We view things through the lens of our beliefs and prejudices. So she was just doing it as a hobby and Rolling Stone “outed” or “doxed” her which brought unwanted attention, so they are bad guys. Maybe. But she was digging up “facts” about various people and publishing them, couldn’t you view that as the same thing Rolling Stone did? Some would call it “FAFO”. I’m not sure I see any good guys in this story.
From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Chuck Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 11:42 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Twitter by any other name would still smell She never made any claims. She was anon and doing it as a hobby. RS outed her. She has never made any statement as to her sources but she had written a bit about her methods. I just enjoy how she seemingly has a nice UI showing how agencies and people connect. She has published some of those connections on X and that got her a bunch of unwanted attention. The claims about connections and sources seem to come from the various articles that have been published about her. I think she should be lauded for her work. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 17, 2025, at 10:05 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected]> wrote: People are generally pretty bad at assessing sources. Even if they're great at it they don't have time to check everything. Some curating and integrity has to be built in. DataRepublican is an interesting case in point. Read her actual data. She's drawing conclusions driven by her feelings and assumptions. Her charts and numbers don't actually show any connection to her claims. On this Tom Cotton/IRI thing she spits out numbers about the salaries and benefits paid, but none of it is out of line for the size of the organization. I think in reality she sees something funded by tax payers, decides she doesn't like that thing (i.e. because it aligns with "global elites" or the "uniparty"). She concludes that thing is fraud. Then she looks at the paths of funding and sees USAID in the path. Therefore USAID is the source of the fraud. People on the board of that org must be in league with the evil/bad. Meanwhile once again: The data she is providing is not actually supporting her claims. You either have to believe that she has evidence she's not showing us, or that she just unsupported theories. This is not a news source. _____ From: AF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > on behalf of Jeff Broadwick - Lists <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2025 2:28 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Twitter by any other name would still smell X is an amazing news source! Like any other source, you have to look at the bias of the contributor, but that’s pretty easy. It’s now the free speech platform of choice. The crowd fact checking is quite good…unless one can’t let go of past lies that “fact checkers” regularly spewed. Regards, Jeff Jeff Broadwick CTIconnect 312-205-2519 Office 574-220-7826 Cell [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> On Mar 16, 2025, at 11:47 AM, Adam Moffett <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: I’m more than a little disturbed by the state of things. Apparently Twitter is now an information source? Why? When you hear people say stuff at a cocktail party you don’t believe all of it right? It’s just a person talking. It’s not been reviewed, edited, or vetted. Even if it was Albert Einstein talking about physics you don’t know if he’s being accurate when he’s speaking off the cuff, and you don’t know if he’s joking (or even lying). Twitter is just 50 million people talking at a cocktail party. Facebook is graffiti on the bathroom wall. The most frightening thing to me about our future is that we’ve come to rely on these as information sources. Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> -- AF mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
