> Even after it was proven that the story was true
Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.
Source?
Where did you get that that story was true? It was mostly fake but with some elements of truth in it. The story itselve didn't even seem credible was my POV.
Source?
I'm not going to break it down point-by-point because you're just shifting the goalposts now. Twitter and FB let plenty of fake and exaggerated stories run wild when they say something negative about Trump. For example, the fake stories about Trump telling people to "Drink/inject bleach", the fake stories about him calling COVID a "hoax", and the fake stories about him calling Nazis "very fine people".
All of those were debunked -- even by left-leaning fact-checkers -- yet none of them were removed or penalized on the social media platforms.
> Many can't be validated. They are sent from domains that don't use DKIM to sign outgoing emails.
> There are other timestamps in the email headers/metadata, but they aren't validated by DKIM, and hence, could be forged.
> I personally have many doubts about where this email came from, and the overall "narrative" they are trying to push. Regardless, I can validate the basic facts about this email.
Like I said: it contains elements of truth. Someone send a guy one email to verify that one explicitly...
Or as Steve Jobs put it: "Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering."
A good spin has at least one verifiable element and the rest is vague enough to not be accountable, but still gets the message out.