Which idiot created the title?
For anyone interested: there wasn't any Signal security failure, someone sent stuff via Signal to people they shouldn't have.
The Guardian, reporting Trump's own words. So I guess ultimately the idiot that created the title is the idiot currently in charge.
Massive fucking OpSec failure. All on the nupties that Trump has hired to run his admin. And of course, the buck stops anywhere but at Mango Mussolini's desk.
Nah, the idiot is the one who spreads misinformation by using misleading titles. In what world did a "Signal security failure" occur? The title is extremely misleading and one can only hope it was incompetence; not intent.
What Trump calls things should be irrelevant to a news site.
It’s clearly indicated as a quote.
The headline isn’t misleading. It isn’t leading at all, which is part of the problem actually.
Nope, it's not. The part saying "the only glitch in two months" is indicated as a quote, but overall the title sounds like there's a security issue in Signal and Trump chose to dismiss it because it's the only glitch in the last two months.
There are no quotes. So it is not something Trump said. It was interpreted by the author of the news story.
Trump told NBC News that Goldberg’s presence in the chat had “no impact at all” on the military operation, and defended Waltz, claiming that the leak was “the only glitch in two months, and it turned out not to be a serious one”, as the White House sought to downplay the incident.
Y'all really need to learn to read the article before having a false opinion on it.
And where exactly do you see “Signal security failure” in the quoted text?
Alright, fair. I see your point now. Sorry to come out swinging like that. I think I misunderstood what you were trying to say originally.
The "security failure" was in government operatives using unsecured modes of communication. Signal itself did not have a security failure, the US government did.
The bit about it being a """glitch""" is a direct quote though (and a bold faced lie by the president).
All good. It’s just an unnecessary punch against Signal. Especially journalist rely heavily on it, so I don’t know what the intention was with this title.
There are absolutely quotes. No wonder media literacy is shit.
Single quotes are AP style in America for quotes within quotes and in headlines.
Single quotes are fully acceptable as quotes in other places. Like Englishland.
Tell me you are dense, without telling me you are dense. You can’t make this shit up 🤣
I’m not going to further teach grammar.
Look around, there should be plenty of Nazis around, though I doubt many of them remember high school English either.
What’s up, buddy? Why the sudden silence? Or did you finally realize that “Signal security failure” was never something someone said and it was actually just something the author came up with?
Sure sure. Oh. About the quotes. Do you mind sharing a screenshot of the quotes you are talking about?
I found the headline misleading because the phrase Signal security failure (with no quotes) could be incorrectly interpreted as Signal's security failure instead of what it actually is, the Trump administration's security failure. It's not Signal's fault that the Trump administration is incompetent, and the headline writer should have been more careful to make this clear.
Have my upvote. Because my view is the same. The title included a quote, which is even marked as a quote. However, “Signal security failure” is without quotes. So the author just chose to unnecessarily blame Signal, instead of the real issue.
That phrase can also be parsed as a security failure involving signal, not because of it. Like a treaty created at camp david (eg) could be referred to in a headline as "camp david treaty" even if the official title is "Sweden Finland pact to stop throwing rotten fish over the border accord".
That’s right. It is just unnecessary to mention Signal at all in this case, as it might cause confusion.
What the shitgibbon calls things should be reported on, then promptly countered, so his bullshit can't get embedded in the zeitgeist.
We also need more news sites. If you think you can do a better job reporting the news than the Guardian, than by all means, please do so, and do what you think is best. Because the only way we'll get past this is by holding Master Mould Shitgibbon and his merry band of miscreants' multiple fuckups to the light in as many ways as possible.
Sorry not sorry for not engaging in the shiny object you seem fixated on. I've got bigger fish to fry.
Ah, so reporting stuff he said as if it was true, even though this is not a Signal security issue, but his incompetence is fine in your book?
So what, if Trump says random bullshit, every news piece about it should sound like they actually agree with what he said?
Okay, enjoy your articles about Signal security issues.
I don't particularly care about your fish or your frying.
Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him---oh it doesn't matter when you do it.
He is not wrong. Because anything else that happened in the last two was a string of catastrophies.
no it's not
that's still a big fucking glitch
You had one job, and still you managed to leak data through the most secure software on the planet. When’s he gonna start shouting out Hilary Clinton again?
The first glitch was him winning.
No, that was called cheating
I absolutely despise this timeline.
If he said it, then there have definitely been many more "glitches" prior; this is just the first one that became widely publicized.
This is up there with his "well-oiled machine" statement.
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News