Starting in early 2018, Airbnb added another layer of disclosure: If hosts indicate they have cameras anywhere on their property, guests receive a pop-up informing them where the cameras are located and where they are aimed. To book the property, the guests must click “agree,” indicating that they’re aware of the cameras and consent to being filmed.
This is in the top 3 requests I get from hosts while making floor plans of their properties as a service: https://www.archibnb.com. So far all the cameras were outdoors, aimed at the entrance door. In any case, hosts want to be sure guests understand exactly where the cameras are.
Of course not, but it's not what he was charged with and it has nothing to do with the Russiagate narrative. Presumably that's why he wasn't charged with that.
The article is not the source of truth. The article is simply a collection of facts. A very large number of externally sourced and undisputed facts. Facts like "On December 29, 2016, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released an unclassified report[91] that gave new technical details regarding methods used by Russian intelligence services for affecting the U.S. election, government, political organizations and private sector.", to pick one virtually at random.
I'm not pointing to the length of the article or the number of citations as direct support - I'm simply showing how overwhelmingly the burden of proof is on the person claiming it's all made up. To suggest that there was no Russian election interference of any sort is on par with moon landing denial. Literally nobody seriously asserts that - not even Trump! (Not anymore, anyway). That bears repeating, if you think Russians didn't interfere with the 2016 presidential election, you have a weaker grasp of reality than Donald Trump. It's frightening post-truth wingnuttery.
It's highly disputed. We just don't hear about that outside alternative sources. Taibbi alludes to this in the OP:
I didn’t really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece of the story seemed “solid,” but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an “assessment” by the intelligence services that always had issues, including the use of things like RT’s “anti-American” coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government didn’t even examine the DNC’s server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
Words like "wingnuttery" and "moon landing" weaken your case. If you get enough publications to print something, you can make a terrifically long list of citations, but what does that prove? Quality matters, not quantity, and the quality of journalism devoted to this case has been astonishingly low, as Taibbi shows. As he says:
We won’t know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors.
Taibbi has mellowed, alas, but at least he can still do this:
"Imagine how tone-deaf you’d have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without pants."
The click reasons, ideological reasons, and hate/fear reasons (of Trump as an interloper in the political class) fused into an alloy. It's impossible to separate these.
