Daily conspiracy

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yeah just like the Hunter Biden story was Russian misinformation, according to yours. Your source? The CIA haha. And just like you and yours call Julian Assange fake news when nothing he's published has even been shown to be false.

---

---

Your favourite youtuber Vaush hasn't taken his coverage of this down yet. I guess this confirms that your favourite youtuber is a conspiracy theorist. Welcome to the club, buddy. We've been waiting for you. Funny how you gush about how much you love Vaush when you supposedly disagree with 100 percent of what he says lol.

You clearly didn’t read the article Helios linked, while he - just as clearly - read yours.

Boru

Oh, he won't or we claim he did but won't. Then he will distort what it said or insist it's somehow flawed and his reasons to say it is will be nonsense. Anything to delude himself he's right because that's what is important. Frankly, his antics have gotten old at this point.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Yeah just like the Hunter Biden story was Russian misinformation, according to yours. Your source? The CIA haha. And just like you and yours call Julian Assange fake news when nothing he's published has even been shown to be false.

---

---

Your favourite youtuber Vaush hasn't taken his coverage of this down yet. I guess this confirms that your favourite youtuber is a conspiracy theorist. Welcome to the club, buddy. We've been waiting for you. Funny how you gush about how much you love Vaush when you supposedly disagree with 100 percent of what he says lol.

You clearly didn’t read the article Helios linked, while he - just as clearly - read yours.

Boru

Helios didn't link any article in the post I responded to. His post was three words, as was his post before that. Also three words. I responded to the actual contents of those two three word posts of his. I was planning on reading his link and addressing that particular post of his, of course, but I was playing a video game for a couple of hours, so I will address that post of his now.

Never heard of techdirt personally, but that's fine. I'll judge based on what the author says and not who they are. The author of the article doesn't exactly come off like any type of journalist, constantly throwing out phrases like "absolute garbage" and "bullshit". The author makes note that much of what was in the article was public information. The original Intercept article mentioned that, so I'm not quite seeing the issue here. And I'm seeing that Helios' article has put in an update admitting that they personally posted misinformation about all of this stuff being public, and I'll give them respect for correcting that error at least, but their original article responding to supposed misinformation, was...wait for it... misinformation itself. Funny.

The author of Helios article says what is happening sounds reasonable. Well, that's his personal opinion. Has nothing to do with the veracity of the Intercept's article. The author of the article says that the line about social media being "hesitant" to get comfortable with the government supposedly debunks the whole article. That's silly. You can be hesitant to work with the government completely while still doing it. You can be hesitant to work with the mob, but that doesn't mean you're not going to do it. I'm starting to take this supposed source Helios has given me less and less seriously as I read on. Can I get something a little better? Can I get a news source I've actually heard of before, maybe?

The author of Helios article says the Intercept article was slightly confusing and some people interpreted it as saying Masterson was currently working for the DHS at the time of his quote, rather than he formerly worked for the DHS, which the author says the Intercept changed in their article to make that more clear. This is Helios big gotcha? That the Intercept article said he worked for the DHS, and supposedly wasn't clear enough about him being formerly with the DHS rather than currently. Yes, I agree that the Intercept article should have been as clear as possible, but for Helios to say "very fake news" because of one tiny insignificant mistake like that?

The author of Helios article says that while they talked about accountability for social media companies, they mostly focused on education. So what if they mostly focused on education in this particular thing he's mentioning? That doesn't take away from the fact that they also talked about accountability. I swear, Helios just googled "Intercept article debunked" and posted the first crap he could find without even reading it.

The author of Helios article literally admits that portals exist for government officials to make reports to social media companies, but justifies these portals by saying that this is necessary so reports don't get lost in the flow. Was this article written by a member of the DHS themselves? This is ridiculously funny. Thanks for the laughs, Helios.

The author of Helios article again posts misinformation by saying that the portal is just for police investigations and government officials can't make special reports, but then posts and update (respect for that at least) and admits that government officials can make these special requests. Maybe this guy should have done a bit more research before calling everything BS.

The author of Helios article says it's reasonable for the government to be concerned with online discussion concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seriously, does this guy work for the US government? He's not actually debunking anything at all. All this guy is doing is saying that he loves what the government is doing and he approves.

The author then posts this, and I quote " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ". Very professional and something journalists and legitimate news sites do all the time, amirite? Sounds like a memeposter rather than any type of journalist.

Can I please get a source that people have actually heard of, rather than the meme poster that Helios provided for me? Is that really the best we've got? You've seen me admit that I was wrong probably over 20 times on here or more. I have no problem admitting that I've fallen for fake news. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

[The Architect Of Fate]

My prediction was verified.

But I will grant the wall of waffling and babble was an unexpected bonus 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You clearly didn’t read the article Helios linked, while he - just as clearly - read yours.

Boru

Helios didn't link any article in the post I responded to. His post was three words, as was his post before that. Also three words. I responded to the actual contents of those two three word posts of his. I was planning on reading his link and addressing that particular post of his, of course, but I was playing a video game for a couple of hours, so I will address that post of his now.

Never heard of techdirt personally, but that's fine. I'll judge based on what the author says and not who they are. The author of the article doesn't exactly come off like any type of journalist, constantly throwing out phrases like "absolute garbage" and "bullshit". The author makes note that much of what was in the article was public information. The original Intercept article mentioned that, so I'm not quite seeing the issue here. And I'm seeing that Helios' article has put in an update admitting that they personally posted misinformation about all of this stuff being public, and I'll give them respect for correcting that error at least, but their original article responding to supposed misinformation, was...wait for it... misinformation itself. Funny.

The author of Helios article says what is happening sounds reasonable. Well, that's his personal opinion. Has nothing to do with the veracity of the Intercept's article. The author of the article says that the line about social media being "hesitant" to get comfortable with the government supposedly debunks the whole article. That's silly. You can be hesitant to work with the government completely while still doing it. You can be hesitant to work with the mob, but that doesn't mean you're not going to do it. I'm starting to take this supposed source Helios has given me less and less seriously as I read on. Can I get something a little better? Can I get a news source I've actually heard of before, maybe?

The author of Helios article says the Intercept article was slightly confusing and some people interpreted it as saying Masterson was currently working for the DHS at the time of his quote, rather than he formerly worked for the DHS, which the author says the Intercept changed in their article to make that more clear. This is Helios big gotcha? That the Intercept article said he worked for the DHS, and supposedly wasn't clear enough about him being formerly with the DHS rather than currently. Yes, I agree that the Intercept article should have been as clear as possible, but for Helios to say "very fake news" because of one tiny insignificant mistake like that?

The author of Helios article says that while they talked about accountability for social media companies, they mostly focused on education. So what if they mostly focused on education in this particular thing he's mentioning? That doesn't take away from the fact that they also talked about accountability. I swear, Helios just googled "Intercept article debunked" and posted the first crap he could find without even reading it.

The author of Helios article literally admits that portals exist for government officials to make reports to social media companies, but justifies these portals by saying that this is necessary so reports don't get lost in the flow. Was this article written by a member of the DHS themselves? This is ridiculously funny. Thanks for the laughs, Helios.

The author of Helios article again posts misinformation by saying that the portal is just for police investigations and government officials can't make special reports, but then posts and update (respect for that at least) and admits that government officials can make these special requests. Maybe this guy should have done a bit more research before calling everything BS.

The author of Helios article says it's reasonable for the government to be concerned with online discussion concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seriously, does this guy work for the US government? He's not actually debunking anything at all. All this guy is doing is saying that he loves what the government is doing and he approves.

The author then posts this, and I quote " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ". Very professional and something journalists and legitimate news sites do all the time, amirite? Sounds like a memeposter rather than any type of journalist.

Can I please get a source that people have actually heard of, rather than the meme poster that Helios provided for me? Is that really the best we've got? You've seen me admit that I was wrong probably over 20 times on here or more. I have no problem admitting that I've fallen for fake news. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

(Bold mine)

I'd be interested to see how you reconcile those two statements.

Boru

[Irreligious Atheist]

My prediction was verified.

Yes, you posted a meme poster as a source. Care to interpret this for me that your author posted  "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" . Is that the Randy Orton stretched out arm pose from WWE wrestling?".

[The Architect Of Fate]

Helios didn't link any article in the post I responded to. His post was three words, as was his post before that. Also three words. I responded to the actual contents of those two three word posts of his. I was planning on reading his link and addressing that particular post of his, of course, but I was playing a video game for a couple of hours, so I will address that post of his now.

Never heard of techdirt personally, but that's fine. I'll judge based on what the author says and not who they are. The author of the article doesn't exactly come off like any type of journalist, constantly throwing out phrases like "absolute garbage" and "bullshit". The author makes note that much of what was in the article was public information. The original Intercept article mentioned that, so I'm not quite seeing the issue here. And I'm seeing that Helios' article has put in an update admitting that they personally posted misinformation about all of this stuff being public, and I'll give them respect for correcting that error at least, but their original article responding to supposed misinformation, was...wait for it... misinformation itself. Funny.

The author of Helios article says what is happening sounds reasonable. Well, that's his personal opinion. Has nothing to do with the veracity of the Intercept's article. The author of the article says that the line about social media being "hesitant" to get comfortable with the government supposedly debunks the whole article. That's silly. You can be hesitant to work with the government completely while still doing it. You can be hesitant to work with the mob, but that doesn't mean you're not going to do it. I'm starting to take this supposed source Helios has given me less and less seriously as I read on. Can I get something a little better? Can I get a news source I've actually heard of before, maybe?

The author of Helios article says the Intercept article was slightly confusing and some people interpreted it as saying Masterson was currently working for the DHS at the time of his quote, rather than he formerly worked for the DHS, which the author says the Intercept changed in their article to make that more clear. This is Helios big gotcha? That the Intercept article said he worked for the DHS, and supposedly wasn't clear enough about him being formerly with the DHS rather than currently. Yes, I agree that the Intercept article should have been as clear as possible, but for Helios to say "very fake news" because of one tiny insignificant mistake like that?

The author of Helios article says that while they talked about accountability for social media companies, they mostly focused on education. So what if they mostly focused on education in this particular thing he's mentioning? That doesn't take away from the fact that they also talked about accountability. I swear, Helios just googled "Intercept article debunked" and posted the first crap he could find without even reading it.

The author of Helios article literally admits that portals exist for government officials to make reports to social media companies, but justifies these portals by saying that this is necessary so reports don't get lost in the flow. Was this article written by a member of the DHS themselves? This is ridiculously funny. Thanks for the laughs, Helios.

The author of Helios article again posts misinformation by saying that the portal is just for police investigations and government officials can't make special reports, but then posts and update (respect for that at least) and admits that government officials can make these special requests. Maybe this guy should have done a bit more research before calling everything BS.

The author of Helios article says it's reasonable for the government to be concerned with online discussion concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seriously, does this guy work for the US government? He's not actually debunking anything at all. All this guy is doing is saying that he loves what the government is doing and he approves.

The author then posts this, and I quote " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ". Very professional and something journalists and legitimate news sites do all the time, amirite? Sounds like a memeposter rather than any type of journalist.

Can I please get a source that people have actually heard of, rather than the meme poster that Helios provided for me? Is that really the best we've got? You've seen me admit that I was wrong probably over 20 times on here or more. I have no problem admitting that I've fallen for fake news. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

(Bold mine)

I'd be interested to see how you reconcile those two statements.

Boru

Did you expect coherence in that wall of nonsense 

[The Architect Of Fate]

Yes, you posted a meme poster as a source. Care to interpret this for me that your author posted  "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" . Is that the Randy Orton stretched out arm pose from WWE wrestling?

Nice genetic fallacy. Maybe try something else 

[Irreligious Atheist]

Helios didn't link any article in the post I responded to. His post was three words, as was his post before that. Also three words. I responded to the actual contents of those two three word posts of his. I was planning on reading his link and addressing that particular post of his, of course, but I was playing a video game for a couple of hours, so I will address that post of his now.

Never heard of techdirt personally, but that's fine. I'll judge based on what the author says and not who they are. The author of the article doesn't exactly come off like any type of journalist, constantly throwing out phrases like "absolute garbage" and "bullshit". The author makes note that much of what was in the article was public information. The original Intercept article mentioned that, so I'm not quite seeing the issue here. And I'm seeing that Helios' article has put in an update admitting that they personally posted misinformation about all of this stuff being public, and I'll give them respect for correcting that error at least, but their original article responding to supposed misinformation, was...wait for it... misinformation itself. Funny.

The author of Helios article says what is happening sounds reasonable. Well, that's his personal opinion. Has nothing to do with the veracity of the Intercept's article. The author of the article says that the line about social media being "hesitant" to get comfortable with the government supposedly debunks the whole article. That's silly. You can be hesitant to work with the government completely while still doing it. You can be hesitant to work with the mob, but that doesn't mean you're not going to do it. I'm starting to take this supposed source Helios has given me less and less seriously as I read on. Can I get something a little better? Can I get a news source I've actually heard of before, maybe?

The author of Helios article says the Intercept article was slightly confusing and some people interpreted it as saying Masterson was currently working for the DHS at the time of his quote, rather than he formerly worked for the DHS, which the author says the Intercept changed in their article to make that more clear. This is Helios big gotcha? That the Intercept article said he worked for the DHS, and supposedly wasn't clear enough about him being formerly with the DHS rather than currently. Yes, I agree that the Intercept article should have been as clear as possible, but for Helios to say "very fake news" because of one tiny insignificant mistake like that?

The author of Helios article says that while they talked about accountability for social media companies, they mostly focused on education. So what if they mostly focused on education in this particular thing he's mentioning? That doesn't take away from the fact that they also talked about accountability. I swear, Helios just googled "Intercept article debunked" and posted the first crap he could find without even reading it.

The author of Helios article literally admits that portals exist for government officials to make reports to social media companies, but justifies these portals by saying that this is necessary so reports don't get lost in the flow. Was this article written by a member of the DHS themselves? This is ridiculously funny. Thanks for the laughs, Helios.

The author of Helios article again posts misinformation by saying that the portal is just for police investigations and government officials can't make special reports, but then posts and update (respect for that at least) and admits that government officials can make these special requests. Maybe this guy should have done a bit more research before calling everything BS.

The author of Helios article says it's reasonable for the government to be concerned with online discussion concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seriously, does this guy work for the US government? He's not actually debunking anything at all. All this guy is doing is saying that he loves what the government is doing and he approves.

The author then posts this, and I quote " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ". Very professional and something journalists and legitimate news sites do all the time, amirite? Sounds like a memeposter rather than any type of journalist.

Can I please get a source that people have actually heard of, rather than the meme poster that Helios provided for me? Is that really the best we've got? You've seen me admit that I was wrong probably over 20 times on here or more. I have no problem admitting that I've fallen for fake news. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

(Bold mine)

I'd be interested to see how you reconcile those two statements.

Boru

I did judge based on what he said, Boru. I came in with an open mind, and that's all you can really ask for. All of the authors points were ridiculous and the author simply has complete trust in the motives of the government.

The authors main point was basically that there weren't literal documents from the government saying "you better submit to us completely social media companies, or we'll fuck you up good." Well, that generally not how things go in life. When the Mob comes around, they don't have to be so boisterous. A wink and a nod is usually all that's needed for both parties to know what's up.

[The Architect Of Fate]

His points were not ridiculous unlike your objections so far and throwing in an argument from motivation. Truly the fallacious cherry on top of this shit sundae 

Yet another failed attempt by IA

AI is like charlie brown trying to kick the football.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Helios didn't link any article in the post I responded to. His post was three words, as was his post before that. Also three words. I responded to the actual contents of those two three word posts of his. I was planning on reading his link and addressing that particular post of his, of course, but I was playing a video game for a couple of hours, so I will address that post of his now.

Never heard of techdirt personally, but that's fine. I'll judge based on what the author says and not who they are. The author of the article doesn't exactly come off like any type of journalist, constantly throwing out phrases like "absolute garbage" and "bullshit". The author makes note that much of what was in the article was public information. The original Intercept article mentioned that, so I'm not quite seeing the issue here. And I'm seeing that Helios' article has put in an update admitting that they personally posted misinformation about all of this stuff being public, and I'll give them respect for correcting that error at least, but their original article responding to supposed misinformation, was...wait for it... misinformation itself. Funny.

The author of Helios article says what is happening sounds reasonable. Well, that's his personal opinion. Has nothing to do with the veracity of the Intercept's article. The author of the article says that the line about social media being "hesitant" to get comfortable with the government supposedly debunks the whole article. That's silly. You can be hesitant to work with the government completely while still doing it. You can be hesitant to work with the mob, but that doesn't mean you're not going to do it. I'm starting to take this supposed source Helios has given me less and less seriously as I read on. Can I get something a little better? Can I get a news source I've actually heard of before, maybe?

The author of Helios article says the Intercept article was slightly confusing and some people interpreted it as saying Masterson was currently working for the DHS at the time of his quote, rather than he formerly worked for the DHS, which the author says the Intercept changed in their article to make that more clear. This is Helios big gotcha? That the Intercept article said he worked for the DHS, and supposedly wasn't clear enough about him being formerly with the DHS rather than currently. Yes, I agree that the Intercept article should have been as clear as possible, but for Helios to say "very fake news" because of one tiny insignificant mistake like that?

The author of Helios article says that while they talked about accountability for social media companies, they mostly focused on education. So what if they mostly focused on education in this particular thing he's mentioning? That doesn't take away from the fact that they also talked about accountability. I swear, Helios just googled "Intercept article debunked" and posted the first crap he could find without even reading it.

The author of Helios article literally admits that portals exist for government officials to make reports to social media companies, but justifies these portals by saying that this is necessary so reports don't get lost in the flow. Was this article written by a member of the DHS themselves? This is ridiculously funny. Thanks for the laughs, Helios.

The author of Helios article again posts misinformation by saying that the portal is just for police investigations and government officials can't make special reports, but then posts and update (respect for that at least) and admits that government officials can make these special requests. Maybe this guy should have done a bit more research before calling everything BS.

The author of Helios article says it's reasonable for the government to be concerned with online discussion concerning the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Seriously, does this guy work for the US government? He's not actually debunking anything at all. All this guy is doing is saying that he loves what the government is doing and he approves.

The author then posts this, and I quote " ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ". Very professional and something journalists and legitimate news sites do all the time, amirite? Sounds like a memeposter rather than any type of journalist.

Can I please get a source that people have actually heard of, rather than the meme poster that Helios provided for me? Is that really the best we've got? You've seen me admit that I was wrong probably over 20 times on here or more. I have no problem admitting that I've fallen for fake news. That doesn't appear to be the case here though.

(Bold mine)

I'd be interested to see how you reconcile those two statements.

Boru

Note the IA never actually addresses your objection more waffles around it