure how it's relevant here.

It is relevant if you are trying to dismiss the message by painting the messenger as untrustworthy.

There was another post about a dump of google documents that PV posted today. It was removed within minutes. The rush to discredit makes me believe this all the more.

At some point, whatever Project Veritas was no longer seems to be what they are now, which is a place to get inside information about Google. Let that sink in for a minute. Multiple insiders at Google, willing to lose their jobs, are telling us something.

Well, it tells you some people can go nuts, even Google engineers. If you look at his Twitter feed, he's into QAnon conspiracies, international anti-Semitic Jewish conspiracies, anti-vax conspiracies, apparently all tied together.

Funny how the leaked blacklist doc shown, if true, included USA Today Politics, rightwingwatch.org, and mediamatters.org. Veritas and Breitbart only took a yellow highlighter to the right wing sites, but didn't highlight a number of left wing sites also in their leaked materials. Now why would someone biased, have Media Matters and RightWingWatch, and USA Today Politics blocked?

His problem seems to be that he filters out facts that don't fit his mental model, and only sees things which confirm the conspiracy.

You can attack the messenger all you want. That sword cuts both ways--we can disregard your opinion because Google writes your paycheck, right?

Well, the messenger's own data shows many left wing sites also in the blacklist. But of course, any data points that don't fit the 'conservatives are victims' model is excluded, only selected data need apply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com