Strahcoin wrote:
I need more context until I can accurately determine if what he said is bad. Assuming the sources are honest and transparent, I would condemn the whistleblower on those grounds.
But that neither certifies nor debunks the information he provided regarding Google's bias.
When a known liar, the head of an organization infamous for comitting fraud and presenting cases dishonestly, promotes someone with a history of supporting baseless and dangerous conspiracy theories, there's very good reasons to be sceptical about the veracity of both the documents themselves and the conclusions drawn.
That does not mean the information provided should be completely disregarded, but it does mean that we need supporting evidence and/or independent verification - something which has not (yet) been provided. Note, for example, how the OP claims the San Francisco police has "confirmed" the claim that they carried out a ‘wellness check’ at the behest of Google - yet no such actual confirmation by the police has been presented. Why has that been impossible to provide? It should be a very simple thing.
In light of all this, it's prudent to disregard the claims made, at the very least until the documents are verified by more credible sources.
