Despite much information on the internet Bendelladj did not get sentenced to death, and claims saying he donated any money to charity are almost impossible to verify. Trial documents did not mention any donations or charity activities, making the claim of charity disputed and not known for sure.
Is there any proof of the charity claims? Because Wikipedia gives nothing
Homeboy probably spent .000001% of the money on PR, bought a shitton of bitcoin with the rest, go to jail a few years, buy an island when he gets out, maybe Trump will be willing to sell Greenland to him at that point who knows
That article doesn’t cite anything either, only that “some sources say” he donated some of the money. A far cry from the claim that he donated all of the stolen $4b.
Absolutely, that’s their one major source of bias. They lean mildly to the left, but I’m very much okay with that given what “leaning right” means these days
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-3.2)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (4.7)
Country: Qatar
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
What’s a good unbiased source? As an example
I checked DW on the above website and while they’re rated as being left center and having a high factual reporting, thanks to Germany’s general bias they currently report very little about Palestine.
I think you have to read a variety of sources and favor the outlets that report facts without reporter opinion. I’d use Al jazeera for news outside of the middle east, but also add reuters and Associated Press.
Foreign language press is also interesting if you feel your sources have bias.
Is there any proof of the charity claims? Because Wikipedia gives nothing
Homeboy probably spent .000001% of the money on PR, bought a shitton of bitcoin with the rest, go to jail a few years, buy an island when he gets out, maybe Trump will be willing to sell Greenland to him at that point who knows
Pretty much any word in the picture is contradicted by the Wikipedia article
As many narrative exist depending on who’s facts you’re listening to.
Would be a bad hacker if he left a trail of all the money
Money leaves a trail by itself, it doesn’t magically disappear and reappear somewhere else
There is a huge business of money laundering built specifically for this purpose. Any hacker worth their salt should know someone or some place.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/9/21/hamza-bendelladj-is-the-algerian-hacker-a-hero
That article doesn’t cite anything either, only that “some sources say” he donated some of the money. A far cry from the claim that he donated all of the stolen $4b.
Al-Jazeera is not a credible source
Aljazeera is a fine source as long as you’re not looking at their news regarding Qatar/Qatari interests.
Absolutely, that’s their one major source of bias. They lean mildly to the left, but I’m very much okay with that given what “leaning right” means these days
More credible than most US media conglomerate news sources
Oh my God, could there be alternatives somewhere between the US and radical Islamists? 😱
Sure. Jacobin et al
So like the New York Times?
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-3.2) Factual Reporting: MIXED (4.7) Country: Qatar MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: LIMITED FREEDOM Media Type: TV Station Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
What’s a good unbiased source? As an example I checked DW on the above website and while they’re rated as being left center and having a high factual reporting, thanks to Germany’s general bias they currently report very little about Palestine.
I think you have to read a variety of sources and favor the outlets that report facts without reporter opinion. I’d use Al jazeera for news outside of the middle east, but also add reuters and Associated Press.
Foreign language press is also interesting if you feel your sources have bias.
Yeah no.