171
submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 72 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 38 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

There are no quotes. So it is not something Trump said. It was interpreted by the author of the news story.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

And where exactly do you see “Signal security failure” in the quoted text?

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

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).

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Tell me you are dense, without telling me you are dense. You can’t make this shit up 🤣

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Sure sure. Oh. About the quotes. Do you mind sharing a screenshot of the quotes you are talking about?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

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".

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

That’s right. It is just unnecessary to mention Signal at all in this case, as it might cause confusion.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

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.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

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.

[-] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago

Lock him up!
Lock him up!
Lock him---oh it doesn't matter when you do it.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago

He is not wrong. Because anything else that happened in the last two was a string of catastrophies.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago
  1. no it's not

  2. that's still a big fucking glitch

[-] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago

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?

[-] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

The first glitch was him winning.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

No, that was called cheating

[-] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago

I absolutely despise this timeline.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

If he said it, then there have definitely been many more "glitches" prior; this is just the first one that became widely publicized.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

This is up there with his "well-oiled machine" statement.

this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
171 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24936 readers
2298 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS