"The Distortion Is Grotesque" - Google Insider Turns Over 950 Pages Documenting Bias To DoJ
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
https://www.projectveritas.com/2019...oes-public-says-burden-lifted-off-of-my-soul/
Google “Machine Learning Fairness” Whistleblower Goes Public, says: “burden lifted off of my soul”
Google “Machine Learning Fairness” Whistleblower Goes Public, says: “burden lifted off of my soul”
Would be very interested, but reading the words "insider talking to Project Veritas" is all one needs to know to stop reading. They are very much known to just spit conspiracies and outright fraudulent content. I recall how they sent a faked Moore accuser to The Post to discredit it. Bastards all I can say.
You have zero examples to back up your criticism. You object to their use of undercover operatives to reveal the dishonesty of various organizations. Tell me, do you have the same objections to fair housing groups sending in "testers" to uncover racial discrimination? Or is that somehow different from exposing Planned Parenthood's baby parts junkyard?
I absolutely support using undercover methods to expose truth, but they do the opposite. They use undercover methods to fake shit that supports their narrative.
https://www.vox.com/2017/11/27/16707410/conservative-group-fake-roy-moore-allegation-washington-post
Think about it, they planted a woman to lie to Post, then if plot worked, they would claim Post used fake story to smear Moore. Case closed.
Oh no, the Washington Post might have been embarrassed. The First Amendment is in jeopardy or something.
They sent in a woman to test just how scrupulous the Post would be in running with unsubstantiated claims. What they didn't appreciate was that the Post knew the original claims were fictional, so of course they were going to be skeptical.
In your world, a discriminating landlord could claim that the testers had been sent in to lie and trick him into doing something that would damage him, which would of course be accurate.
They sent in a woman to test just how scrupulous the Post would be in running with unsubstantiated claims. What they didn't appreciate was that the Post knew the original claims were fictional, so of course they were going to be skeptical.
In your world, a discriminating landlord could claim that the testers had been sent in to lie and trick him into doing something that would damage him, which would of course be accurate.
Sure bud, what ever. Had 0 doubts that after you said "You have zero examples to back up your criticism.", and I gave one, you immediately found a reason to justify it.
You cite one case in which they never published anything. You implied that they have a history of publishing false claims. I'm honestly not aware that any of it has been debunked except by people claiming their own words were somehow taken "out of context", meaning they wouldn't have said what they said if they had realized they were being taped.
It makes no difference what evidence I post here, you will support Veritas no matter what, because they suit your bias. You said zero examples, I provided one, you immediately justified it. Pointless to debate.