Google Document Dump | Hacker News Reader

Google Document Dump

projectveritas.com

61 pointscolpabar39 comments

Project Veritas has broken laws on several occasions, and also seems to attempt to entrap people. They tried to sell a Washington Post reporter a story about sexual impropriety from Roy Moore and then planned on outing the WaPo story as a hoax. I'd question literally anything from them as they go out of their way to entrap and falsify things up to and including breaking laws. Instead, WaPo taped the interview and did a series of stories on Project Veritas, and the things they're doing to try to smear the left.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approa...

Ok - the messenger is bad. But are these documents real?

Who knows? The messenger has manufacured false documents in the past, which was OP's point.

It seems like if the documents are real then flagging this post is harmful.

Bloomberg has published false and unretracted pieces, but we don’t flag them into oblivion - we evaluate each piece.

Truth or not, this is valuable information. I understand skepticism of Veritas but let people make up their own minds before removing it. Why flag?

Edit: I really want these documents to be false, I do.

Exactly, very creepy that this keeps getting flagged. Super interesting news about a company we wall work with. These are google employees and I want to hear what they have to say, and talk about it with all of you, my unbiased HN friends.

All I want is a discussion.

Here's a start, it is from Project Veritas, a known bad actor. The Google employee in specific has a history of Q conspiracy theories and anti-semitism. Neither of them seem very trustworthy. If it isn't very trustworthy, is it really news?

A discussion with veritas is guaranteed to feature lies, making it not a useful discussion.

It's flagged because it's Project Veritas. They are not a reliable or trustworthy source.

I understand that, but these are Google employees. I am literally watching them tell me something. If you were Project Veritas, you would turn away a Google employee giving you inside info?

You say it's creepy that it's being flagged, but also that you understand that the source is "not reliable or trustworthy". Can you clarify your concern?

Its becoming pretty clear that this Google employee is also untrustworthy from his twitter, which includes birtherism, qanon conspiracies, 9/11 trutherism, pizzagate conspiracies, and piles of antisemitism.

Is it actually valuable information?

It will take a while to work through everything, but what do you think the odds are that there are w bunch of docs here that are missing context and therefore are misleading?

Especially given PV's BS surrounding google in just the past few weeks.

> Truth or not, this is valuable information.

It's not valuable if it's not truthful.

Veritas has proven time and again they intentionally manipulate what they release to support their side and can't be trusted. Even if these are real they're likely doctored or taken out of context.

Mirror available here: https://goog-doc-dump.gigawatt.io/

Just a regular file download, no funky extra downloader apps necessary.

あれがと！

Cheers, was looking for mirror.

"Koch Brothers and Robert Mercer funded Project Veritas" https://observer.com/2017/12/koch-brothers-and-robert-mercer...

"Project Veritas’ YouTube sting was deeply misleading — and successful James O’Keefe’s stunt playbook keeps giving conservative lawmakers ammunition, even if the evidence is all phony"

https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/6/27/18760463/projec...

Would be nice if I could view these in the browser instead of downloading an app or downloading the document itself.

There's no option to view these on Linux -- no application and no browswer supports their NSAPI plugins.

I see people flagging this and accurately questioning project veritas’ agenda.

My question is - Are these documents genuine? Isn’t that that what matters?

Context also matters. Veritas has repeatedly and intentionally taken information out of context to skew the message.

Context is irrelevent in regards to raw documentation. Claim it's fake or address it's contents.

What do you mean? That either the entire thing must have been fabricated out of whole cloth, or that we should assume it's entirely true and discuss the implications as though it were? Wouldn't the simpler explanation be that people believe that, given the source, there is a high chance that it's somewhere in the middle - i.e. skewed, misleading, spun, taken out of context, biased - and is therefore reasonable to not take as useful information until more context can be provided?

I evaluate things independently. If you want to lump them together, that's your decision. He handed it to the DOJ, so odds are, we will not see google claiming anything is fake.

spoiler: this was extremely boring and stupid. Reading this, downloading the files and looking at them was a complete waste of time, this is a nothing burger.

Exactly. An example of this, covfefe being translated to " ̄\_(ツ)_/ ̄ in Google Translate as an Easter egg. This compromises the entire contents of the root folder named "Election Tampering"

This is silly stuff

Project Veritas? Seriously? Are these from that Qanon and conspiracy guy who is claiming he was unfairly fired?

Found this torrent for the same files magnet:?xt=urn:btih:221cedaadd3a04e21b7ef365a1dc37bf0908b88f

The complaints here about "the source" remind me of all the nonexistent complaints about cops not choosing upstanding citizens as their confidential informants.

Note to PV: PLEASE PUBLISH SHA3's

Insiders at Google are losing their jobs to tell us something. Pretty big news.

It's not big news. The guy is a Qanon conspiracy nut.

The man being interviewed does not work with Google?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com