Are you disputing the stated facts, or just the (unstated) connection to the other issues? A conflict of interest is a conflict of interest, no matter how far it may or may not have gone.

Both.

Shadow provides peer to peer engagement software, which is being used by the Buttigieg campaign. Just because the same software is being used in Iowa doesn't mean there is a conflict of interest.

https://shadowinc.io/

But you're not really disputing the facts there - the CEO's husband being an advisor, Buttigieg's organizing director being a former employee, etc?

No one has provided evidence of this either. But, if the evidence is presented it still doesn't prove that there is a conflict of interest.

I think the standard is to avoid the appearance of a conflict, not to have plausible deniability. I think the person’s point is that it doesn’t look good, and this is the kind of scenario where _you need everything to look good_, because when shit like this happens, it erodes confidence all the more.

Which specific claims are false?

As far as I know, all of it. The commenter hasn't provided any sources, and I can't find any evidence of a conflict of interest.

As it stands, this is a blatant attempt to discredit the app developer, the Buttigieg campaign, and the DNC.

I've listed connections between the app developer and Buttigieg. Those connections are real. There's no conspiracy there.

You are implying that the app developer, the Buttigieg campaign, former Hillary Clinton staffers, and the DNC are working together in bad faith. Along with the context of the article, you are implying that there is a connection between the aforementioned parties and declining the DHS' offer to test the app.

I've said nothing about a conspiracy. I've only said there's a clear conflict of interest, which I stand by. You shouldn't hire a developer that is ideologically driven and tilted toward certain candidates over others, and has very clear close connections with a single campaign.

>You are conspiring that the app developer

You're not even using the word 'conspiring' correctly.

You're right. I edited it to "implying."

FYI, it would be implying.

An implication (by the speaker) is inferred (by the listener).

Thanks! TIL

It makes no sense to pick a technology provider without a real RFP process.

Calling something a conspiracy theory is a new way to shame people who hold opinions that are different than your own.

You're saying that like the anti-vaxx/chem-trail crowd don't deserve to be shamed.

Sometimes people are wrong. If you don't like getting callled out, argue your position.

You're saying that like pointing out that the Hillary people ran the development for this app is similar to anti vaccine arguments. They arent similar.

> Calling something a conspiracy theory is a new way to shame people who hold opinions that are different than your own.

Is a vastly more broad statement. All I'm pointing out is that anti-vaxx people would say the exact same thing. Answer challenges with facts and arguments, not useless bold claims.