It took HN less than an hour to memory-hole it. Crowd sourcing is brutally efficient in maintaining an echo chamber.
EDIT: Similarly, a disingenuous "you're posting too fast" algorithm can also silent dissent in comments (based on the actual behavior of the algorithm). As you sow, so shall you reap.
No need to remove imho. Simply add a warning before and during about these people and a link to the Wikipedia article. It’s actually good to inform people of what their watching rather than ignore it. This is a great example of high production value in fake news.
The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery.[4][5] O'Keefe and Project Veritas have been sued for defamation repeatedly, at least one of those suits leading to an apology and $100,000 payment.[6][7][8] O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses.[9]
Although he has had a record of stuff in the past try this.
Google search, "project veritas defamation lawsuit"
See how many of the top results 9 of 10 are all libel lawsuits they have gotten thrown out or actually won.
Investigative journalism like this is pretty much dead and even through sometimes they may be wrong, it seems like 9 out of 10 is a pretty good record.
It is most likely over simplistic, although I guess it would be nice for an explanation of why the down-votes happen.
I like to believe that I didn't try to personally attack anyone just try to show that they've been sued for Libel dozens of times, with 97% of them thrown out/dismissed.
The above Wikipedia entry makes it sound like the libel case was a one time deal painting him guilty on all videos when in reality it was a one time story he got wrong.
Not saying this guy speaking about google is credible or true, just trying to point out that if you win 97% of your libel cases there is more truth to their investigations than what the initial wiki entry made it seem.
Self-pity? Nah I could care less whether this guy is right or wrong, just trying to point out that everyone is painting him in a negative way and maybe it wouldn't hurt to look at the other side.
Public figures who sue for libel have to demonstrate that the person they claim libeled them did so with "actual malice" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice), which is quite hard to prove as to a certain degree it involves reading their minds. If they're smart enough to avoid sending an email where they cackle about how they're going to twist the truth in order to destroy you, you're going to have a hard time meeting that standard.
"Project Veritas is an American right-wing[1][2] non-profit organization. It was founded in 2010 by James O'Keefe. Its stated mission is "to investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society."[3] The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery.[4][5] O'Keefe and Project Veritas have been sued for defamation repeatedly, at least one of those suits leading to an apology and $100,000 payment.[6][7][8] O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses."
Seems like this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Be aware that this is from Project Veritas, an organization that is notorious for lying and misleading videos. Here's a quick list of their previous attempts:
Given their history, I would not trust anything in a Project Veritas video to be an accurate representation of its subject's actual opinions or intent.
Stating uncertainty when you are uncertain should be considered proper behavior.
Contrast that with how respectful, trustworthy news sites often present stories such as the MAGA hat kids. Do articles from organizations that write mildly slanted stories like that, or such articles themselves, get memory-holed on HN as quickly and efficiently as this one did?
22 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 72.4 ms ] threadI'm thinking by this time tomorrow it'll be gone.
EDIT: Similarly, a disingenuous "you're posting too fast" algorithm can also silent dissent in comments (based on the actual behavior of the algorithm). As you sow, so shall you reap.
The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery.[4][5] O'Keefe and Project Veritas have been sued for defamation repeatedly, at least one of those suits leading to an apology and $100,000 payment.[6][7][8] O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses.[9]
Google search, "project veritas defamation lawsuit"
See how many of the top results 9 of 10 are all libel lawsuits they have gotten thrown out or actually won.
Investigative journalism like this is pretty much dead and even through sometimes they may be wrong, it seems like 9 out of 10 is a pretty good record.
I like to believe that I didn't try to personally attack anyone just try to show that they've been sued for Libel dozens of times, with 97% of them thrown out/dismissed.
The above Wikipedia entry makes it sound like the libel case was a one time deal painting him guilty on all videos when in reality it was a one time story he got wrong.
Not saying this guy speaking about google is credible or true, just trying to point out that if you win 97% of your libel cases there is more truth to their investigations than what the initial wiki entry made it seem.
Self-pity? Nah I could care less whether this guy is right or wrong, just trying to point out that everyone is painting him in a negative way and maybe it wouldn't hurt to look at the other side.
They're propagandist tabloid journalism with a video camera
"Project Veritas is an American right-wing[1][2] non-profit organization. It was founded in 2010 by James O'Keefe. Its stated mission is "to investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society."[3] The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery.[4][5] O'Keefe and Project Veritas have been sued for defamation repeatedly, at least one of those suits leading to an apology and $100,000 payment.[6][7][8] O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida and other states because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses."
Seems like this should be taken with a grain of salt.
https://www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas...
As a friendly reminder, Project Veritas has been repeatedly caught out selectively editing and manipulating their footage, and setting up their subjects in "sting" operations where their words can be misrepresented and taken out of context, in order to score right-wing ideological points. (See https://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412/Segments-Of-NPR-Got..., https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/james-okeefe-a..., https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/james-okeefe-helps-was... for just a few examples.)
Given their history, I would not trust anything in a Project Veritas video to be an accurate representation of its subject's actual opinions or intent.
Contrast that with how respectful, trustworthy news sites often present stories such as the MAGA hat kids. Do articles from organizations that write mildly slanted stories like that, or such articles themselves, get memory-holed on HN as quickly and efficiently as this one did?
Planned Parenthood recordings (2008) ACORN videos (2009) NPR video (2011) Americans United for Change videos ... Give us a break.
Wikipedia: A month before the launch of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, the Trump Foundation donated $10,000 to O'Keefe's Project Veritas.