Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#51

Post by cudgy »

acdha wrote: post #49
cudgy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“... unlike journalists they actively manipulate the videos to mislead their audience” Are there any journalists left? This behavior is rampant in virtually all forms of news.

No, it’s not. The people hawking that claim do so knowing that it’s a good strategy for getting low-information voters to tune out, but that makes it a useful political tactic rather than true.

I would argue people making your claim are being selective with their standards and not being skeptical of their own information sources. Similar to people re-electing their Congress people, but complaining about the ineptitude of the incumbents in Congress. It’s a common effect that we as individuals suffer from.

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#52

Post by anonRepub12345 »

acdha wrote: post #40
anonRepub12345 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation Needed. Project Veritas has successfully challenged 331 "news reports" of misleading editing and gotten those report retracted[1] . Further, they have sued and been sued in court and claim a record of 7 wins, 0 losses[2]. Finally, PV has a page dedicated to the admitting where they were wrong[3]. Please support your claim of "misleading editing and entrapment" with evidence of retractions or court losses by…

This is why you generally want to find third-party sources rather than relying on someone to tell you whether to trust them. Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

First, it is interesting that Wikipedia lists 2010 as the formation date of Project Veritas, but then goes back two years ("Planned Parenthood recordings (2008)") to start the list of "Content" produced by that organization -- would you consider that misleading?

To avoid a claim of cherry picking examples, I'll look at each "Content" claim listed in Wikipedia from 2010 onward since we're discussing Project Veritas...

* Senator Mary Landrieu (2010). Claim: "charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony." Outcome: Those involved plead to a misdemeanor. Addressed by PV: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/pleading-guilty-to-misde...

* Abbie Boudreau (2010). Claim: "planned a staged encounter with the CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau." Outcome: PV settled with a former employee, according to Politico.

* New Jersey Teachers' Union video (2010). Claim: "a calculated attack on [the New Jersey Education Association] and its members." Outcome: No legal action taken by NJEA to assert misleading or falsely edited video.

* Medicaid videos (2011). Claim: "released videos of his colleagues' staged encounters purportedly showing Medicaid fraud in offices in six states." Outcome: No legal action taken by any state against PV for misleading or falsely edited video.

* NPR video (2011). Claim: "Schiller's remarks were presented out of sequence and that he said that he would speak personally, and not for NPR." Outcome: No legal action taken by NPR. Addressed by Veritas: https://www.projectveritas.com/news/project-veritas-provided...

* New Hampshire primary video (2012). Claim: "associates obtaining a number of ballots for the New Hampshire primary by using the names of recently deceased voters." Outcome: The New Hampshire Attorney General's office later dropped its investigation of O'Keefe for potential voter fraud in 2013. (Again, no claims of improperly edited or misleading videos in this event.)

* Patrick Moran (2012). Claim: "video was released showing Patrick Moran, son of then-U.S. Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA), and a field director with his father's campaign, discussing a plan to cast fraudulent ballots" Outcome: Arlington County Commonwealth's Attorney, had concluded and that no charges would be brought [against Patrick Moran or Project Veritas].

* Attempt to solicit voter fraud (2014). Claim: "attempted to bait staffers for Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) and then-U.S. Senator Mark Udall, as well as independent expenditure organizations, into approving voter fraud" Outcome: Push back from staffers that the claimed actions were illegal.

* Attempted sting of Open Society Foundations (2016). Claim: "attempted to call Open Society Foundations under the assumed name of "Victor Kesh", describing himself as attached to "a, uh, foundation"[sic] seeking to "get involved with you and aid what you do in fighting for, um, European values."[sic]" Outcome: Poor opsec by Project Veritas resulted in the undercover nature of the call.

* U.S. presidential elections (2016). Claim: " alleging a connection between the videos and the Trump campaign" [note: the "videos" are not identified in the Wikipedia article] Outcome: no clear claim of fraud in this section.

* Americans United for Change videos (2016). Claim: "that apparently showed former national field director Scott Foval of Americans United for Change discussing planting agitators" Outcome: On June 1, 2017, Creamer's firm, Democracy Partners, filed a $1 million lawsuit against Project Veritas, claiming Project Veritas had lied to gain access to the firm and violating anti-wiretapping laws. PV won this lawsuit in a Directed Verdict ("JUDGMENT: The Plaintiff shall recover nothing from the Defendants in the form of damages. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDCE in its entirety, and the Defendants shall recover their costs of the action from the Plaintiff. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 6/7/2019. (maf) (Entered: 06/07/2019)" [1])

* New York City elections official video (2016). Claim: "video taken at a United Federation of Teachers holiday party on December 16, 2015" Outcome: No legal action pursued by targets of video.

* CNN undercover videos (2017). Claim: "Jones said that O'Keefe had deceptively edited the video to take his remarks out of context" Outcome: lots of public protestations by targets of videos, but no legal action taken by CNN or individuals to force a retraction or demonstrate claims of deceptions were true.

* Failed attempt to sting The Washington Post (2017). Claim: "released a video which he claimed exposed the newspaper's liberal bias." Outcome: Videos were seen as being the opposite of what PV claimed, and earning PV criticism from more conservative outlets. (Perhaps you could consider this to be "misleading" but if both conservatives and liberals criticized the product, it is not so successful at doing so.)

* New Jersey Teachers Unions Officials (2018). Claim: "video allegedly showing a New Jersey teachers union administrator discussing a teacher alleged to have struck a student" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading videos.

* Internal Google documents (2019). Claim: "released internal Google documents to Project Veritas regarding the 2016 presidential election" Outcome: no legal action against PV for false or misleading claims about the documents.

* Minnesota videos (2020). Claim: "alleged that Project Veritas had edited and combined the videos to take them out of context." Outcome: The Minneapolis Police is "looking into the validity" of the allegations. There has been no legal action taken by anyone targeted by PV to force a retraction or defend against the allegations.

* Pennsylvania postal worker video (2020). Claim: "a Pennsylvania postal worker in Erie claimed [mail fraud had occurred]". Outcome: the worker has not recanted his claim, despite reporting to the contrary. No legal action by the Post Office has been taken against PV.

I've reviewed the 18 cases listed in the source you provided. Despite protestations of the targets claiming "misleading", "out of context", or otherwise fraudulent editing of material by PV, only one listed attempted to sue PV to force a retraction and their claim was dismissed with prejudice by the judge. So the "evidence" presented does not support a fact of "misleading" editing by PV, but only an assertion by those targeted by PV, which is why you generally want a third-party (I'll take the courts in a he-said-they-said case) rather than relying on someone (like a target of PV) to tell you whether to trust them.

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6156641/teter-v-project...

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#53

Post by moistbar »

slackfan wrote: post #14
moistbar wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that makes it ok? Do you happen to know for sure that OP is accepting of the things that the New York Times and CNN do as well?

Either you have free press and open platforms, or you don't.

That's not my point. My point is that you're assuming OP is on board with those things as well, which is something you can't prove. You've made a strawman argument about someone you've never met and know nothing about.

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#55

Post by dmwallin »

cudgy wrote: post #44
dmwallin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we don’t let our government, with the tools of state violence and the exclusive right to imprison us, ban speech. However, groups of private citizens, whose powers over the marketplace are/can be heavily limited through existing laws such as antitrust law, enforced by our democratically elected government have no requirement to carry speech they disagree with. It’s surprising to me how quickly the Big Business/S…

Seems like the roles have switched...far left is now in bed with big corp and the right has drifted towards curbing restrictions on free speech by recent surge of big tech social platforms. Makes sense if you think about it. Secular shifts in society away from religion and traditional family structure are more acceptable to far left but less palatable to the right.

The center of the democratic party has been pro-business for decades now (see neo-liberal), albeit with republicans using stronger rhetoric. Another way of looking at it, the center of both parties have been extremelly pro-business, with both the far-left and far-right having some anti-corporate tendencies. Due to recent trends the centers of both parties have lost influence, even more so on the republican side due to a recent far-right presidency. It seems logical that there would be a shift in perception but I think it's really more of a shift in the Overton window.

I'm personally very pro free speech but the wrong way to go about it is to give the government more power to compel speech from third parties. Use the tools available to prevent mega corporations from sucking up all the air in the room, then create your own platforms to spread the speech you want to enable.

The easy approach of just trying to use government to compel these companies to carry your speech has too many dangerous second and third order effects to seriously consider, especially if your goal is free-speech.

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#57

Post by underseacables »

kasperni wrote: post #27

I'm all for free speech. But do we really need to confront public figures in front of their own home and post it on the Internet? I think everyone would be concerned, especially if you have a family. I do think people have right to some privacy especially concerning their own home.

That depends on who you ask. The left thinks it’s perfectly OK to a cost someone at dinner, and harass them out of the restaurant. The right does not seem to believe in this tactic. Personally I think that we should all be able to sit and eat in a restaurant in peace, and should not have pitchfork mob standing outside of our homes, but that is a video absolutely rejected by the left and I think it’s very dangerous.

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#58

Post by chrononaut »

autoditype wrote: post #38
chrononaut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Twitter needs to be renamed Pravda unironically. Equating Twitter to Pravda is the same extreme hyperbole as people who equate GOP to Nazis. Last I checked Twitter is not a state-run operation that will arrest or kill people who report information that it doesn't agree with.

> Last I checked Twitter is not a state-run operation that will arrest or kill people who report information that it doesn't agree with. This isn't Pravda, that was KGB. Pravda is a better analogy as it was a newspaper. Your comment just flamed with additional hyperbole. There's no need for that here

> Pravda is a better analogy as it was a newspaper. Your comment just flamed with additional hyperbole. There's no need for that here

I don't think I inflamed anything. You are correct. Pravda did not employ actors who assassinated or arrested other individuals. They were the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. If Pravda was an independent organization that mischievously drove a specific agenda, I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

Stating that Pravda's and Twitter's actions equate to the same is implying that Pravda, CCCP and KGB only worked towards ensuring dissenting voices did not have a platform, but otherwise left them alone. Completely disconnecting Pravda from the CCCP is a disingenuous view of the role Pravda played in its presentation of the Soviet state and its actions.

Twitter isn't an invisible arm of the US government. So yes, I still believe it's extreme hyperbole.

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#59

Post by adamcstephens »

dmwallin wrote: post #30
adamcstephens wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t let the democratically elected government ban speech but unaccountable private corporations are free to censor. These problems aren’t easy, and while I’ve lessened my free speech absolutism a tiny bit, I’m still quite concerned. We have to find a better way.

Yes, we don’t let our government, with the tools of state violence and the exclusive right to imprison us, ban speech. However, groups of private citizens, whose powers over the marketplace are/can be heavily limited through existing laws such as antitrust law, enforced by our democratically elected government have no requirement to carry speech they disagree with. It’s surprising to me how quickly the Big Business/S…

When we actually use antitrust laws to limit these massive private companies I may be more on board with letting them do as they please with censor. As it is right now, they’re the lifeline and public square for much of modern life. As you clearly point out, the government can and should hold these companies accountable for their size and actions.

The left has plenty of respect for the dangers of both private and public power, but our system doesn’t listen to them because it requires a reflection on the bad parts of capitalism.

Twitter and Facebook profit off of speech on their platforms, and actively drive users to content that increase engagement. Furthermore they have no accountability when they cancel people and businesses, which again, the left knows about. We can change the incentives and repercussions without encouraging them to censor speech they unilaterally don’t like.

Re: Twitter permanently bans Project Veritas account

#60

Post by mc32 »

chrononaut wrote: post #58
autoditype wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Last I checked Twitter is not a state-run operation that will arrest or kill people who report information that it doesn't agree with. This isn't Pravda, that was KGB. Pravda is a better analogy as it was a newspaper. Your comment just flamed with additional hyperbole. There's no need for that here

> Pravda is a better analogy as it was a newspaper. Your comment just flamed with additional hyperbole. There's no need for that here I don't think I inflamed anything. You are correct. Pravda did not employ actors who assassinated or arrested other individuals. They were the mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. If Pravda was an independent organization that mischievously drove a specific agenda, I…

Twitter at the core represents an ideology. Pravda (of yesteryear) represented an ideology.
Post reply on HN