Fox News, Dominion Voting Systems reach $787,500,000 settlement(cbsnews.com)
cbsnews.com
Fox News, Dominion Voting Systems reach $787,500,000 settlement
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-lawsuit-settlement/
239 comments
For the record, the word "dominion" does not appear anywhere on the live foxnews.com site.
https://imgur.com/a/cXcITll
How would the Fox News crowd even become aware of those messages when their information sources don't report them?
https://imgur.com/a/cXcITll
How would the Fox News crowd even become aware of those messages when their information sources don't report them?
They won't, but wouldn't anyway. A civil suit can recover damages, it can't make Fox into something other than what it is.
But no one who would have been receptive to the truth is watching Fox in the first place. That is, really, the core truth exposed by this suit. Fox is completely captured by its audience. For years we thought it was the other way around.
But no one who would have been receptive to the truth is watching Fox in the first place. That is, really, the core truth exposed by this suit. Fox is completely captured by its audience. For years we thought it was the other way around.
A settlement can contain just about anything. For example, it could require Fox to air an MSNBC produced 1 hour primetime special about the whole affair.
Yes, but why would Fox “settle” for something harmful to their business that Dominion could not, in the worst case, win in court?
A settlement might contain something that wouldn’t be on the table in a court judgement if the value it adds to the side that gets it is disproportional to the cost to the side providing it — so that it is win-win compared to a compromise within the scope of potential court outcomes — but this is the opposite, less valuable to Dominion and more harmful to Fox than money.
A settlement might contain something that wouldn’t be on the table in a court judgement if the value it adds to the side that gets it is disproportional to the cost to the side providing it — so that it is win-win compared to a compromise within the scope of potential court outcomes — but this is the opposite, less valuable to Dominion and more harmful to Fox than money.
Contracts can constrain or direct speech in specific ways. So sure, you could put that one special in a settlement. There are severe first amendment problems when you try to do something more vague, like "You have to report on unflattering stories about Fox itself", which I took to be the upthread point.
It's on their front page:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-media-dominion-voting...
https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-media-dominion-voting...
I think the GP comment meant the messages entered into evidence in the lawsuit that showed internal Fox communication basically admitting the Dominion claims some of their on-air personalities were making were at best unverified and at worse outright knowingly false.
I don't see any Fox News reporting that quotes those messages that were entered into evidence. Though admittedly I didn't spend much time looking-- just the first 3 pages of results in a search.
I don't see any Fox News reporting that quotes those messages that were entered into evidence. Though admittedly I didn't spend much time looking-- just the first 3 pages of results in a search.
I just scrolled all the way to the bottom to load the full page and Ctrl+F "dominion" returned 0 results. 9PM EDT
Again, for the record, here are screenshots of the entire foxnews.com homepage, from top to bottom, 9 screenshots in total, and there are precisely _zero_ mentions of the settlement with Dominion.
https://imgur.com/a/Wk9elKP
https://imgur.com/a/Wk9elKP
It was there and has since fallen off. If you search for dominion, there's a video clip that doesn't even mention the damages and is saying "oh fox settled to avoid a lengthy trial that dominion may have lost."
It's so weird to see the Fox News bubble (As someone who never visits the site) isn't just ideological, but also topic specific. For example, they are highlighting Aaron Carter and two Florida men who shot children in a road rage incident.
No comment on the content, just weird to see 'some else's algorithm' beyond the obvious political stuff - I'm vaguely aware of both stories, but have not seen extensive coverage in my bubble.
No comment on the content, just weird to see 'some else's algorithm' beyond the obvious political stuff - I'm vaguely aware of both stories, but have not seen extensive coverage in my bubble.
Yeah I visit it daily along with other news sites. To me the worst thing is more WHAT they choose to report/not report than it is anything else.
Often times there will be a big news story that every other site is reporting on and then the top few stories on Fox News will be some "Guess what gaffe Biden or Harris did now" type tabloid-style hit pieces.
Often times there will be a big news story that every other site is reporting on and then the top few stories on Fox News will be some "Guess what gaffe Biden or Harris did now" type tabloid-style hit pieces.
it's on the frontpage of the foxnews.com site as of a few minutes ago, https://i.jollo.org/J7bF2Ayr.png
https://www.linkpicture.com/q/fox-04182023-2120.png
Now, not a single mention on the entire front page as of a few minutes ago. But they're sure hammering the hell out of this Bud Light story still.
EDIT: Is Jollo your site? I dig it!
Now, not a single mention on the entire front page as of a few minutes ago. But they're sure hammering the hell out of this Bud Light story still.
EDIT: Is Jollo your site? I dig it!
Does their audience even use search?
> Would be nice if the Fox News crowd would read some of those messages to wake up from all the manipulation.
For a lot of people facts don't matter, only culture war. Its no different than sport fans loving their team despite them cheating e.g Astros, Patriots, Red Sox, etc. They just want their team to win.
For a lot of people facts don't matter, only culture war. Its no different than sport fans loving their team despite them cheating e.g Astros, Patriots, Red Sox, etc. They just want their team to win.
I recently discovered Tim Urban's "The thinking ladder"
* Think like a scientist
* Think like a sports fan
* Think like an attorney
* Think like a zaelot
According to his model, being a sports fan is not even close as bad as lower rungs of the ladder. Sport fans do root for their teams and do engage in all sort of tribalism but ultimately care about The Game and they would be deeply dissatisfied if the game ethics were breached in favour of any team, including their own; it would just ruin the whole point of the game.
While the "attorney" persona deliberately ignores the truth or pretends to do so if that requires serving their clients.
Only the true "zaelot" fully lives in their delusion and nothing, truly nothing will make them wake up from anything because waking up would mean losing themeselves.
* Think like a scientist
* Think like a sports fan
* Think like an attorney
* Think like a zaelot
According to his model, being a sports fan is not even close as bad as lower rungs of the ladder. Sport fans do root for their teams and do engage in all sort of tribalism but ultimately care about The Game and they would be deeply dissatisfied if the game ethics were breached in favour of any team, including their own; it would just ruin the whole point of the game.
While the "attorney" persona deliberately ignores the truth or pretends to do so if that requires serving their clients.
Only the true "zaelot" fully lives in their delusion and nothing, truly nothing will make them wake up from anything because waking up would mean losing themeselves.
Except teams that cheat still have tons of fans.
Sure, but the key is how they think about the cheating part.
A sports fan will on average kind of vaguely deny it, but if real proof comes out it just becomes something they don't talk about or they'll pass blame around as much as possible.
A lawyer will deny, deny, deny in every permutation of possible ways. A zealot will both deny and say the enemy deserved it and is worse.
A sports fan will on average kind of vaguely deny it, but if real proof comes out it just becomes something they don't talk about or they'll pass blame around as much as possible.
A lawyer will deny, deny, deny in every permutation of possible ways. A zealot will both deny and say the enemy deserved it and is worse.
> For a lot of people facts don't matter, only culture war.
The thing is that that state of affairs has been deliberately cultivated. And this entire case is a penetrating glimpse into how it's done.
There's a range of possible solutions, but they all center on what kind of speech we incentivize. Right now, we've pretty much gone all in on incentivizing speech that gets attention. Traditional media businesses produce news or entertainment in order to sell attention to advertisers for money. Social media just puts a twist on it by outsourcing content creation to individual users in exchange for internet points like upvotes or retweets.
Things aren't going to get better until we change that. Facts and reasoned arguments are boring. Culture war is entertaining and engaging. So culture war makes the most money, and that's what we're going to get.
The thing is that that state of affairs has been deliberately cultivated. And this entire case is a penetrating glimpse into how it's done.
There's a range of possible solutions, but they all center on what kind of speech we incentivize. Right now, we've pretty much gone all in on incentivizing speech that gets attention. Traditional media businesses produce news or entertainment in order to sell attention to advertisers for money. Social media just puts a twist on it by outsourcing content creation to individual users in exchange for internet points like upvotes or retweets.
Things aren't going to get better until we change that. Facts and reasoned arguments are boring. Culture war is entertaining and engaging. So culture war makes the most money, and that's what we're going to get.
That’s what propaganda will do: confuse the facts so much that the fact checkers get overwhelmed, so no one is sure what to think, thus replacing truth with power.
I just want people to remember all the previous elections where Dems were potentially hurt by e-voting bugs and to band together across the aisle to get rid of voting machines. Paper voting works for us in Canada and it'd work for you too.
The only voting machine that isn't "fraud waiting to happen" is an optical-scan under-voting detector - the thing that says "your mark for Mayor is too light and won't be counted", allowing you to take the paper and pen and correct it.
The court erred in this case, not by treating Fox's words (/unchecked republication of accusations) as a lie but by acting like the reputation of an voting-machine company deserves protection when they make something so obviously ideally suited for crime. The Flipper Zero people get accused of knowing their product will be used in crime and yet we don't apply the same logic to e-voting manufacturers.
Fox deserves the hit, but Dominion doesn't deserve the implication of honesty - their entire business is to remove proof of honesty from our elections. Perhaps the solution should have been to fine Fox but give the money to charities seeking to audit and improve the voting process.
The only voting machine that isn't "fraud waiting to happen" is an optical-scan under-voting detector - the thing that says "your mark for Mayor is too light and won't be counted", allowing you to take the paper and pen and correct it.
The court erred in this case, not by treating Fox's words (/unchecked republication of accusations) as a lie but by acting like the reputation of an voting-machine company deserves protection when they make something so obviously ideally suited for crime. The Flipper Zero people get accused of knowing their product will be used in crime and yet we don't apply the same logic to e-voting manufacturers.
Fox deserves the hit, but Dominion doesn't deserve the implication of honesty - their entire business is to remove proof of honesty from our elections. Perhaps the solution should have been to fine Fox but give the money to charities seeking to audit and improve the voting process.
> Just surprising that it took them this long—the start of the trial—to settle.
I was a juror on a civil case once. They said many of them go right up until the trial date before settling out of court, as things finally become "real". Both sides want the other to flinch first.
I was a juror on a civil case once. They said many of them go right up until the trial date before settling out of court, as things finally become "real". Both sides want the other to flinch first.
Second this. I've been called for jury duty a couple of times, and one of the things that I've been told every time is that showing up and being ready to be impaneled is an important driver for things being settled (civil) or a plea deal (criminal) being reached.
It's not just something they tell the folks who get called. I've seen it from the other side too where someone I knew was prepared to testify in a criminal case. The defendant pleaded out the day the trial was due to start while we were in the courthouse waiting for the proceedings to begin.
It's not just something they tell the folks who get called. I've seen it from the other side too where someone I knew was prepared to testify in a criminal case. The defendant pleaded out the day the trial was due to start while we were in the courthouse waiting for the proceedings to begin.
It's me waiting until the night before the exam to open the book for the first time, all over again.
I wish they had gone to trial. Oh well. I know MSNBC is just as partisan but Fox let itself get usurped by Trump and went along with the Big Lie for ratings and money and now they get off with no accountability just a nearly 800M fine. Big whoop. And just goes to show you can disparage democracy and elections and get away with it if you have enough money. I’m rather depressed by the whole thing. I thought their case was very solid. Why settle?
While MSNBC is partisan, they are not as committed as Fox to just making up propaganda and running with it. MSNBC is more about what they focus on and how they emphasize issues.
Didn’t MSNBC lead the Russiagate charge, particularly Rachel Maddow?
> Didn’t MSNBC lead the Russiagate charge, particularly Rachel Maddow?
You'd think if they had really led it that Trump’s many failed (because it wasn’t defamatory) lawsuits over the story, the dossier, etc., would have included them, but no, just the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, the Pullitzer Prize, the Washington Post...
You'd think if they had really led it that Trump’s many failed (because it wasn’t defamatory) lawsuits over the story, the dossier, etc., would have included them, but no, just the DNC, Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, the Pullitzer Prize, the Washington Post...
The Rachael Maddows and Don Lemons of the world are probably feeling pretty uncomfortable right now.
The truth is that none of them, Fox personalities included, are journalists or even "news". They should all stop misleading people and call themselves "entertainment". They way they can say whatever they want.
The truth is that none of them, Fox personalities included, are journalists or even "news". They should all stop misleading people and call themselves "entertainment". They way they can say whatever they want.
Downvoted as expected. Maybe I should have said Michael Moore:
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/63815342950072320?lang=en
Context:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/arts/television/02hack.ht...
Interestingly, Diebold IP and tech was acquired by Dominion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions
https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/63815342950072320?lang=en
Context:
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/arts/television/02hack.ht...
Interestingly, Diebold IP and tech was acquired by Dominion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_Election_Solutions
...and Don Lemon has been fired
> I thought their case was very solid. Why settle?
Because it was a win, and a sure $787.5M is better than a gamble that the court would find for them on the elements other than falsity (very likely) and find enough more damages than 787.5M to justify the added time and cost (far less certain). And the court had already found for them as a matter of law on falsity, so there was no real moral vindication to be sought at trial.
Because it was a win, and a sure $787.5M is better than a gamble that the court would find for them on the elements other than falsity (very likely) and find enough more damages than 787.5M to justify the added time and cost (far less certain). And the court had already found for them as a matter of law on falsity, so there was no real moral vindication to be sought at trial.
> I thought their case was very solid. Why settle?
I agree, the case was pretty much nailed on. Dominion should have held out for the full 1.6bn and stuck The Murdoch's, Tucker and co on the stand to humiliate themselves.
I agree, the case was pretty much nailed on. Dominion should have held out for the full 1.6bn and stuck The Murdoch's, Tucker and co on the stand to humiliate themselves.
They settle to avoid their people testifying under oath, and to avoid a more expensive judgement against them. They got to see the evidence, and expected to lose.
Particularly surprising given all the embarrassing/reputation-damaging stuff that came out in discovery. Seems like they could have avoided all that by making this offer sooner.
> "This settlement reflects FOX's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards."
What a world it is, that high journalistic standards can end in a $787m payout.
What a world it is, that high journalistic standards can end in a $787m payout.
It aggravates me that the wealthy can just buy their way out of legal humiliation literally as the trial is underway. Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process.
I agree 100% when it comes to billionaires “settling” their way out of criminal prosecution, but if two private groups have a dispute they shouldn’t be forced to litigate it all the way through trial if they can come to an agreement outside of court.
The real injustice is that “news” can do what Fox did, and it doesn’t constitute a crime. At a minimum, They should lose their broadcast license if they are going to manufacture truth that threatens democracy.
Minor nitpick: FNN is a cable channel and thus does not require a license. however they're in the middle of renegotiating their fees with the cable companies, so if you are a cable customer and hate Rupert Murdoch, now is a good time to get on the phone with your cable company and whine about how you don't want to pay for Fox News as part of the basic package.
I wholeheartedly agree. I said exactly this to my friend earlier today. However, I immediately followed it up noting that any law like this will eventually be used maliciously.
E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial.
But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
E.g. Party in power will say “CNN LIES!” and get DOJ to set up a sham trial.
But even if it shouldn’t be possible for the ruling political party to infringe on free speech, it should also not be tenable to lie to millions of Americans this blatantly.
It should be a law that’s hard to prove, like libel or something similar (not a legal expert).
Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest.
It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks.
Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.
Or, laws specifically regarding elections (and maybe a few other matters). Even if they were forced to disclose their known misstatements (lies) publicly in someway that might help them collectively keep each other in honest.
It might be similar to how public companies are required to have audits and report their results and whatnot. We in the public get information to help us determine what the truth is regarding stocks.
Honestly just like the deregulation of finance introducing risks to banks and resulting Great Recession, the deregulation of fairness doctrine and other things are equally at fault for things like this happening IMO. We’re letting history repeat when we forget why such regulations were instituted to begin with.
Disagree, I think that moderately early on in the process parties need to make a decision about settle or litigate. What we have now is a system where people are incentivized to bluff endlessly, treating litigation like high-stakes poker. Even those with no legal education can see it's bullshit, and it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.
What does getting whacked with a $787,500,000.00 settlement payment incentivize newscorp to do? I get the feeling next time they feel like bluffing, someone over there might bring up the three quarters of a billion dollars that they just burned.
I mean I get that this incentivizes plaintiffs to sue when they think they’re getting screwed but… isn’t that a good thing? (That is, isn’t that the whole point of the tort system?)
I mean I get that this incentivizes plaintiffs to sue when they think they’re getting screwed but… isn’t that a good thing? (That is, isn’t that the whole point of the tort system?)
What I mean is they keep bluffing up until the literal commencement of the trial. The legal process, once underway, should not be treated as an extension of the political poker table.
In a vacuum I agree with you; but when it's election interference, with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup...I am not so sure.
> with rhetoric leading to an actual attempted coup
In my understanding, if this is a grave concern, then it's the federal prosecutor that should press charges. I assume DVS were simply suing as a business for damages.
Edit: wording to clarify the point
In my understanding, if this is a grave concern, then it's the federal prosecutor that should press charges. I assume DVS were simply suing as a business for damages.
Edit: wording to clarify the point
[deleted]
> It aggravates me that the wealthy can just buy their way out of legal humiliation literally as the trial is underway.
Coughing up nearly a billion dollars to settle a trial because they know they’ll lose is quite humiliating.
Coughing up nearly a billion dollars to settle a trial because they know they’ll lose is quite humiliating.
Arthur Andersen was dissolved for less (Enron accounting scandal).
Edit: good call out andrew! That’s what I get for commenting at the bar.
Edit: good call out andrew! That’s what I get for commenting at the bar.
Fun fact: If you spelled the company the way you did just then in your job application to them your CV would go straight in the bin and you would not get a call regardless of your credentials. It was a well known vetting criteria.
You mean if you applied to work at Arthur Andersen, because it's misspelled?
Affirmative
Except that they cost real people real money.
Who downvotes this observation? Shilling for a long-dead company is a bit odd.
And further proof that speech is free, but you have to pay for the lies.
If it'll make you feel better, fox shareholders are prepping lawsuits against the executives to recoup the money the company will need to pay the settlement. So it's not the end yet.
I’d take the alternate viewpoint: it’s great that our society empowers those who want to come down like a sledgehammer on those who break the law. The incentivization of some of our most aggressively adversarial minds toward the task of justice is motivated the most efficient way that our society knows: the reassignment of mass amounts of capital according to the processes of the law.
Doesn't the other side need to accept the settlement?
For a company that's worth less than $17.5B, a $787.5M settlement means giving away 4.5% of your company's value. Unlike big tech companies or whatnot, Fox Corporation isn't that big. Even after its huge fall, Meta is still 32x larger. Apple is 150x larger, Microsoft 123x larger, Alphabet 77x larger. A $787.5M settlement would only be 0.03% of Apple's value rather than 4.5% so I could see it being a meaningless penalty on Apple, but it's a large enough penalty that Fox is going to think twice before allowing their talent to do similar things in the future. A few more of these and they could be signing away a quarter of their company's value.
> just buy their way out of legal humiliation
Except they basically didn't buy their way out of the humiliation. Most of the damming stuff has already been made public. Most of the embarrassing laundry has been aired. At this point, the only real question is whether Dominion would get the $1.6B they had asked for. Instead, they settled for a guaranteed half.
Plus, Fox is still facing a lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting system. Smartmatic issued a statement, "Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest." It also likely means Fox losing more money.
> Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process
I definitely understand the sentiment and plea bargains can be really bad pushing low-income people to plead guilty to lesser crimes even if they're innocent and letting rich people off easy when they're definitely guilty. Likewise, a company might reach a settlement with someone they've wronged who doesn't know their rights and who isn't on equal footing with such a giant corporation.
In a civil case between two companies with basically unlimited legal funds, it seems quite reasonable. It's important to note that this case isn't about Fox doing you harm. It's about Fox doing Dominion harm. Between Fox and Dominion, this seems like quite a reasonable outcome. Dominion won big against Fox and it will likely encourage other litigants to continue pursuing Fox.
What is bad about this settlement other than things like you wanting to know potentially more details that might be exposed? If your answer is that Fox has caused more harm than just the harm to Dominion, that's a different trial. I would agree that Fox has created incredible harm to our society. I don't know how we could pursue that in a legal sense which is a shame. Still, this isn't a plea bargain or settlement that seems bad. It seems like a reasonable outcome where the complainant received half of what they were hoping to get without the uncertainty of the trial outcome. Even if Dominion won the case, they might have been awarded less damages than they asked for (or less than the settlement).
> just buy their way out of legal humiliation
Except they basically didn't buy their way out of the humiliation. Most of the damming stuff has already been made public. Most of the embarrassing laundry has been aired. At this point, the only real question is whether Dominion would get the $1.6B they had asked for. Instead, they settled for a guaranteed half.
Plus, Fox is still facing a lawsuit from Smartmatic, another voting system. Smartmatic issued a statement, "Dominion’s litigation exposed some of the misconduct and damage caused by Fox’s disinformation campaign. Smartmatic will expose the rest." It also likely means Fox losing more money.
> Settlements and plea bargains are a cancer on the judicial process
I definitely understand the sentiment and plea bargains can be really bad pushing low-income people to plead guilty to lesser crimes even if they're innocent and letting rich people off easy when they're definitely guilty. Likewise, a company might reach a settlement with someone they've wronged who doesn't know their rights and who isn't on equal footing with such a giant corporation.
In a civil case between two companies with basically unlimited legal funds, it seems quite reasonable. It's important to note that this case isn't about Fox doing you harm. It's about Fox doing Dominion harm. Between Fox and Dominion, this seems like quite a reasonable outcome. Dominion won big against Fox and it will likely encourage other litigants to continue pursuing Fox.
What is bad about this settlement other than things like you wanting to know potentially more details that might be exposed? If your answer is that Fox has caused more harm than just the harm to Dominion, that's a different trial. I would agree that Fox has created incredible harm to our society. I don't know how we could pursue that in a legal sense which is a shame. Still, this isn't a plea bargain or settlement that seems bad. It seems like a reasonable outcome where the complainant received half of what they were hoping to get without the uncertainty of the trial outcome. Even if Dominion won the case, they might have been awarded less damages than they asked for (or less than the settlement).
You make a good point about the relatively small size of Fox News, but I'd argue that they can still afford it and their relatively low financial capitalization is outweighed by the enormous political capital they are able to leverage.
Except they basically didn't buy their way out of the humiliation.
Yes they did. The embarrassment of having text messages quoted in legal documents (and subsequently in the media) is nothing compared o the having Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson etc. being subjected to cross-examination under oath and having to make admissions (probably on camera) in a forum they don't control from top to bottom. Bear in mind that the target audience for Fox News watches a lot of TV because they don't enjoy reading. Words don't have the same kind of emotional force as personal testimony.
If your answer is that Fox has caused more harm than just the harm to Dominion, that's a different trial.
It is, and the fact that it's a different trial is part of the problem. The anglo-American legal system is full of procedural arguments which are generally gamed for the advantage of powerful incumbents, and even a large-ish company like dominion has to balance their desire for full accountability and transparency with the fiscal reality of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. It's extraordinarily difficult to mount class actions and meet the procedural threshold for establishing harm, so all the incentives run towards a transactional approach.
This is a bad thing my view, on the basis that 'justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.' As it is Fox writes a painfully large check to Dominion but gets to issue an anodyne statement expressing its commitment to the highest standards of journalism [puke emoji] while continuing to pursue the lowest common denominator in its audience's imaginary. As you're probably aware, Fox has barely covered the fact of this litigation. Unless its audience sees someone like Tucker Carlson sweating it out on the witness stand, this whole thing may as well not have happened for them.
Except they basically didn't buy their way out of the humiliation.
Yes they did. The embarrassment of having text messages quoted in legal documents (and subsequently in the media) is nothing compared o the having Rupert Murdoch, Tucker Carlson etc. being subjected to cross-examination under oath and having to make admissions (probably on camera) in a forum they don't control from top to bottom. Bear in mind that the target audience for Fox News watches a lot of TV because they don't enjoy reading. Words don't have the same kind of emotional force as personal testimony.
If your answer is that Fox has caused more harm than just the harm to Dominion, that's a different trial.
It is, and the fact that it's a different trial is part of the problem. The anglo-American legal system is full of procedural arguments which are generally gamed for the advantage of powerful incumbents, and even a large-ish company like dominion has to balance their desire for full accountability and transparency with the fiscal reality of a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. It's extraordinarily difficult to mount class actions and meet the procedural threshold for establishing harm, so all the incentives run towards a transactional approach.
This is a bad thing my view, on the basis that 'justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.' As it is Fox writes a painfully large check to Dominion but gets to issue an anodyne statement expressing its commitment to the highest standards of journalism [puke emoji] while continuing to pursue the lowest common denominator in its audience's imaginary. As you're probably aware, Fox has barely covered the fact of this litigation. Unless its audience sees someone like Tucker Carlson sweating it out on the witness stand, this whole thing may as well not have happened for them.
It's complete double speak, is it not? Any commitment to even mediocre journalistic standards would not have led to this whole situation, much less this outcome.
Oh absolutely. Such would be my expectation, at least. My initial comment was firmly tongue in cheek.
Just like large tech companies a billion in fines here and there throughout the years is the cost of doing business.
Tucker Carlson, in his interview with Ben Shapiro while discussing self-driving trucks said he would lie to spin the story in a different way to achieve his desired outcome. There is no journalistic integrity.
Tucker and others like Hannity are not considered journalists, and I even remember Hannity being careful to make this point- they are opinion show hosts. This was also made clear in a lawsuit a few years ago. Like the opinion section in a newspaper, they are not held to journalistic standards by their organization.
But they can be sued for libel and slander, as in this lawsuit.
But they can be sued for libel and slander, as in this lawsuit.
Who and who is not a journalist can't be determined by any institution. According to democracy. If people find what they present to be journalism, then it is. Ironically, I just defended Rachel Maddow and many more people.
It seems strange to have to impart basic civics lessons here.
It seems strange to have to impart basic civics lessons here.
Liability of a hospital for actions of an independent contractor physician in a medical malpractice trial depended (at least partially…) on whether an uninformed person would confuse that individual as an agent/employee of the hospital. The intentionally murky delineation used by hospitals to shield themselves from liability by hiring non-employee contractors seems to mirror the journalist/opinion personally that media tries to get away with. I was on the jury for this trial, which also ended in a settlement. I suspect the hospital was quick to settle rather than set any precedent that might hurt their liability shield.
FWIW the source of that quote was actually that, if Tucker Carlson were _president_, would he ban self-driving trucks solely to preserve truck-driving jobs? He said he would make up some pretense/excuse/spin when justifying it.
There's footage of Tucker Carlson saying that Hannity doesn't believe the lies he tells, before he replaced Hannity and told the same lies.
https://youtu.be/RNineSEoxjQ
”Why Tucker Carlson pretends to hate Elites"
https://youtu.be/RNineSEoxjQ
”Why Tucker Carlson pretends to hate Elites"
Source? Timestamp?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awM0nrlOZxk at 6:10
found by copy pasting "Tucker Carlson, in his interview with Ben Shapiro while discussing self-driving trucks" into the google and getting lucky
found by copy pasting "Tucker Carlson, in his interview with Ben Shapiro while discussing self-driving trucks" into the google and getting lucky
Just a tip, you can encode a timestamp in a YouTube URL. Right click at the time you want to point to and choose "Copy video URL at current time". Or just encode the time in seconds as ?t=<seconds_to_jump_to> in the query string.
https://youtu.be/awM0nrlOZxk?t=370
https://youtu.be/awM0nrlOZxk?t=370
You can also express it as a combination of minutes and seconds (presumably hours are supported too): https://youtu.be/awM0nrlOZxk?t=6m10s
This is tedious. It's a time-worn strategy of all politicians and activists to justify their preferred policies pretextually. If you have something to say about the actual policy he's discussing -- industry protectionism -- you should make that comment instead.
But if your comment is just "one time someone from the other team said the quiet part aloud" that's rather naive and unremarkable.
But if your comment is just "one time someone from the other team said the quiet part aloud" that's rather naive and unremarkable.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
I don’t know whether you meant it this way, but your comment comes across as “let me Google that for you”. Either way, I also wanted a source, and thank you for posting the link here so I also don’t have to go looking for it.
I absolutely did mean to be as snarky as possible. Asking for a source for something is one thing, but when the person you (not referring to you, but the original person I replied to) asked gave the word for word, verbatim search term who's first result is the EXACT thing you asked for, and you type "SOURCE TIMESTAMP" anyway, I can't be charitable.
HN Guidelines for comments:
> Don't be snarky.
It makes for a nicer community if you just post the link and leave out the snark.
> Don't be snarky.
It makes for a nicer community if you just post the link and leave out the snark.
https://youtu.be/awM0nrlOZxk?t=372
At 6:12
Transcribed by me: "I would maybe make up some pretext for public consumption, like 'oh they're dangerous', 'the technology's not there yet'"
At 6:12
Transcribed by me: "I would maybe make up some pretext for public consumption, like 'oh they're dangerous', 'the technology's not there yet'"
To be fair, that clip is Carlson imagining a hypothetical scenario in which he’s the Secretary of Transportation or someone similar, and needs to justify keeping self-driving trucks off the road to avoid putting millions of truck drivers out of work. It is not an example of a lack of journalistic integrity or demonstration of his own televised spin.
I disagree. The whole thing is a PR spin - cmon, the guy who intentionally undermines society in order to retain his obscene pay at Fox News is selling a book about stable societies - and even in a PR spin hypothetical scenario where he's the president, he STILL prefers to mislead the public instead of making an honest argument to them.
It's a perfect demonstration of a complete lack of integrity. The ends justify the means whenever he believes in it.
It's a perfect demonstration of a complete lack of integrity. The ends justify the means whenever he believes in it.
Let's not take things out of context guys. His response there is what he would say to the public if he were in charge of making decisions on self-driving trucks. Start at 4:45 for the entire segment. He starts his response by saying, "If I were president, would I say to the DOT..."
Yes, let's not take things out of context.
In a world where Tucker Carlson has gained more political power and is legislating some policy which should be very politically popular, he still believes the right way to do things is in an "ends justify the means" fashion, and would therefore be willing to mislead the public - and anyone else that required misleading - in order to enact this policy. Again, this is something that he argues would protect the jobs of millions of Americans.
How can you possibly think that we are taking it "out of context"? This is ironclad evidence for people who argue something like "Tucker Carlson is a lying maniac who puts himself and what he thinks is important before justice and integrity". Even when in idealistic hypotheticals constructed for PR, he still would do what he does best: make up pretext for public consumption.
In a world where Tucker Carlson has gained more political power and is legislating some policy which should be very politically popular, he still believes the right way to do things is in an "ends justify the means" fashion, and would therefore be willing to mislead the public - and anyone else that required misleading - in order to enact this policy. Again, this is something that he argues would protect the jobs of millions of Americans.
How can you possibly think that we are taking it "out of context"? This is ironclad evidence for people who argue something like "Tucker Carlson is a lying maniac who puts himself and what he thinks is important before justice and integrity". Even when in idealistic hypotheticals constructed for PR, he still would do what he does best: make up pretext for public consumption.
Yeah, he sure does gleefully admit that he'd abuse presidential power to lie in under to get what he wants! Good thing there's no other context where Carlson's in control of disseminating information in order to get what he wants!
It's really telling how simply he glosses over saying that like it's a perfectly normal thing for a "journalist" to do. That's pretty depressing.
You're the one without integrity. He was speaking in a hypothetical role as a government official, not as a journalist.
In fact, he was making a very socialist / populist point that few on the Left would be able to disagree with.
That is, the point was about the national necessity of protecting a job base for a immense mass of people. Protecting it from robot capitalism.
In fact, he was making a very socialist / populist point that few on the Left would be able to disagree with.
That is, the point was about the national necessity of protecting a job base for a immense mass of people. Protecting it from robot capitalism.
This whole affair is an incredibly frustrating example of why society is breaking down. There are legitimate concerns with both security and reliability with these voting machines... But no, Fox had to fold it into their culture war fight and took things too far. Now, Dominion is vindicated and I'm happy to bet good dollars to donuts that any legitimate criticism or questions raised about the fidelity of their machines will be countered with culture-war ad hominem attack
This lawsuit wasn’t about criticism it was about blatant lies.
Dominion Voting Systems doesn’t give a flying fuck about the culture wars, but they do care if people stop buying their products. Fox on the other hand very much cares about the culture wars, and is as shown here perfectly willing to lie.
Dominion Voting Systems doesn’t give a flying fuck about the culture wars, but they do care if people stop buying their products. Fox on the other hand very much cares about the culture wars, and is as shown here perfectly willing to lie.
I see you're getting downvoted, but wanted to chime in and say I agree generally with what you're saying RE: legitimate concerns about the security and reliability of voting machines.
During all of this election denial I've been sitting around thinking to myself every now and again: Wait, haven't we been trying to talk about how the software in these machines should be open for public review? Weren't we concerned about the political biases of these company's owners? It worries me that now if you say something like "well, actually, I'm concerned about election integrity" a lot of people will think you're going full culture war.
During all of this election denial I've been sitting around thinking to myself every now and again: Wait, haven't we been trying to talk about how the software in these machines should be open for public review? Weren't we concerned about the political biases of these company's owners? It worries me that now if you say something like "well, actually, I'm concerned about election integrity" a lot of people will think you're going full culture war.
I don't know about "society is breaking down" but as someone with pre-existing trepidation over computerized voting, I agree that it's going to be really frustrating to try to take that position anymore without being labeled some MAGA nutjob.
It is fine and good to be skeptical of pure computer-based voting, but what's maddening about the Dominion (manufactured) controversy is that those reasonable concerns do not apply here. Let me explain.
In 2020 I worked at a polling place that used the same machines (not in Georgia). Each voter receives a printout with a human-readable list of their selections, along with a QR code. This printout is turned in, and the QR codes are scanned to tally the votes. In the event of any concerns with the computer tally, a recount can be done of the human-readable printouts. This is what was done in Georgia (for procedural reasons this was technically a "hand audit of 100% of the votes", which can be done at the SecState's discretion, not a "recount" which can only be triggered by certain requirements, but it is actually the same thing).
The Dominion machines are good precisely because, unlike past digital voting machines, they create a human-readable paper trail that is legible to both the voter and to (re)counters, just like it was before computer voting terminals.
Voting machines that do not create such a paper trail should be illegal, and anyone who proposes blockchain as a solution should receive a lifetime ban from making any democracy-critical policy decisions.
In 2020 I worked at a polling place that used the same machines (not in Georgia). Each voter receives a printout with a human-readable list of their selections, along with a QR code. This printout is turned in, and the QR codes are scanned to tally the votes. In the event of any concerns with the computer tally, a recount can be done of the human-readable printouts. This is what was done in Georgia (for procedural reasons this was technically a "hand audit of 100% of the votes", which can be done at the SecState's discretion, not a "recount" which can only be triggered by certain requirements, but it is actually the same thing).
The Dominion machines are good precisely because, unlike past digital voting machines, they create a human-readable paper trail that is legible to both the voter and to (re)counters, just like it was before computer voting terminals.
Voting machines that do not create such a paper trail should be illegal, and anyone who proposes blockchain as a solution should receive a lifetime ban from making any democracy-critical policy decisions.
> Each voter receives a printout with a human-readable list of their selections, along with a QR code.
This is not an acceptable design. Not only should the voter be marking their ballot by hand not doing so through a machine whose UI may have bugs, but any scanner must scan the human-readable marks, not some machine-readable marks because the voter can't check that both sets of marks match.
> The Dominion machines are good precisely because, unlike past digital voting machines, they create a human-readable paper trail that is legible to both the voter and to (re)counters, just like it was before computer voting terminals.
Intentionally obfuscated paper trails. The problem is that none of this is required. Paper works. Paper + optical vote-checkers works. Nothing beyond that works, or is needed.
> anyone who proposes blockchain as a solution should receive a lifetime ban from making any democracy-critical policy decisions.
Lol, total agreement. But ... why does that not extend to people who make black-box machines that have a ton of chances to change the vote?
This is not an acceptable design. Not only should the voter be marking their ballot by hand not doing so through a machine whose UI may have bugs, but any scanner must scan the human-readable marks, not some machine-readable marks because the voter can't check that both sets of marks match.
> The Dominion machines are good precisely because, unlike past digital voting machines, they create a human-readable paper trail that is legible to both the voter and to (re)counters, just like it was before computer voting terminals.
Intentionally obfuscated paper trails. The problem is that none of this is required. Paper works. Paper + optical vote-checkers works. Nothing beyond that works, or is needed.
> anyone who proposes blockchain as a solution should receive a lifetime ban from making any democracy-critical policy decisions.
Lol, total agreement. But ... why does that not extend to people who make black-box machines that have a ton of chances to change the vote?
> Not only should the voter be marking their ballot by hand not doing so through a machine whose UI may have bugs, but any scanner must scan the human-readable marks, not some machine-readable marks because the voter can't check that both sets of marks match.
I don't think I agree with the first part. Marking by hand is probably more error-prone. People are notoriously not great at correctly filling in a bubble, leading to scanning errors. Any UI bug should be caught thanks to the human-readable printout. If I select Biden and my printout says Trump, I'll notice.
The second part, I think I agree. It should print out a perfectly bubbled-in human-readable ballot. That would seem to remove both human bubble-filling error and QR-code shenanigans.
> why does that not extend to people who make black-box machines that have a ton of chances to change the vote?
The one and only added chance to change the vote is to alter the QR code to something other than the human-readable selections, and this is trivial to check by having humans sample a few thousand ballots.
The other way to change it would be for the QR reader software to lie about what it read, but you could do that with traditional bubble-ballot reader software too. In both cases, having humans sample the ballots is the solution.
I don't think I agree with the first part. Marking by hand is probably more error-prone. People are notoriously not great at correctly filling in a bubble, leading to scanning errors. Any UI bug should be caught thanks to the human-readable printout. If I select Biden and my printout says Trump, I'll notice.
The second part, I think I agree. It should print out a perfectly bubbled-in human-readable ballot. That would seem to remove both human bubble-filling error and QR-code shenanigans.
> why does that not extend to people who make black-box machines that have a ton of chances to change the vote?
The one and only added chance to change the vote is to alter the QR code to something other than the human-readable selections, and this is trivial to check by having humans sample a few thousand ballots.
The other way to change it would be for the QR reader software to lie about what it read, but you could do that with traditional bubble-ballot reader software too. In both cases, having humans sample the ballots is the solution.
What problem are you trying to solve with e-voting? To make the vote more accurate by cutting down on UI-type errors? Get results sooner?
> > Not only should the voter be marking their ballot by hand not doing so through a machine whose UI may have bugs
> I don't think I agree with the first part. Marking by hand is probably more error-prone. People are notoriously not great at correctly filling in a bubble, leading to scanning errors.
Perhaps, but risk of systemic failure allowing a vote to be stolen is the paramount concern. UI errors (esp on randomized ballots) tend to balance out.
The UI concerns are real, but they can both be addressed physically and through ballot design.
> the QR code to something other than the human-readable
You wouldn't want to have a QR code though, if you simply read the human-readable marks. The QR code is some sort of premature optimization based, I think, on the assumption that scanning is difficult. If you have only one mark then you know it's the canonical mark.
> Any UI bug should be caught thanks to the human-readable printout. If I select Biden and my printout says Trump, I'll notice.
Real ballots often have twenty or more choices so this is harder in practice.
And you're trusting a machine's UI at each step. It's telling you which marks mean what rather than you marking the paper according to instructions on the paper. A paper ballot can't be altered after the fact to change your vote, any machine-generated paper can simply be reprinted.
The correct answer, if anything is needed at all, is an under-vote detector. It doesn't tell you how you voted, it just says "no selection is readable for Mayor" or "You only made four marks for City Councillor but are allowed to place up to five votes", and so on.
> > Not only should the voter be marking their ballot by hand not doing so through a machine whose UI may have bugs
> I don't think I agree with the first part. Marking by hand is probably more error-prone. People are notoriously not great at correctly filling in a bubble, leading to scanning errors.
Perhaps, but risk of systemic failure allowing a vote to be stolen is the paramount concern. UI errors (esp on randomized ballots) tend to balance out.
The UI concerns are real, but they can both be addressed physically and through ballot design.
> the QR code to something other than the human-readable
You wouldn't want to have a QR code though, if you simply read the human-readable marks. The QR code is some sort of premature optimization based, I think, on the assumption that scanning is difficult. If you have only one mark then you know it's the canonical mark.
> Any UI bug should be caught thanks to the human-readable printout. If I select Biden and my printout says Trump, I'll notice.
Real ballots often have twenty or more choices so this is harder in practice.
And you're trusting a machine's UI at each step. It's telling you which marks mean what rather than you marking the paper according to instructions on the paper. A paper ballot can't be altered after the fact to change your vote, any machine-generated paper can simply be reprinted.
The correct answer, if anything is needed at all, is an under-vote detector. It doesn't tell you how you voted, it just says "no selection is readable for Mayor" or "You only made four marks for City Councillor but are allowed to place up to five votes", and so on.
When was society not breaking down? We didn't start the fire. It's been burning since world's been turning.
The people who are qualified to have technical opinions on these machines are still qualified to have technical opinions on these machines. Academics and other security researchers are still pursuing these issues. All this will do is make it less likely random internet opinion-havers will be amplified by grifters, which is an outcome I have no problem with.
But that matters very little. What matters is people at large not wanting these machines anymore, until then, we will keep having them.
The good news is that these efforts to audit and improve the voting systems started many years ago. As a result of all the efforts by researchers, many states have scrapped their old systems and changed to newer paper + electronic based systems. For example, NJ used to have machines that were proven to have attack vectors. They were discarded in favor of a system that records electronically but also prints out your selection on paper and then drops it in a sealed box after you verify what is printed on the paper is what you intended to vote. If the election is close then a review of the paper ballots is performed. Is it perfect? No, but it is better than having no paper record at all as it at least gives the option of a manual recount is someone were to challenge the results (or if the count is close enough, a recount triggers without a challenge).
The challenge now is to ensure all 50 states are on board with using machines with no known exploits. Unfortunately some states are lagging behind greatly (can you guess which ones?)
The challenge now is to ensure all 50 states are on board with using machines with no known exploits. Unfortunately some states are lagging behind greatly (can you guess which ones?)
> Is it perfect? No,
The problem is that it introduces all these failure cases.
Pen+Paper's only drawback is that it's said to be slow, in practice it can be finished same-day by booking enough elections volunteers.
> but it is better than having no paper record at all
That's a weird standard. "Sure, it costs a lot and introduces all these weird and nigh-undetectable failure cases but the other machines were even worse! ..."
> the option of a manual recount
Which will be fought, of course. They always are. So in the end only some areas will ever have a human audit.
The public deserves that every vote be hand counted by a bipartisan team.
The problem is that it introduces all these failure cases.
Pen+Paper's only drawback is that it's said to be slow, in practice it can be finished same-day by booking enough elections volunteers.
> but it is better than having no paper record at all
That's a weird standard. "Sure, it costs a lot and introduces all these weird and nigh-undetectable failure cases but the other machines were even worse! ..."
> the option of a manual recount
Which will be fought, of course. They always are. So in the end only some areas will ever have a human audit.
The public deserves that every vote be hand counted by a bipartisan team.
The public wants instant results more than any of that. After speaking to the other guy making this same argument I have to preface my comment with a question: Are you American? Because the other person was from Romania and clearly did not understand the election night frenzy that occurs every four years where people are waiting in extreme anticipation for the results.
Canadian. And we generally have results in under an hour after the polls close.
I've actually gone to viewing parties at pubs for the last two US elections. Your media dominates ours.
I've actually gone to viewing parties at pubs for the last two US elections. Your media dominates ours.
> For example, NJ used to have machines that were proven to have attack vectors.
Why use machines at all? In my opinion any action that does not remove the machines altogether is not good enough. Machines are hack-able, humans are much harder to "hack", especially if you have both parties' representatives in the room at all times.
Why use machines at all? In my opinion any action that does not remove the machines altogether is not good enough. Machines are hack-able, humans are much harder to "hack", especially if you have both parties' representatives in the room at all times.
The electorate demands same day instant results. You'll have to change the mindset of the electorate for that one. Having both electronic + a statistical analysis of paper ballots or counting ballots slowly after the election as a final verification is the best approach.
You can have very fast results by getting more poll workers. It's not that big of a deal, as people willing to work the polls scale with the number of voters.
Nobody really wants "instant" results, if you get 90% of the count the night of the vote, that will be good enough. I come from Romania, and we only count by hand, and by 10PM you usually know the results with pretty high confidence. Romania only has 10 mil votes, but as I said, it scales very well.
Nobody really wants "instant" results, if you get 90% of the count the night of the vote, that will be good enough. I come from Romania, and we only count by hand, and by 10PM you usually know the results with pretty high confidence. Romania only has 10 mil votes, but as I said, it scales very well.
>You can have very fast results by getting more poll workers. It's not that big of a deal, as people willing to work the polls scale with the number of voters.
Thats a lot of overhead and costs that is not going to fly with voters.
> I come from Romania
Well that explains it. You do not fully understand the "election night frenzy" that occurs every four years in the US.
Thats a lot of overhead and costs that is not going to fly with voters.
> I come from Romania
Well that explains it. You do not fully understand the "election night frenzy" that occurs every four years in the US.
> Well that explains it. You do not fully understand the "election night frenzy" that occurs every four years in the US.
I actually understand it, it's very similar for us. Why would you immediately assume it's different? In the UK it's different, it's incredibly quiet and somber. And I just told you that we finish counting earlier than many if not most US states anyway. Recounts happen but are limited to individual poll stations, because of all the party representatives they have very few chances of changing anything.
It's really not that much overhead, the US has 900k people operating the polling stations on the voting day (https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/fil...).
That means 10 workers need to handle 1600 votes. It's really not that much, you can manually count those in a couple of hours once the polls are closed. Also, you can tap into volunteers from both parties.
I really don't understand the US: you have half the country saying that the 2000 elections were decided by malfunctioning counting machines in Florida. Now in 2020 you have the other half distrusting machines for fear of tampering, and you still rely on machines? why?
This is the norm in Europe, poll stations count their own votes and they get tallied up centrally. e.g. Germany https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/election-in-ger... or UK https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-britain-counts-its...
I actually understand it, it's very similar for us. Why would you immediately assume it's different? In the UK it's different, it's incredibly quiet and somber. And I just told you that we finish counting earlier than many if not most US states anyway. Recounts happen but are limited to individual poll stations, because of all the party representatives they have very few chances of changing anything.
It's really not that much overhead, the US has 900k people operating the polling stations on the voting day (https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/document_library/fil...).
That means 10 workers need to handle 1600 votes. It's really not that much, you can manually count those in a couple of hours once the polls are closed. Also, you can tap into volunteers from both parties.
I really don't understand the US: you have half the country saying that the 2000 elections were decided by malfunctioning counting machines in Florida. Now in 2020 you have the other half distrusting machines for fear of tampering, and you still rely on machines? why?
This is the norm in Europe, poll stations count their own votes and they get tallied up centrally. e.g. Germany https://www.deutschland.de/en/topic/politics/election-in-ger... or UK https://theconversation.com/explainer-how-britain-counts-its...
Also, I want to add an observation, as an immigrant in the US, and this applies especially to liberals: whenever they see something they like in Europe, it trumps every other argument. Because it is happening in Europe, *it is* better and debating it further paints you as an uneducated bigot.
If it's something that liberals don't agree with, then "yeah, but this is the US", "we can and should do better" etc.
e.g. When talking about laws or policies that positively discriminate based on skin color, someone said "this wouldn't even be a discussion in Europe, it would just be accepted". I had to point out that it would actually be illegal/unconstitutional in all places I know about in Europe.
Another one: All of Europe, except the UK, has voter ID requirements, some stricter than others.
I will add manual vote counting to my list.
e.g. When talking about laws or policies that positively discriminate based on skin color, someone said "this wouldn't even be a discussion in Europe, it would just be accepted". I had to point out that it would actually be illegal/unconstitutional in all places I know about in Europe.
Another one: All of Europe, except the UK, has voter ID requirements, some stricter than others.
I will add manual vote counting to my list.
[deleted]
Capitalism is revealing itself as the Moloch problem. We are feeding our babies to it and praying for rain. It's just now we are seeing the consequences more clearly.
Last time I used one it worked fine. The hysteria about them was started by a guy who got his ass handed to him in a presidential election and didn't feel too good about it.
Concerns about electronic voting machines go back decades. Not sure how old you are, but there was a lot of hand wringing in the day when an executive of one such company promised to “deliver the election” to George W Bush.
And yet the Americans managed to conduct elections just fine, without any politicized hysterics about fraud. That is until the last one, when this fiction was pushed by the president himself in a shameful defeat, to activate the likes of you.
I didn't vote for Trump and know the election wasn't stolen, so no, not "the likes of [me]".
Sorry my friend, I was out of line. This is a very frustrating subject, please forgive.
To be clear, not defending one "side" or the other, just pulling a thread on the "without any politicized hysterics" line.
Not sure how old you are, but look up "hanging Chad". Gore didn't come out and say the 2000 election was stolen, but that was definitely part of the Zeitgeist on the left, and it did get pretty hysterical. Not to the level of 2020, but it was a level you only read about in history books
Also, don't forget 2016 where Russian infiltration was the only acceptable explanation for why Trump won and not that half the population genuinely hated what the Democrats had to offer and were desperate for anyone different than the status quo in the aftermath of the uneven GFC recovery. There were definitely political hysterics then. Only difference between 2016 and 2020 was that the losing candidate didn't openly push the theory as forcefully in the aftermath of defeat.
Luckily Obama won both his terms handily, otherwise similar controversies in 2008 and 2012 would have been likely.
Not sure how old you are, but look up "hanging Chad". Gore didn't come out and say the 2000 election was stolen, but that was definitely part of the Zeitgeist on the left, and it did get pretty hysterical. Not to the level of 2020, but it was a level you only read about in history books
Also, don't forget 2016 where Russian infiltration was the only acceptable explanation for why Trump won and not that half the population genuinely hated what the Democrats had to offer and were desperate for anyone different than the status quo in the aftermath of the uneven GFC recovery. There were definitely political hysterics then. Only difference between 2016 and 2020 was that the losing candidate didn't openly push the theory as forcefully in the aftermath of defeat.
Luckily Obama won both his terms handily, otherwise similar controversies in 2008 and 2012 would have been likely.
Its interesting that the only people that seem to be able to hold corporate media to account are other corporations with different interests.
edit: I suppose the News international phone hacking scandal was journalists/individuals/government holding Murdoch to account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki... ... but that was in the UK.
edit: I suppose the News international phone hacking scandal was journalists/individuals/government holding Murdoch to account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki... ... but that was in the UK.
To be honest it didn't really achieve a great deal. The Murdoch papers still have a pretty heavy influence over British politics - they stuck with Boris long after he should've been done, it was only when they turned on him it that he was finished, for example.
Oh definitely. It was like a slightly visible victory that didn't actually make much difference to the murdoch empire. I remember seeing murdoch in that select committee having to answer questions. That was something unprecedented(and almost a custard pie that arguably swung things in his favour). But no long term difference
NOTW closed but then I think they started publishing the Sun on Sunday instead?
NI/BSkyB merger was scuppered but now its back on the cards I think?
NOTW closed but then I think they started publishing the Sun on Sunday instead?
NI/BSkyB merger was scuppered but now its back on the cards I think?
Didn't Sky get spun out of NewsCorp because of the phone scandel and is under Comcast now?
Second settlement this week. There was this other conspiracy theory:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/fox-news-venezue...
Of course, these sort of things have happened before:
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344/fox-news-settles-wi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/fox-news-venezue...
Of course, these sort of things have happened before:
https://www.npr.org/2020/11/24/938545344/fox-news-settles-wi...
There is still one more multi-billion dollar case [1] with Smartmatic to settle or go to court.
[1] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/trump-lawyers-fox-news-sued-...
[1] https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/trump-lawyers-fox-news-sued-...
And to several networks:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-vir... "CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann stemming from viral video controversy"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/business/media/washington... "Washington Post Settles Lawsuit With Student in Viral Protest Video"
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29289191 "NY Times settles lawsuit with McCain lobbyist"
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-vir... "CNN settles lawsuit with Nick Sandmann stemming from viral video controversy"
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/24/business/media/washington... "Washington Post Settles Lawsuit With Student in Viral Protest Video"
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna29289191 "NY Times settles lawsuit with McCain lobbyist"
...and those did real damage to individuals. I'd say it's one thing for a large corporation to have certain things claimed against it and an entirely different thing for a giant news network going after individuals with complete garbage reporting (not a single thing they claimed about Nick Sandmann was true and it was easily verifiable).
Yes, but in all those cases, the settlement terms were not disclosed. What is somewhat unusual here is not just the high amount, but also that it was disclosed — which may very well have been another condition of the settlement that Dominion insisted on.
I'm surprised Dominion settled. It had seemed as though Dominion wanted a public apology or a public victory to support their reputation.
This is 30 years revenue for Dominion, even though they would almost certainly have won the case there is no guarantee they would have been awarded this much money.
Their revenue in 2022 was ~$15M - This amounts to about 50 years of revenue for their company risk free. They had a strong case but nothing is certain in a courtroom. It is hard to look at nearly a billion dollars and not take the sure thing.
On the BBC article:
> Dominion chief executive John Poulos told a press conference the deal included Fox "admitting to telling lies, causing enormous damage to my company".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65318654
> Dominion chief executive John Poulos told a press conference the deal included Fox "admitting to telling lies, causing enormous damage to my company".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-65318654
780 million reasons to not do it. This will bankroll the executives till the end of time.
Also, winning wouldn't have helped their reputation. Chances are if you still believe in the election rigging story the results of this trial wasn't going to be the thing that changed your mind.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
A victory at trial, whether the damages were higher or lower than the settlement, would likely have been appealed & fought tool and nail by Fox to reduce the settlement amount. And even then there wouldn't be an admissions of guilt or anything like that-- it would have been spun as just more judicial activism as Fox maintained their innocence. There would never be an apology, never a public victory that Fox News viewers saw and acknowledged as a huge blunder by Fox.
This way still still sucks, but maybe some very few will see it as a tacit admission of Dominion's case again against Fox, after all why settle if you're innocent? Though I have my doubts. People are not easily shaken from beliefs held mostly out of ideological alignment.
A victory at trial, whether the damages were higher or lower than the settlement, would likely have been appealed & fought tool and nail by Fox to reduce the settlement amount. And even then there wouldn't be an admissions of guilt or anything like that-- it would have been spun as just more judicial activism as Fox maintained their innocence. There would never be an apology, never a public victory that Fox News viewers saw and acknowledged as a huge blunder by Fox.
This way still still sucks, but maybe some very few will see it as a tacit admission of Dominion's case again against Fox, after all why settle if you're innocent? Though I have my doubts. People are not easily shaken from beliefs held mostly out of ideological alignment.
They did get Fox to admit wrongdoing, which is rare in such a settlement. And they got close to a billion dollars out of it. A pretty solid win for them.
The damages part of their case was weak, and in any case it's owned by VC who will happily take this payday.
Dominion Voting System's annual turnover/revenue is approx $25M per year and they have 142 employees. So this is like 30 years of revenue for them.
One of Dominions ex-directors also has ongoing lawsuits against various Trump people -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems
https://cstrial.com/insights/c-s-earns-victory-for-former-do...
One of Dominions ex-directors also has ongoing lawsuits against various Trump people -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems
https://cstrial.com/insights/c-s-earns-victory-for-former-do...
"Turnover?"
Thanks, but I don't see "turnover" on there. As far as I've ever seen, turnover refers to personnel changes.
Also: Gotta love how someone downvoted this simple observation. Go back to Reddit, whoever you are.
Also: Gotta love how someone downvoted this simple observation. Go back to Reddit, whoever you are.
Where I'm from it also means revenue. I have edited my comment above
Got it. Where are you from?
Not GP, but I'm in the UK and turnover when expressed as a monetary amount means revenue.
Appears to be an Asian and European term.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/turnover.asp
Appears to be an Asian and European term.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/turnover.asp
Thanks. Seems less informative than terms like "revenue." I wonder what term Europeans and Asians use for personnel turnover.
That would be personnel/employee turnover.
So I simplified a bit. Overall turnover is the same as revenue. Usually turnover is referred to as a ratio of accounts payable actually paid in a period or stock sold in a period.
Personnel turnover is also not an absolute number but a ratio of people to people leaving. So in this case turnover is the same as they are ratios but for personnel rather than widgets.
Hopefully that makes sense.
So I simplified a bit. Overall turnover is the same as revenue. Usually turnover is referred to as a ratio of accounts payable actually paid in a period or stock sold in a period.
Personnel turnover is also not an absolute number but a ratio of people to people leaving. So in this case turnover is the same as they are ratios but for personnel rather than widgets.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Thanks!
Thats also turnover, but usually a smaller number or a percentage
Aka revenue
Ah. In the USA it means people leaving and being replaced. If a company has "high turnover," it's usually an indication that something is amiss.
Coming up on Fox, the Smartmatic trial that will be for twice the settlement.
As of right now, msnbc, cnn, drudge report, an nytimes all show the settlement story on their home pages, but foxnews.com ... huge "Biden cabinet secretary violated federal law". And searching for "dominion" on their website brings up a 2 day old article as the most recent. I don't see a public apology forthcoming from them. I hope the settlement includes something that will actually hold them accountable beyond just money.
After a few hours there was a short article that appeared on their front page (and is now gone) - and didn't mention the settlement payout. If you search for dominion, there's a 1m49s "news update" about it - where their expert says that there was a payout but he didn't have it independently verified so he wouldn't speculate what it was. I'm so pissed that they're not being held accountable.
Those text messages were enlightening. I wonder how many people will see this and take it into consideration next time they view a segment on fox.
People that only read Fox News will never hear about this.
I don't think people watch Fox for truth, integrity, open mindedness, being informed and such things. Rather the goal is validation, taking part in something, feeling in a certain way. So as long as Fox can keep the supply of these up, viewership won't decline significantly because of things like these text messages.
Assuming Fox hosts mentioned the word "Dominion" in an accusation an average of, say, 50 times a day for two years, the cost to Fox per utterance was on the order of $787,500,000 ÷ (50×365×2) = ~$22,000 per utterance. Those lies sure were expensive!
Let's hope this will induce Fox hosts to be a wee bit more careful about keeping facts straight going forward.
Let's hope this will induce Fox hosts to be a wee bit more careful about keeping facts straight going forward.
> Let's hope this will induce Fox hosts to be a wee bit more careful about keeping facts straight going forward.
My guess is that the lesson they learned here is “don’t get caught”.
My guess is that the lesson they learned here is “don’t get caught”.
If the settlement doesn’t include every fox host that lied spending every show for a week stating the knowingly lied, and that their reason was ratings, I don’t see how this results in accountability, and I don’t see how this won’t happen again repeatedly while the GOP continues to undermine the judiciary.
Nope - per reports, there's no requirement for anything on-air at all:
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1648432832266801158
> News: I'm told that, as part of the terms of its settlement, Fox News will 'not' have to acknowledge ON AIR that it told lies about Dominion in the wake of the 2020 election. Fox did acknowledge falsehoods in its statement. But don't expect hosts to have to read statements.
https://twitter.com/oliverdarcy/status/1648432832266801158
> News: I'm told that, as part of the terms of its settlement, Fox News will 'not' have to acknowledge ON AIR that it told lies about Dominion in the wake of the 2020 election. Fox did acknowledge falsehoods in its statement. But don't expect hosts to have to read statements.
Makes me sick to my stomach.
While I'm not sure about the GOP statement. . . .
Otherwise, you're 100% correct. If that money is less than they made from the shows the lies were spread on, then telling blatant lies to improve ratings officially just became a 'cost of doing business' that can be accounted for and will happen again.
Otherwise, you're 100% correct. If that money is less than they made from the shows the lies were spread on, then telling blatant lies to improve ratings officially just became a 'cost of doing business' that can be accounted for and will happen again.
I appreciate that we are starting to see a bit of accountability brought to these media organizations. We saw it a few years ago with CNN and the Convington Catholic kid and now this.
Just two small drops in a giant ocean of garbage but it is something.
Just two small drops in a giant ocean of garbage but it is something.
This is hacker news, but I find it appalling that there's surprisingly less noise about the organized effort to subvert democracy overnight. If Trump had succeeded, do you really think there'd be any meaningful elections in the future? My hope is the most hackers are outraged but don't comment here.
If you have spent a meaningful amount of time on this site over the last few years you will have seen that the general user sentiment has shifted pretty far right. The standard discussion isn't too far from what you'd come across on a Fox News/Elon Musk/Infowars/Joe Rogan forum.
I completely disagree with almost all of this assertion, based on my experience.
There is an entire spectrum of political views, a good example would be stories about incarceration and homelessness which result in fairly left swinging opinions and very little blaming of the people involved.
There is an entire spectrum of political views, a good example would be stories about incarceration and homelessness which result in fairly left swinging opinions and very little blaming of the people involved.
I agree that HN is still pretty liberal but I also agree with GP that the swing to the right in the past few years has been very real.
There were a ton of people here really into Ivermectin in the late 2020's.
There were a lot of promising studies into using it for Covid then - large-scale retrospective cohort studies of pre-existing ivermectin trials going on as Covid started to spread. It just turns out that it mostly didn't apply to the first world because most people don't have parasitic comordidities.
This was really annoying because the reaction to Trump's casual mention of it injected virulent American politics into everything around the world. We should have been able to discuss this and other topics without Rep/Dem nonsense spilling over, but instead any discussion of covid became nearly verboten, with even simply statements of obvious fact being banned. (ie, we haven't yet checked the Wuhan lab to see if Covid did in fact leak from there.)
This was really annoying because the reaction to Trump's casual mention of it injected virulent American politics into everything around the world. We should have been able to discuss this and other topics without Rep/Dem nonsense spilling over, but instead any discussion of covid became nearly verboten, with even simply statements of obvious fact being banned. (ie, we haven't yet checked the Wuhan lab to see if Covid did in fact leak from there.)
I’d wonder if that was sample bias, people not into it were probably less vocal about their opinion.
I do find the correlation between vaccine hesitancy and conservative political views interesting though.
I do find the correlation between vaccine hesitancy and conservative political views interesting though.
It feels like our current political parties are the result of force-teaming and meaningless labels creating unhappy and fragile alliances ready to split. Imho this would be great as the manufactured left/right dichotomy never helped anyone.
Is a parent far-right for demanding high standards from drugs they put into their children, or a leftist for not just accepting big-pharma's word?
I personally saw a lot of people be ejected from "the left" because of questioning the medical response to Covid. Many different circumstance, but they'd all run into the mandatory acceptance of the message. Some had been vaccine "wary" before and remained that way, others were pro-vax but doubted the safety given its minimal testing time, etc. All of these people were your average west-coast hippy type and they're now being told they're allied with unite-the-right anti-jew stuff in the USA.
I can't wait until the new affiliations drop and we can ditch the legacy groupings.
Is a parent far-right for demanding high standards from drugs they put into their children, or a leftist for not just accepting big-pharma's word?
I personally saw a lot of people be ejected from "the left" because of questioning the medical response to Covid. Many different circumstance, but they'd all run into the mandatory acceptance of the message. Some had been vaccine "wary" before and remained that way, others were pro-vax but doubted the safety given its minimal testing time, etc. All of these people were your average west-coast hippy type and they're now being told they're allied with unite-the-right anti-jew stuff in the USA.
I can't wait until the new affiliations drop and we can ditch the legacy groupings.
I’m fairly uninformed with politics (I’m not American either). Please don’t interpret this as passive aggressive, but more of a question / passing thought:
Wouldn’t republicans believe more in ‘each to their own, survival of the fittest’ (I want the best for my children) where democrats would be more ‘value for everyone’ (I should get vaccinated regardless of risk to protect my neighbours)
I imagine the Christian religion is more popular with republicans, which if true is equally interesting given it would contradict the above assertions (love thy neighbour, etc)…
Wouldn’t republicans believe more in ‘each to their own, survival of the fittest’ (I want the best for my children) where democrats would be more ‘value for everyone’ (I should get vaccinated regardless of risk to protect my neighbours)
I imagine the Christian religion is more popular with republicans, which if true is equally interesting given it would contradict the above assertions (love thy neighbour, etc)…
> Wouldn’t republicans believe more in ‘...’ where democrats would be more ‘...’
With only two parties I don't think the parties themselves are good proxies for the views of the people who end up voting for them.
I think generally most people would want 1) each to their own 3) success of the hardworking 3) equality for everyone. With only two parties for the whole political spectrum neither group is actually that distinct. Many people vote on the key issues that impact their day-to-day and so there's generally no real difference on issues that aren't in the news.
Anyways, being on the west coast I assume that most of the Americans I'm talking about are Dems, and in Canada, probably 'Liberals'. I think their (perfectly reasonable) hippy distrust of government and corporations makes them doubt the "benefits" meaning they had no reason to do it for neighbors either. (This was 2+y ago now, who knows where they are now.)
A community meeting I went to a few years ago spent twenty minutes or so discussing microwaved water, and if the venue used a microwave and whether some people were "safe to drink the tea", and went downhill from there in a science sense. Everyone was very eager to help but it wasn't a terribly well informed group.
With only two parties I don't think the parties themselves are good proxies for the views of the people who end up voting for them.
I think generally most people would want 1) each to their own 3) success of the hardworking 3) equality for everyone. With only two parties for the whole political spectrum neither group is actually that distinct. Many people vote on the key issues that impact their day-to-day and so there's generally no real difference on issues that aren't in the news.
Anyways, being on the west coast I assume that most of the Americans I'm talking about are Dems, and in Canada, probably 'Liberals'. I think their (perfectly reasonable) hippy distrust of government and corporations makes them doubt the "benefits" meaning they had no reason to do it for neighbors either. (This was 2+y ago now, who knows where they are now.)
A community meeting I went to a few years ago spent twenty minutes or so discussing microwaved water, and if the venue used a microwave and whether some people were "safe to drink the tea", and went downhill from there in a science sense. Everyone was very eager to help but it wasn't a terribly well informed group.
100% agree. Most appear to be non-technical as well so all we get for the tedium of groaning through their comments Tucker "truth telling" detritus.
Not even a billion dollars will convince them they're wrong though...
Not even a billion dollars will convince them they're wrong though...
> Not even a billion dollars will convince them they're wrong though...
It might wake some of them up, though. Pardon the sheep, for they are asleep. Dreaming dreams of nightmare fences.
It might wake some of them up, though. Pardon the sheep, for they are asleep. Dreaming dreams of nightmare fences.
No, general user sentiment hasn't shifted. It's not that people's opinions have changed, it's that people who were already right wing bigots now feel it's ok to openly express their right wing bigotry, thanks to Trump.
I don't think there is a shift to the right, but rather a shift towards authoritarianism.
It's pretty surprising to see people on 'hacker'news so in favour of government surveillance/censorship.
It's pretty surprising to see people on 'hacker'news so in favour of government surveillance/censorship.
> I don't think there is a shift to the right, but rather a shift towards authoritarianism.
In my opinion, that may be a fairly contrary-to-fact opinion to hold.
Take the contentious issue of transgender human rights, for example: the HN discussions that I’ve seen quite heavily tended towards right-wing principles of distrust of intellectuals [0] (vis-a-vis completely discounting readily available scientific information). I presume that much of the indignation towards trans topics also stems from a the right-wing principle of religious traditionalism [0].
Granted, that’s just based on my experiences in the comments. I’ve not done any sort of in-depth analysis to arrive at the above opinion.
Alternatively, perhaps the latest stage of right-wing politics could be defined as the replacement of democratic law-and-order with righteous authoritarianism, rendering the quote somewhat nonsensical, in my hypothetical opinion.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
In my opinion, that may be a fairly contrary-to-fact opinion to hold.
Take the contentious issue of transgender human rights, for example: the HN discussions that I’ve seen quite heavily tended towards right-wing principles of distrust of intellectuals [0] (vis-a-vis completely discounting readily available scientific information). I presume that much of the indignation towards trans topics also stems from a the right-wing principle of religious traditionalism [0].
Granted, that’s just based on my experiences in the comments. I’ve not done any sort of in-depth analysis to arrive at the above opinion.
Alternatively, perhaps the latest stage of right-wing politics could be defined as the replacement of democratic law-and-order with righteous authoritarianism, rendering the quote somewhat nonsensical, in my hypothetical opinion.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
> Take the contentious issue of transgender human rights [...] tended towards right-wing principles of distrust of intellectuals
There's a weird form of "intellectual"ism going on these days.
I've gotten insanely mad pushback on my contention that we simply cannot know if Covid leaked from Wuhan. (Or, back in 2020 we couldn't - who knows where we're getting now.) It could be easy to show there was a leak, but would be almost impossible to show there wasn't. Note that I wasn't saying "we shouldn't take the vax" or anything, just the leak issue. Total rabid culture war.
Similarly, there's a huge push that "trans women are women" and that there's science for this, gender spectrum and so on, but there's no ability to look behind the curtain. The studies don't show what they purport to, and don't match the claims they're being used to defend. Nobody has attempted to show a midpoint on the sex spectrum, and even if they did - the argument has moved on and now trans is an issue of self-id that doesn't require any physical issue. Bring this up and you're "literally saying trans people shouldn't exist", etc.
In both cases there's no depth to the argument, despite that it apparently comes from the best scientific minds in the world - it claims to be a factual claim but when you ask to see the facts it becomes a purity issue where you're then shamed for not simply believing. I was told I was a Covid denier because of not simply accepting the no-lab-leak story.
> perhaps the latest stage of right-wing politics could be defined as the replacement of democratic law-and-order with righteous authoritarianism
One side makes "facts" a matter of righteousness and the other side simply eschews facts for their religion.
There's a weird form of "intellectual"ism going on these days.
I've gotten insanely mad pushback on my contention that we simply cannot know if Covid leaked from Wuhan. (Or, back in 2020 we couldn't - who knows where we're getting now.) It could be easy to show there was a leak, but would be almost impossible to show there wasn't. Note that I wasn't saying "we shouldn't take the vax" or anything, just the leak issue. Total rabid culture war.
Similarly, there's a huge push that "trans women are women" and that there's science for this, gender spectrum and so on, but there's no ability to look behind the curtain. The studies don't show what they purport to, and don't match the claims they're being used to defend. Nobody has attempted to show a midpoint on the sex spectrum, and even if they did - the argument has moved on and now trans is an issue of self-id that doesn't require any physical issue. Bring this up and you're "literally saying trans people shouldn't exist", etc.
In both cases there's no depth to the argument, despite that it apparently comes from the best scientific minds in the world - it claims to be a factual claim but when you ask to see the facts it becomes a purity issue where you're then shamed for not simply believing. I was told I was a Covid denier because of not simply accepting the no-lab-leak story.
> perhaps the latest stage of right-wing politics could be defined as the replacement of democratic law-and-order with righteous authoritarianism
One side makes "facts" a matter of righteousness and the other side simply eschews facts for their religion.
> but when you ask to see the facts
That’s the scary part - the facts are readily available, but so few take the time to understanthe current state of it. Instead, they argue from their armchair based on this-or-that principle of the day.
The science is still new, but has solid foundations. It might only be a matter of years before a genetic test for tendency towards “transgender” will be created.
That’s the scary part - the facts are readily available, but so few take the time to understanthe current state of it. Instead, they argue from their armchair based on this-or-that principle of the day.
The science is still new, but has solid foundations. It might only be a matter of years before a genetic test for tendency towards “transgender” will be created.
> The science is still new, but has solid foundations. It might only be a matter of years before a genetic test for tendency towards “transgender” will be created.
Unlikely, considering that when researchers control for homosexuality in their test subjects, the correlations with gender incongruence that were supposedly found in earlier research are no longer present.
Unlikely, considering that when researchers control for homosexuality in their test subjects, the correlations with gender incongruence that were supposedly found in earlier research are no longer present.
Where’s your source for that claim?
> It might only be a matter of years before a genetic test for tendency towards “transgender” will be created.
Do you recognize that you're about five years behind in "the message"? Trans is purely self-id, to declare yourself trans in the "progressive" countries like NZ and Canada you don't need to even suggest that there's anything physical involved. Specifically you're even allowed to keep changing your identity, something that couldn't happen if trans had a physical nature. Also, you're allowed to claim non-binary but use the women's washroom without even explaining why this would be appropriate.
In Canada you'd be called a trans-medicalist, which theoretically is advocating conversion therapy - to talk people out of their felt experience of gender or gender identity. It's borderline 'hate speech'.
> The science is still new, but has solid foundations.
What is the contention? Not the evidence, just the premise?
Do you suggest that males, like William (Lia) Thomas and Boyd (Fallon Fox) Burton are no stronger than women the moment they transition or that they rapidly become female-like by taking estrogen and losing testosterone as a consequence of their genital surgeries?
In these studies, is Caster Semenya treated as female despite fathering a baby?
> That’s the scary part - the facts are readily available, but so few take the time to understan the current state of it.
What facts? Be specific. Because many studies in the subject area would have failed a second-year student recently in any other specialty. Specifically the small sample size and self-selected nature of the trans athletes who have a motive to sandbag and return worse times in order to "prove" that they belong in women's sports, etc.
If that isn't what you meant, then please list these good studies because the space is crowded with academically blessed nonsense.
Do you recognize that you're about five years behind in "the message"? Trans is purely self-id, to declare yourself trans in the "progressive" countries like NZ and Canada you don't need to even suggest that there's anything physical involved. Specifically you're even allowed to keep changing your identity, something that couldn't happen if trans had a physical nature. Also, you're allowed to claim non-binary but use the women's washroom without even explaining why this would be appropriate.
In Canada you'd be called a trans-medicalist, which theoretically is advocating conversion therapy - to talk people out of their felt experience of gender or gender identity. It's borderline 'hate speech'.
> The science is still new, but has solid foundations.
What is the contention? Not the evidence, just the premise?
Do you suggest that males, like William (Lia) Thomas and Boyd (Fallon Fox) Burton are no stronger than women the moment they transition or that they rapidly become female-like by taking estrogen and losing testosterone as a consequence of their genital surgeries?
In these studies, is Caster Semenya treated as female despite fathering a baby?
> That’s the scary part - the facts are readily available, but so few take the time to understan the current state of it.
What facts? Be specific. Because many studies in the subject area would have failed a second-year student recently in any other specialty. Specifically the small sample size and self-selected nature of the trans athletes who have a motive to sandbag and return worse times in order to "prove" that they belong in women's sports, etc.
If that isn't what you meant, then please list these good studies because the space is crowded with academically blessed nonsense.
Here is a Scientific American blog post with links to a wide variety of studies for you to delve into.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...
Tell you what, I'll examine any of those studies with you if you wish. If you're serious, tell me which claims resonate with you and we can examine them.
My post (parent to yours) outlined enough problems with "studies" in general that I can't think you're seriously suggesting any of them except by inertia at this point. Trying to pick an accurate journal, by reputation, in a time of extreme cancelling doesn't work. Even if SciAm had any standards they couldn't have published a negative article about transition because they would literally receive death threats.
If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong. Developmental sex disorders don't make a new sex. Males produce sperm, and females produce eggs. There's no third sex that produces spegg, or what have you.
All of these articles contradict basic, and observable, biology. If they were true we'd have discovered it long ago when people and animals couldn't breed in expected ways. It's one of those things that only academics, who've never set foot on a farm, could believe.
Further, most of those articles are literally attempted child murder to justify the fetishes of their adult authors. They say things like "puberty blockers are reversible" despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not. It's impossible to have performed a study on giving children puberty blockers (at regular puberty age, not earlier like in the cases of precocious puberty) because we weren't performing a standard procedure until recently which could be studied. Those authors are saying "things we've never tested, which have huge and systemic impacts on your body, have zero long-term consequences".
John Stewart tells us that children are not being given puberty blockers, but doctors are telling us they are - and in sufficient quantity to have studied their impact. Obviously one, or both, of these is a lie. The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible, let alone the pinnacle of science as you implied.
My post (parent to yours) outlined enough problems with "studies" in general that I can't think you're seriously suggesting any of them except by inertia at this point. Trying to pick an accurate journal, by reputation, in a time of extreme cancelling doesn't work. Even if SciAm had any standards they couldn't have published a negative article about transition because they would literally receive death threats.
If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong. Developmental sex disorders don't make a new sex. Males produce sperm, and females produce eggs. There's no third sex that produces spegg, or what have you.
All of these articles contradict basic, and observable, biology. If they were true we'd have discovered it long ago when people and animals couldn't breed in expected ways. It's one of those things that only academics, who've never set foot on a farm, could believe.
Further, most of those articles are literally attempted child murder to justify the fetishes of their adult authors. They say things like "puberty blockers are reversible" despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not. It's impossible to have performed a study on giving children puberty blockers (at regular puberty age, not earlier like in the cases of precocious puberty) because we weren't performing a standard procedure until recently which could be studied. Those authors are saying "things we've never tested, which have huge and systemic impacts on your body, have zero long-term consequences".
John Stewart tells us that children are not being given puberty blockers, but doctors are telling us they are - and in sufficient quantity to have studied their impact. Obviously one, or both, of these is a lie. The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible, let alone the pinnacle of science as you implied.
> I'll examine any of those studies with you if you wish. If you're serious, tell me which claims resonate with you and we can examine them.
What, did you leave your brain at home?
It sounds like you want me to walk you through the science?
How about you read the research and tell me what your questions are and then I will respond.
> If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong.
Apparently you've never heard of people with intersex conditions.
> despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not
Sources?
Also, basic logic built upon faulty assumptions leads to faulty conclusions, no matter how correct your logic is or is not.
> children are not being given puberty blockers
Medical conditions that require puberty blockers are very rare and, at any given time, not every state has an individual with such a medical condition or such a treatment plan.
> The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible
The more you write like that, the more you sound like a foolish human.
P.S.,
"Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called ‘Intelligentzia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw, but encounters it in its easiest synthetic form—upon the printed page."
-Albert Einstein, Why War?, 1931
What, did you leave your brain at home?
It sounds like you want me to walk you through the science?
How about you read the research and tell me what your questions are and then I will respond.
> If you've got sources that say sex is a spectrum, they're simply wrong.
Apparently you've never heard of people with intersex conditions.
> despite all evidence (and basic logic) showing that they are not
Sources?
Also, basic logic built upon faulty assumptions leads to faulty conclusions, no matter how correct your logic is or is not.
> children are not being given puberty blockers
Medical conditions that require puberty blockers are very rare and, at any given time, not every state has an individual with such a medical condition or such a treatment plan.
> The more you look into trans "science" the more you'll see none of it is even intellectually plausible
The more you write like that, the more you sound like a foolish human.
P.S.,
"Is it possible to control man’s mental evolution so as to make him proof against the psychoses of hate and destructiveness? Here I am thinking by no means only of the so-called uncultured masses. Experience proves that it is rather the so-called ‘Intelligentzia’ that is most apt to yield to these disastrous collective suggestions, since the intellectual has no direct contact with life in the raw, but encounters it in its easiest synthetic form—upon the printed page."
-Albert Einstein, Why War?, 1931
[deleted]
It was always generally leaned right, but the overall HN has definitely turned more aggressively right wing over the last few years. I think some of this is down to a number of high profile tech execs openly embracing far-right positions, including people associated with YC/HN.
Of course, simplifying the political spectrum along a 1-dimensional axis is an oversimplification. In particular, during the most recent SVB crisis, people associated with YC/HN called for a bailout, which is not a traditionally held GOP right wing position, given the president during the banking crisis in 2008.
The trouble with gauging HN's actual opinion on things is that there's a lot of people here who just want to argue and play semantic games. I remember when Roe was overturned, people would make upset comments obviously just looking to commiserate and feel outraged, and people who agreed it was wrong in their own main comments would 'play devil's advocate' for funsies anyway. By the end of the threads it sure didn't seem like they were just playing a side, and they're not thinking about anyone else reading the thread and coming away convinced by their debate exercise. They're bored and took issue with an analogy.
The ochlocracy is real.
There were a frightening number of people repeating the same obviously false claims here post-election. Motivated reasoning is a hell of a drug.
Nah. Just Russian trolls.
It is a shame that in any number of forums these days that if someone expresses an opinion that counters someone else's they are labelled a "Russian troll".
We all know that foreign interference is a genuine concern, however, an opinion that appears to be right of centre doesn't always equate to it being grown in a Russian troll farm.
We all know that foreign interference is a genuine concern, however, an opinion that appears to be right of centre doesn't always equate to it being grown in a Russian troll farm.
No, but the prevalence of such accounts has overwhelmed all forums and social media. There’s no good way to differentiate you from a troll.
So? Respond to people with reasoned arguments and it doesn't matter who they are.
Trolls win when people think they have to achieve purity of thought - to drive away anyone who believes wrong-think even at the cost of the forum itself. Triggering forums to play purity games and cull the insufficiently aligned is a troll victory.
That doesn't mean you should let politics bleed into every other thread, but in a politics thread just move past the idea of needing to censor people to win.
Trolls win when people think they have to achieve purity of thought - to drive away anyone who believes wrong-think even at the cost of the forum itself. Triggering forums to play purity games and cull the insufficiently aligned is a troll victory.
That doesn't mean you should let politics bleed into every other thread, but in a politics thread just move past the idea of needing to censor people to win.
Honestly? Most conservative discourse has gone down a pretty terrible rabbit hole. I’m happy to discuss economics, public safety, education, tax policy, military spending, healthcare reform, and many other government centric issues.
But all I see is disinformation, especially folks glued to cable news (they’re all profit centric with very sporadic integrity) that have never traveled outside the states, and have had no contact with a diverse, pluralistic society.
I see a lack of empathy for anyone that’s “different”.
I’ve watched our middle class get decimated by trickle down economics lies and blaming poor people for being poor.
I’ve watched the invention of healthcare for mass profit from Reagan’s presidency that’s made it nearly impossible for anyone to just relax.
I’ve watched college go from a Pell grant and a 10-hr/week job to the price of a house, also from Reagan’s presidency.
I’ve watch gun ownership rise to hundreds of millions sold including weapons that liquify human life and a party that can watch the outcome of child massacres and just look the other way.
I don’t need to sensor anyone. You can talk all you want. But I’m tired of the lies, the greed, the misogyny, and the hate.
I honestly don’t have a clue what non-liberals believe anymore. I can’t make sense of any of it.
Show me a conservative that actually cares about all of humanity and not just themselves.
But all I see is disinformation, especially folks glued to cable news (they’re all profit centric with very sporadic integrity) that have never traveled outside the states, and have had no contact with a diverse, pluralistic society.
I see a lack of empathy for anyone that’s “different”.
I’ve watched our middle class get decimated by trickle down economics lies and blaming poor people for being poor.
I’ve watched the invention of healthcare for mass profit from Reagan’s presidency that’s made it nearly impossible for anyone to just relax.
I’ve watched college go from a Pell grant and a 10-hr/week job to the price of a house, also from Reagan’s presidency.
I’ve watch gun ownership rise to hundreds of millions sold including weapons that liquify human life and a party that can watch the outcome of child massacres and just look the other way.
I don’t need to sensor anyone. You can talk all you want. But I’m tired of the lies, the greed, the misogyny, and the hate.
I honestly don’t have a clue what non-liberals believe anymore. I can’t make sense of any of it.
Show me a conservative that actually cares about all of humanity and not just themselves.
I don't think that it's always a lib/con issue, even if it gets played that way on the news, and I think the actual conservative side is often a lot more focused on kindness and safety than they are played. Even where I disagree with them (and libs too) I can often find happy middle-ground that both sides, divorced from their TV-applied baggage, can appreciate. It helps that I'm usually not in the USA and speaking about things outside of their rep/dem news-based framing.
> I’ve watch gun ownership rise to hundreds of millions sold including weapons that liquify human life and a party that can watch the outcome of child massacres and just look the other way.
I think this is a good example.
In Canada there was a mass shooting and the government responded with a huge list of firearms restrictions. Ammo, magazines, models of guns, etc. Like 1400+ restrictions.
But none of that would have impacted the guns the shooter had, which were all obtained illegally across the border. What it would have done is left even more country families without defense and made it easier for the shooter to go house to house. But it played well in the cities and was used to create an artificial lib/con divide in what is fundamentally a city/country issue.
None of the "don't ban guns" people I spoke to wanted anyone to get shot, but they didn't want laws that won't help. We know that the vast majority of guns used in crime are illegal and that they come from the USA, not via stolen legal guns, so no amount of legal firearms crackdown would impact their numbers.
If those restrictions were separately proposed when there wasn't a shooting some of them might have gotten some support, but when presented as a knee-jerk solution where they obviously wouldn't work there was a lot of pushback. Nobody wanted more shootings, especially the conservative side who had suffered in them, but they weren't willing to have their tragedy turned into a political defeat as well when it wouldn't even help.
> the misogyny
I'm pretty sure you mean abortion. I'm pro-choice and the bans scare me, but I see women getting shit on from both sides of the aisle.
Men are being put in women's prisons:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/campaigns/prisons/
Even if they're baby rapers:
https://torontosun.com/news/national/hunter-trans-killers-ba...
And when they abuse women, the female inmates face extended punishment for describing them as male:
https://insidetime.org/women-face-punishment-for-using-wrong...
Also sports:
https://rileygaines.com/
https://shewon.org/
And violent terrorism against peaceful protest:
https://archive.is/SrILu
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/former-ncaa-swimmer-riley-...
Both sides of the Dem/Rep fight are absolutely abusing women and women's rights, and while they're fighting against the other's excesses it's generally not to help women but to score points.
> I’ve watch gun ownership rise to hundreds of millions sold including weapons that liquify human life and a party that can watch the outcome of child massacres and just look the other way.
I think this is a good example.
In Canada there was a mass shooting and the government responded with a huge list of firearms restrictions. Ammo, magazines, models of guns, etc. Like 1400+ restrictions.
But none of that would have impacted the guns the shooter had, which were all obtained illegally across the border. What it would have done is left even more country families without defense and made it easier for the shooter to go house to house. But it played well in the cities and was used to create an artificial lib/con divide in what is fundamentally a city/country issue.
None of the "don't ban guns" people I spoke to wanted anyone to get shot, but they didn't want laws that won't help. We know that the vast majority of guns used in crime are illegal and that they come from the USA, not via stolen legal guns, so no amount of legal firearms crackdown would impact their numbers.
If those restrictions were separately proposed when there wasn't a shooting some of them might have gotten some support, but when presented as a knee-jerk solution where they obviously wouldn't work there was a lot of pushback. Nobody wanted more shootings, especially the conservative side who had suffered in them, but they weren't willing to have their tragedy turned into a political defeat as well when it wouldn't even help.
> the misogyny
I'm pretty sure you mean abortion. I'm pro-choice and the bans scare me, but I see women getting shit on from both sides of the aisle.
Men are being put in women's prisons:
https://fairplayforwomen.com/campaigns/prisons/
Even if they're baby rapers:
https://torontosun.com/news/national/hunter-trans-killers-ba...
And when they abuse women, the female inmates face extended punishment for describing them as male:
https://insidetime.org/women-face-punishment-for-using-wrong...
Also sports:
https://rileygaines.com/
https://shewon.org/
And violent terrorism against peaceful protest:
https://archive.is/SrILu
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/former-ncaa-swimmer-riley-...
Both sides of the Dem/Rep fight are absolutely abusing women and women's rights, and while they're fighting against the other's excesses it's generally not to help women but to score points.
Trump's specific claims were wrong but elections are readily hackable using a variety of methods. There are numerous YouTube videos showing how to hack election machines that are in use today. It's so frustrating that the DNC shoots down any question of election security as an issue now when we were previously so very close to universally moving to paper ballots in the US.
[deleted]
I am not sure why Fox would have settled. Outside of a few statements by Dobbs, it seems like the interviewees were the ones who defamed Dominion, not Fox News employees -- based on the lawsuit filed by Dominion: https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/media/dominion-fox-news-alleg...
Because that's now how libel laws work. If you could always use the "well, it's just what the interviewees said" defense, then any broadcast company could easily seek out the craziest nut jobs to spew lies, give them tons of airtime, and have interviewers give lots of leading/suggestive comments (it's not lost on me that, sadly, this is how a lot of "news" organizations work these days).
Now, the thing that makes it hard to prove defamation against a news organization is the "actual malice" standard (the legal term is actually a bit different from what those words normally mean). That is, if the Fox interviewees came on and spewed their lies, and there was no evidence that Fox itself disbelieved them or were highly skeptical, Fox would be fine. But the thing that was so damaging to Fox is that they were publishing lies while at the same time commenting in private messages that they knew it was all BS. That is why Fox had so much legal jeopardy.
Now, the thing that makes it hard to prove defamation against a news organization is the "actual malice" standard (the legal term is actually a bit different from what those words normally mean). That is, if the Fox interviewees came on and spewed their lies, and there was no evidence that Fox itself disbelieved them or were highly skeptical, Fox would be fine. But the thing that was so damaging to Fox is that they were publishing lies while at the same time commenting in private messages that they knew it was all BS. That is why Fox had so much legal jeopardy.
[deleted]
Geez, and Trump only made $250M off the Big Lie.
Sad.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Sad.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
[deleted]
gowings97(7)
I'm not into using the voting machines of a company that confronts rhetoric and criticism with massive lawsuits.
No one should trust the literal mechanical linchpin of democracy to a company that uses lawfare instead of its words.
No one should trust the literal mechanical linchpin of democracy to a company that uses lawfare instead of its words.
I thought that the court system was one of the pillars of the American legal system.
If they didn't use the court system then there isn't really any legal alternative for non-government entities to exercise their judgement against each other outside of lobbying their representatives to make Fox News illegal?
The facts were laid out and the chance for an independent to review and make judgement. Fox settled because they felt that the facts were not in their favour.
If they didn't use the court system then there isn't really any legal alternative for non-government entities to exercise their judgement against each other outside of lobbying their representatives to make Fox News illegal?
The facts were laid out and the chance for an independent to review and make judgement. Fox settled because they felt that the facts were not in their favour.
Yeah they should've just written a nice letter to the nice news company
Would be nice if the Fox News crowd would read some of those messages to wake up from all the manipulation.