Thread by @hilzoy

Media tidbit: I was driving home today when the NPR segment linked below came on. At 2:30 on the linked audio file, @bdomenech says (about the indictment):

"Much of it is taken up by the numbers of times that people were posting memes on the internet."

npr.org/2018/07/13/628…

@bdomenech 2/ Now: I rad the indictment. How much of it concerns memes? None, as far as I can recall. It's about Russians first hacking computers and then disseminating what they found. Not about memes.

I suspect @bdomenech got punked by this:

https://twitter.com/drewtoothpaste/status/1017810938991448064

@bdomenech 3/ However: to be fooled by that, you'd have to either not have read the indictment at all, or have read it so carelessly that you didn't think: memes? Huh?

You'd then have to not check against the original, which is easy, since you just have to scroll to sec. 48.

@bdomenech 4/ You would also have to believe that Mueller's office would put the word 'shitposting' in an indictment, which seems, um, unlikely.

However it may be, there is NO way to read the indictment carefully and come away thinking that large chunks of it concern memes. None.

@bdomenech 5/ Thus I conclude that while @bdomenech did not bother to read the indictment carefully, even though he was about to appear on All Things Considered discussing it. Which is not a good thing.

Plagiarism is not the only form of intellectual dishonesty.

Attn @ailsachang

Having read some reactions to this thread: imho, the point is not that @bdomenech got taken in by a fake tweet. It's that he was taken in by a tweet that no one who read the indictment carefully would have been taken in by, ESPECIALLY not if they were preparing to go on NPR.

It's like someone who claims to be a constitutional scholar being taken in by a tweet about the 43rd Amendment.

You just can't not know that it's fake.