I'd tweak that slightly. I think they should be considered unproven or unsubstantiated, that doesn't make them false.
Assuming they're false because they haven't been nearly immediately proven publicly makes it too easy for those concerns and allegations to be written off and ignored.
A potential fact coming from an untrustworthy person isn't immediately false. An untrustworthy person can be right and a trustworthy can be wrong.
The point is that we can't consider a claim true or false. We need evidence to prove it is true, and we can never really prove its false unless we can see all information that could possibly be related to the question.
I don't personally see the government release all information that could possibly be related to any question of fraud or abuse, so we're left either proving it true or considering it unsubstantiated or unproven.
> A potential fact coming from an untrustworthy person isn't immediately false. An untrustworthy person can be right and a trustworthy can be wrong.
An untrustworthy person is trying to convince you of something, and has access and control of all the information to substantiate everything he's saying. Why is anything left unproven? Because he's relying on information asymmetry to confound you. It's the same thing he did with the so-called "Twitter Files", where he selectively leaked one-sided information to spin a narrative. He's doing the same thing with Doge and people are falling for it. Probably the same ones who fell for the "Twitter files".
Proven liars rely on credulous people like yourself to continue operating once their lies are widely known. That's why when such a liar has power, the only rational stance is extreme skepticism until, like I said, an independent verification can be obtained. Otherwise you open yourself to be taken advantage of.
> I don't personally see the government release all information that could possibly be related to any question of fraud or abuse
We're not asking for that kind of a standard. I would be satisfied with releasing the necessary information that would be sufficient in proving specific questions of fraud raised by Musk to the public. Trusted third parties with appropriate clearances can handle sensitive information, and it can be appropriately redacted for public consumption.
> An untrustworthy person is trying to convince you of something, and has access and control of all the information to substantiate everything he's saying. Why is anything left unproven?
Not totally relevant here, but I find it interesting that this description is literally how our legal system works. The prosecutor is trying to convince the jury of something and the prosecutor holds all their potential evidence, deciding for themselves what to deem relevant or exculpatory.
> We're not asking for that kind of a standard. I would be satisfied with releasing the necessary information that would be sufficient in proving specific questions of fraud raised by Musk to the public.
Agreed, that was actually what I meant in the other option I gave - they can prove the claim true by making public limited facts. I only raised that all related information would have to be released if the goal is to prove the claim false, which it sounds like you don't want or expect.
I would fully expect them to eventually release proof of fraud claims, until then I consider them claims of fraud that are so far unproven.
Doesn't that apply to all, or nearly all, politicians at the federal level?
Even the names they give major bills are technically a lie, any legislator that supports or votes for it is lying. Campaign speeches and promises are riddled with lies and omissions. Presidents lie while in office.
I don't mean to play whataboutism here. I'm all for calling out lying politicians here, but I'd extend that to everyone that fits the bill.
