Meta allows ads saying 2020 election was rigged on Facebook and Instagram(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Meta allows ads saying 2020 election was rigged on Facebook and Instagram
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/15/facebook-ads-2020-election-rigged-stolen-instagram-policy
161 comments
Because Zuckerberg et al are addicted to ad revenue and some model shows that this drives usage. Fuck Facebook and every single one of its corrupt employees.
Social media is in a no-win situation where quelling conspiracy theories gives the conspiracy mongers a seemingly-legitimate grievance ("I'm being censored!") that they can exploit for even more clout.
It's a distinction without a difference.
Aren't past elections the only ones that matter as far as this discussion goes?
Who ever even says future or ongoing elections are rigged? Even Trump finds the ones he wins to be legitimate.
What’s the phrase? Peaceful transition of power? I think the problem is mostly calling a present or future one rigged. It causes idiots to trespass in the capital and get shot by secret service. The likelihood of the events at the capital happening today for an election three years ago is real slim
In this case we're talking about elections from years ago.
There's probably a plan to preemptively "warn" that the 2024 election is rigged, then if you know who loses he can say that he's not a sore loser but in fact he warned us all along that it was rigged. We may expect overwhelming psyops to this effect from Nov 9, 2024 to Jan 20, 2025.
There's probably a plan to preemptively "warn" that the 2024 election is rigged, then if you know who loses he can say that he's not a sore loser but in fact he warned us all along that it was rigged. We may expect overwhelming psyops to this effect from Nov 9, 2024 to Jan 20, 2025.
Why is a private company calling the shots on speech in a free society to begin with?
For the same reasons you can kick a guest out of your house when they start screaming slurs.
Their house, their rules.
I think this change is a bad call, but it’s absolutely their call to make.
Their house, their rules.
I think this change is a bad call, but it’s absolutely their call to make.
> it’s absolutely their call to make.
Well -- maybe. There are limits on free speech, and while the current regime rests on the concept of corporations having Constitutional rights, there's certainly a robust debate as to whether or not that's a reasonable approach.
(I admit, the challenge here is finding a reasonable line to regulate.)
Well -- maybe. There are limits on free speech, and while the current regime rests on the concept of corporations having Constitutional rights, there's certainly a robust debate as to whether or not that's a reasonable approach.
(I admit, the challenge here is finding a reasonable line to regulate.)
It's the least bad approach by far -- the alternative would be the government telling social media companies that they had to publish materials, including some that they had religious and moral objections to -- which is obviously unconstitutional. Could you imagine a world in which inflammatory but legal posts had to be carried? Advocating for late-term abortions on Christian Mingle or calling for a Holocaust on a Jewish social media site?
what should they have to publish?
anything? bomb instructions? child abuse imagery?
only legal things? legal where?
anything? bomb instructions? child abuse imagery?
only legal things? legal where?
Not sure what point you're trying to make. I'd love to hear if you know what point you're trying to make. Suppose I have you an answer to each of those questions. Now what?
The point is who decides what is acceptable or not, who decides it, and what "free speech" they are allowed to interfere with.
> Not sure what point you're trying to make. I'd love to hear if you know what point you're trying to make. Suppose I have you an answer to each of those questions. Now what?
not sure what is confusing?
your initial comment was:
> Why is a private company calling the shots on speech in a free society to begin with?
so...what should private companies permit to be published, then, if you don't want them doing that?
should they allow absolutely everything? nuclear secrets? gruesome murders?
or just everything "legal"? legal where? the US? which bit? so the lawyers at Facebook need to be enforcing Mississippi's laws on everyone? or just people in Mississippi?
do they have to publish abusive but legal stuff? what about when their advertisers leave in disgust? can they stop then? are advertisers allowed to leave or is that also "calling the shots"?
why do you feel the "free speech" of child murderers to publish their videos is more important than the "free speech" of the sysadmin operating the video hosting platform who doesn't want to spread that?
not sure what is confusing?
your initial comment was:
> Why is a private company calling the shots on speech in a free society to begin with?
so...what should private companies permit to be published, then, if you don't want them doing that?
should they allow absolutely everything? nuclear secrets? gruesome murders?
or just everything "legal"? legal where? the US? which bit? so the lawyers at Facebook need to be enforcing Mississippi's laws on everyone? or just people in Mississippi?
do they have to publish abusive but legal stuff? what about when their advertisers leave in disgust? can they stop then? are advertisers allowed to leave or is that also "calling the shots"?
why do you feel the "free speech" of child murderers to publish their videos is more important than the "free speech" of the sysadmin operating the video hosting platform who doesn't want to spread that?
This isn’t free speech. These are ads.
They are allowing ads to spread false information.
Not just some rando on the web with conspiracy theories. They are taking money to publish disinformation.
They are allowing ads to spread false information.
Not just some rando on the web with conspiracy theories. They are taking money to publish disinformation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_efforts_to_restrict...
Republicans in state legislatures submitted 425 bills that would restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states—with 33 of these bills enacted across 19 states so far, by October 2021.
It would seem to me a rather unified reaction to the election. Like as if they may have seen things in their state or other states which indicate they don't believe the election was fair.
Personally, I saw many things which left my perception that this was absolutely not a fair election. Perception is what matters here, not actual results because that's impossible to gauge.
When in Detroit you throw out all republican challengers/observers, lock the doors, and board up the windows. I have no manner of saying they cheated, but the perception is that cheating occurred.
But more importantly, Biden straight up said the Democrats have "most extensive VOTER FRAUD organization” in history." You can watch the original, it's not modified, it's not any sort of deepfake going on.
After he said this, you cannot just brush it off as a verbal gaff or misspeak in that he meant VOTER PROTECTION. Nope, no way. It was upon the entire democratic party to fix the perception. If indeed they don't have an extensive voter fraud organization... it's their responsibility to prove it. They had to prove a negative... or realistically the gaff is that he shouldn't have admitted to it publicly.
Republicans in state legislatures submitted 425 bills that would restrict voting access have been introduced in 49 states—with 33 of these bills enacted across 19 states so far, by October 2021.
It would seem to me a rather unified reaction to the election. Like as if they may have seen things in their state or other states which indicate they don't believe the election was fair.
Personally, I saw many things which left my perception that this was absolutely not a fair election. Perception is what matters here, not actual results because that's impossible to gauge.
When in Detroit you throw out all republican challengers/observers, lock the doors, and board up the windows. I have no manner of saying they cheated, but the perception is that cheating occurred.
But more importantly, Biden straight up said the Democrats have "most extensive VOTER FRAUD organization” in history." You can watch the original, it's not modified, it's not any sort of deepfake going on.
After he said this, you cannot just brush it off as a verbal gaff or misspeak in that he meant VOTER PROTECTION. Nope, no way. It was upon the entire democratic party to fix the perception. If indeed they don't have an extensive voter fraud organization... it's their responsibility to prove it. They had to prove a negative... or realistically the gaff is that he shouldn't have admitted to it publicly.
I'm sorry I thought it was admitted that the election wasn't fair.
Admitted by who, exactly? And unfair in what ways?
“They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
This article describes the efforts of organizers from both major parties to ensure that election laws were respected, that votes were counted, that processes were not subverted, and that the will of the people was respected.
This paragraph, from the opening section, seems a fair summary of the work:
> Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.
Indeed, the article describes a non-partisan project staffed by organizers from both major political parties:
> “We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp [the former GOP legislator] says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins. “Whichever way it cuts, we’re going to stick together.”
From reading the article, I really don't understand what it's meant to show in the context of the conversation. The claim was that the election is "admitted to have been unfair", but what I see documented is a lot of people working to ensure fairness. What might I be missing?
This paragraph, from the opening section, seems a fair summary of the work:
> Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears. They executed national public-awareness campaigns that helped Americans understand how the vote count would unfold over days or weeks, preventing Trump’s conspiracy theories and false claims of victory from getting more traction. After Election Day, they monitored every pressure point to ensure that Trump could not overturn the result. “The untold story of the election is the thousands of people of both parties who accomplished the triumph of American democracy at its very foundation,” says Norm Eisen, a prominent lawyer and former Obama Administration official who recruited Republicans and Democrats to the board of the Voter Protection Program.
Indeed, the article describes a non-partisan project staffed by organizers from both major political parties:
> “We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest,” Wamp [the former GOP legislator] says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins. “Whichever way it cuts, we’re going to stick together.”
From reading the article, I really don't understand what it's meant to show in the context of the conversation. The claim was that the election is "admitted to have been unfair", but what I see documented is a lot of people working to ensure fairness. What might I be missing?
Prove that it wasn't fair.
In the electoral college, some voters are able to vote with three times the weight of others due to differing populations within districts that have equal college votes. Here is one source I found on Google, but the calculation is easy and there are plenty of other articles that reach similar conclusions: https://theconversation.com/whose-votes-count-the-least-in-t...
If you add in gerrymandering, it's the truth that most of our elections are "rigged" or "unfair" in a very real sense to anyone who believes in majoritarianism.
If you add in gerrymandering, it's the truth that most of our elections are "rigged" or "unfair" in a very real sense to anyone who believes in majoritarianism.
Many jurisdictions use weighted voting. It’s not some US-only thing.
The electoral college isn't unfair, it is one of the few things ensuring fair treatment of smaller states. You might value the equal value of each vote (which is its own kind of fairness to be sure) more highly, but it is flat out disingenuous to claim that elections aren't fair due to the electoral college. The electoral college is making different fairness trade-offs than you would prefer, but that's not the same as being unfair.
Only one small state (NH) gets any attention from Presidential candidates. Smaller states do not benefit from the electoral college at all.
That's an argument for the popular vote. In 2020 Trump lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote.
It feels like a dangerous time for society when it is so easy to spread lies to a massive percentage of the population that undermine the the very Democracy that society is based on.
The Spanish American war seemed to have a lot of lies and a journalistic duopoly controlling access to information which had one bent or another
Here is an article detailing a substantial set of changes made to the election process just before 2020. These might have all been perfectly legal things to do but when you make enough changes all at once some people start to wonder.
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/
People do have a right to wonder. And the process should both be transparent to observe, and possible to drag through courts if there are more questions. And with this election it sure was dragged through courts, for years. And there has been no evidence of any substantial irregularities. Changes or not, no one seems to find much to suggest the election wasn't decided fairly.
absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence
While true, it's also nonsensical to ask people to believe in something without providing evidence of it.
Carl Sagan has a good short story to this effect about a dragon in his garage: http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/Sagan.pdf
> Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.
Carl Sagan has a good short story to this effect about a dragon in his garage: http://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/110/Sagan.pdf
> Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head.
sagan makes a good point but he errs in so many ways that he can’t be assumed to be speaking philosophically, and so i don’t know how to respond. apart from this bogus strawman he constructs (himself) and proceeds to vigorously burn down successfully (because after all he’s the manufacturer) he seems to be in a hurry to dismiss whatever knowledge cannot be arrived at scientifically (and even worse with tools available during his time). the problem with ‘knowledge’ is well-known and unsolved.
He recommends not rejecting the hypothesis outright, but putting judgement on hold in lieu of evidence. If evidence is presented then be prepared to re-evaluate. He talks about present day tools and measurements as well and the need to re-evaluate in the future should future data be obtained.
I think the problem he’s addressing is when people use beliefs in lieu of evidence. Believing the election was rigged is fine, but without evidence you haven’t given Sagan or other evidence-based evaluators reason to believe your claim.
I think the problem he’s addressing is when people use beliefs in lieu of evidence. Believing the election was rigged is fine, but without evidence you haven’t given Sagan or other evidence-based evaluators reason to believe your claim.
You can almost think Sagan was taking a jab at religion there
That's not a very convincing argument if you are trying to make a fantastical claim without evidence. "Yeah I don't have any evidence thing X happened, but that doesn't mean it didn't!"
What should people do with that information?
if you interpret absence of evidence as ‘i don’t have evidence’ then you’re right. but evidence doesn’t necessarily require possession to exist. worse it could even be perfectly hidden by your interrogator.
Absence of evidence in 60 court cases is evidence of absence. If one side had enormous benefit from showing it happened, and they can't show it, then...
I feel like you might be (intentionally or not) combining these two things:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3...
Closely scrutinizing something, and noting that the null hypothesis explains those observations, is not absence of evidence. It is evidence of absence. Observation creates evidence, whether the observations were expected or not.
I skimmed the article and it seems to outline how folks knew Trump wouldn't concede if he lost, so they were preparing to fight disinformation and preparing for potential legal battles.
Could you elaborate on the changes you're taking away from the article that made people wonder about the integrity of the election?
Could you elaborate on the changes you're taking away from the article that made people wonder about the integrity of the election?
> Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time.
Targeted advertising and the bubble it creates is so powerful and dangerous.
[deleted]
This democracy is an illusion anyways
Lol. The opposite is true. We live in time when lying to the population has never been more difficult.
Before the internet, information control and media capture by the state was near total, and lying to the entire population was the default practice.
Before the internet, information control and media capture by the state was near total, and lying to the entire population was the default practice.
So there's a fifth circuit ruling out there explaining in detail how the Biden administration pressured a willing Meta to implement the administration's misinformation policy through moderation. Here they are allowing the other side's worst statements through.
Hopefully this makes it clear that misinformation control in practice really benefits whoever the platform wants to hedge against being in power with no concern for our own interests.
Here is the ruling if you would like to see what they have been doing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...
Hopefully this makes it clear that misinformation control in practice really benefits whoever the platform wants to hedge against being in power with no concern for our own interests.
Here is the ruling if you would like to see what they have been doing: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-30445-CV0.pd...
Techdirt has a good series outlining the clowinsh nature of the 5th circuit - https://www.techdirt.com/tag/5th-circuit/ - they often make just very problematic rulings not backed by law or precedent. In the ruling you linked, they make repeated references to "demands" that were supposedly problematic but when the full context is provided, they're completely benign. Just really bad faith efforts from the Court for political purposes.
Techdirt / Mike Masnick's post about this ruling, the district court's insane prior one, and trying to square the circle of free speech and government coercion:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/11/5th-circuit-cleans-up-di...
Techdirt / Mike Masnick's post about this ruling, the district court's insane prior one, and trying to square the circle of free speech and government coercion:
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/09/11/5th-circuit-cleans-up-di...
Techdirt/ Mike Masnick also repeatedly claims there is no disproportionate censorship and that Democrats and Republicans get censored an equal amount. He's very much been in a Silicon Valley bubble since 2016
I don't think he's ever claimed there is equal amounts of censorship - which would only be possible if both sides were equally promoting TOS-breaking posts - what he, and basically everyone who has ever studied 'censorship' of this type have found, is that Republicans do indeed have more posts removed, but largely due to them relentlessly promoting all sorts of wacky shit against the tech company TOS's. If Ds started posting revenge porn of Ivanka Trump in the same quantity as Rs posted the Hunter Biden pics - they'd all be removed as well, and rightfully so!
[deleted]
Well that's tricky right, since the 2020 election was rigged all kinds of ways in favor of the Republicans. So if you're going to allow political ads at all - which clearly they shouldn't - why would you ban things that are truthful?
Of course I'm aware that the 'rigged' line is typically aimed at the Democrats "rigging" the election since they won - but there is no evidence of that, while there is a plethora of evidence that Republicans rig the heck of out everything they can.
Seems like it would be much better to just ban political advertising.
Of course I'm aware that the 'rigged' line is typically aimed at the Democrats "rigging" the election since they won - but there is no evidence of that, while there is a plethora of evidence that Republicans rig the heck of out everything they can.
Seems like it would be much better to just ban political advertising.
Amazing how the different parties have such diametrically opposite views… if it wasn’t so serious it would be comical. In the last 24 hours I’ve heard the following from a republican and a democrat: “obviously we know they tampered with the election. It’s proven”
I’m aware of the “stop the steal” and dominion nonsense from the right. But what hard evidence exists that the Republican Party rigged the 2020 election?
I’m aware of the “stop the steal” and dominion nonsense from the right. But what hard evidence exists that the Republican Party rigged the 2020 election?
Limits on ballot drop-offs that mostly affect urban, democrat leaning counties: https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/politics/texas-supreme-court-...
Destroying equipment the USPS would use to handle the unusually large number of mail-in votes: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/21/politics/usps-mail-sorting-ma...
All coinciding with a large, engineered, split in pandemic cautiousness about attending in-person voting stalls between the two main parties. There are more examples, gerrymandering is a decades-long one, but most of what I've read & heard about 2020 was about forcing people to wait in long lines or vote in person when that would favor one party over the other.
Destroying equipment the USPS would use to handle the unusually large number of mail-in votes: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/21/politics/usps-mail-sorting-ma...
All coinciding with a large, engineered, split in pandemic cautiousness about attending in-person voting stalls between the two main parties. There are more examples, gerrymandering is a decades-long one, but most of what I've read & heard about 2020 was about forcing people to wait in long lines or vote in person when that would favor one party over the other.
I'm with you on the other things, but outside of the Maine, Nebraska, and the historical quirk that is two Dakotas, gerrymandering can't have a direct effect on presidential elections.
The 'direct' effect qualifier is important though -- gerrymandering state-level elections to the point where a population can be discouraged from voting would very likely have a top-line Presidential election impact too.
[deleted]
Most people claiming republicans "rig" elections tend to mean gerrymandering, ensuring long waitig times in predominantly D neighborhoods, banning people from giving those in line water and so on. Mostly things that are legal (at least by the letter of the law). Not sure I'd call that "tampering" though.
But of course the last hail mary was to have the fake electors and all that. People will literally do prison time for that. And "tampering" might be part of the description of those crimes somewhere.
But of course the last hail mary was to have the fake electors and all that. People will literally do prison time for that. And "tampering" might be part of the description of those crimes somewhere.
For the most part, when Democrats talk about this sort of thing, they mean legal but undemocratic or counter-majoritarian tools like the electoral college, not having enough polling places, limited voting hours, voter purges, etc.
I try to push back on using the word "rigged" for these things because A) Just describing the actual things is equally convincing and B) It normalizes that kind of verbiage in political discourse, whereas I think it's definitely better that such verbiage remain kooky. Not endorsing it, just observing a common sentiment.
I try to push back on using the word "rigged" for these things because A) Just describing the actual things is equally convincing and B) It normalizes that kind of verbiage in political discourse, whereas I think it's definitely better that such verbiage remain kooky. Not endorsing it, just observing a common sentiment.
There is no meaningful evidence that the election was rigged by any party. That's why nobody has brought any forward.
Plenty of violations of the law (e.g. illegal campaign overspending) happened in the open and are publicly acknowledged to have happened. (Also things like abuse of state-of-emergency laws that were legal but could be argued to be "rigging" - many of the regimes we think of as despotic are maintained through legal means)
Violations of campaign laws absolutely happened, by all parties, just as they happen every election. That doesn't address the point, though. The point is -- where is the evidence that the outcome of the election was rigged?
I don't think anyone's claiming that the results were fully determined ahead of time, just that illicit methods were used to nudge them by a few crucial percentage points. I'm not claiming it happened, but it's plausible - certainly laws were violated, and presumably those violating those laws did so because they thought it would advantage their party/candidate.
Unequal per-person weighting in our systems of representation can be demonstrated with nothing but a copy of the Constitution.
Sure, and I agree that the election system in the US undemocratic to the point of being arguably corrupt. But by "rigged", what most people mean is "manipulated in a way that isn't legally allowed". There's no evidence that this happened to any meaningful degree.
If you look at the gerrymandering court cases you'll see that proposed districts get ruled illegal very often. If you think of "the law" as a boundary independent of individual judges then after factoring in human imperfections this shows there must be a number of districts whose layout is against that idea of the law but got through anyways. It's stretching philosophy to say that but arguments on the democratic/legal basis of democracy/law itself are never simple.
Here are multiple instances of Republicans committing or attempting voter fraud in 2020:
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-poli...
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/republican-mail-b...
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/12/13/3-residen...
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-government-and-poli...
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/republican-mail-b...
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2021/12/13/3-residen...
Good but small anecdotal counts without large scale proven “rigging”. Bad yes, but let’s not get carried away
I get that everybody wants to ride this particular hobby horse, but in the wake of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, and the behavior of these platforms during the pandemic, I'm not sure I wouldn't rather live with lies I have to filter, than the "truths" they identify for me. I no longer trust the "experts'" definition of "misinformation," and I suspect I never will again.
Turns out outsourcing public discourse to a wholly unscrupulous private entity was, perhaps, not the best decision.
Public discourse was and should always be in the private domain. Anything else is totalitarianism by definition.
Corporations censor speech and any content in their platforms that they deem undesirable or threatening to their profits. That’s totalitarianism by definition, and yet private.
Public discourse squarely belongs to the public, and hosting it must be perceived and intended to be a kind of public service; otherwise we can just go back to the good old days of gathering and debating in public squares.
Public discourse squarely belongs to the public, and hosting it must be perceived and intended to be a kind of public service; otherwise we can just go back to the good old days of gathering and debating in public squares.
Totalitarianism would require the government to do the censoring.
You can't assume the government wouldn't censor based on the exact same criteria.
An entity with control will exercise it.
When it's a private entity there's a theoretical other place you can go. When it's public (government) there is fundamentally no other place you can go.
You can't assume the government wouldn't censor based on the exact same criteria.
An entity with control will exercise it.
When it's a private entity there's a theoretical other place you can go. When it's public (government) there is fundamentally no other place you can go.
Government isn’t the only entity capable of public service. Non-profit organizations are a thing. And that is precisely why the comment I replied to has problematic notions of “public” and “private”. NPOs are private entities, but do not behave the same way as corporations.
[deleted]
"Public Discourse" being "Private"? Public is in the name, though. So that statement seems... well... weird?
"Public" and "Private" and "Government" mean different things at different times.
In this case I think you mean Public Discourse is not controlled by the Government. And that's where a lot of confusion is coming in.
"Public" and "Private" and "Government" mean different things at different times.
In this case I think you mean Public Discourse is not controlled by the Government. And that's where a lot of confusion is coming in.
The negative outcomes are hard to argue with given Meta's scale. Having viable and vibrant journalistic outlets (that Meta had a hand in killing) and just talking to people, unmediated by a platform were both healthier.
There’s a difference between private domain and privately regulated.
TIL public school board hearings are totalitarian.
Parts of this aren't new, though—advertising in media outlets has always been a privately-operated domain.
There wasn't any law that forbids saying election was rigged. Outsourcing caused other type of problem of not allowing certain views, not not banning illegal stuff.
yawboakye(2)
Why is it no problem to say that the 2000 election was bogus? It was, and its not a big leap in logic to say that our "leaders" only got bolder since then.
edit: I dont care about my groupthink points/karma, I truly would like an answer. I dislike both political parties equally and have no skin in the game so please, someone take a stab at an answer to my question.
edit: I dont care about my groupthink points/karma, I truly would like an answer. I dislike both political parties equally and have no skin in the game so please, someone take a stab at an answer to my question.
My opinion.
The 2000 election was essentially decided by the courts based on mostly agreed upon facts. The outcome depended on interpretation of the law.
In the most recent election the facts themselves are not agreed upon and there are many many unsubstantiated allegations.
The 2000 election was essentially decided by the courts based on mostly agreed upon facts. The outcome depended on interpretation of the law.
In the most recent election the facts themselves are not agreed upon and there are many many unsubstantiated allegations.
It seems like it would be better to resolve those disputes in the court instead of dismissing them all on procedural grounds like the doctrine of laches
Yea, got that. The folks who had a vested interest in the system basically picked the president and they found a reason to do so (the chads and close results). Have our leaders ever shown restraint in any of the power we have given them? How does this HN community constantly and correctly bemoan our increasing security state but looks past the rapid gerrymandering, vote harvesting and other funny business because of the wrong letter after a persons name? At this rate, our politicians are most likely going to fix or attempt to fix an election at some point. It might have happened, it might have not.
As a proponent of sortition i would (half) jockingly argue that all elections are fixed bu design. They oppose pre selected candidates and their outcome rarely matters.
What is the go to URL that people like that summarizes the debate around censhorship vs speech rights? Like so many other things, it seems to me that both sides have a very strong case, but that ultimately, in all matters, practicality wins. In this case, speech freedom is ideologically correct, and Meta is being short-term practical (money!) but long-term impractical (undermining democracy will undermine key infrastructure upon which Meta depends). E.g. censorship is generally very bad, even extremely bad, but this particular set of claims is a contagion to which large swaths of the public are vulnerable to, and which present a clear and present danger to US democracy. Furthermore, this isn't a case where there is any nuance: every claim of fraud has been undermined. To anyone paying attention to these claims and their response knows the score; so to see the population get swayed because of their own ignorance and prejudice is a sacrifice too great for the altar of "free speech". Especially when you factor in how much less free speech will become if they win.
You mean Truth Social where Trump called his enemies "vermin"? Or do you mean something like the NYTimes, which Trump calls "Fake News"?
I have no idea whether Trump would be an Authoritarian or not if he wins president again, but propaganda around Jews was why Germany had no issues with death camps being run in their name.
Unfortunately all media is profit driven, with the notable exception of PBS and NPR. At some point you're going to trust someone. My neighbor across the street trusts Fox News, e.g.
I have no idea whether Trump would be an Authoritarian or not if he wins president again, but propaganda around Jews was why Germany had no issues with death camps being run in their name.
Unfortunately all media is profit driven, with the notable exception of PBS and NPR. At some point you're going to trust someone. My neighbor across the street trusts Fox News, e.g.
Why are "rigged" and "stolen" lumped together? I thought one means the rules are unfair (legal), and the other means the rules were broken (illegal). These are... very different, no?
I think their claim is the election rules were changed illegally at the last moment.
This is one of the dozens and dozens of claims that were made, including boxes full of votes, hacked voting machines, etc.
They were factually changed outside of the normal process right? The question is whether a state of emergency justified the change? I wish everyone wouldn’t get so mouth-frothing when stuff like this is discussed, it makes it hard to tell what is really going on.
I didn't glean that from the article. Which rules were allegedly illegally changed at the last moment?
I didn’t read this article, but I believe the switch to mail in ballots (at least) was made by the executive branch in many places where legally speaking it is supposed to be made by the legislative branch. I believe the process change was justified under the COVID related emergency orders. Kind of hard to tell whether it was above board or not.
I haven’t looked too much into it though, if someone can add more detail I would be interested too!
I haven’t looked too much into it though, if someone can add more detail I would be interested too!
Did courts not review this? I'm curious which states are alleged to have done this illegally (and how that would've affected the outcome) because for example I thought I saw it was upheld in Pennsylvania:
https://apnews.com/article/pennsylvania-mail-voting-ballots-...
I haven’t been specifically following the updates, but I haven’t seen the executive vs legislative distinction challenged or decided in any court. I assumed it would be but I haven’t seen anything. The linked article seems to be about a technicality related to envelope formatting, not about who can change the election process.
Huh, thanks.
You didn't read the article and you say you haven't looked into it much but twice in this post you've made assertions about legally questionable/illegal actions.
Your posts here are a perfect example of why we need to fight disinfo so strongly because people will parrot random things they hear all over the place and by second level it becomes truth to many.
Your posts here are a perfect example of why we need to fight disinfo so strongly because people will parrot random things they hear all over the place and by second level it becomes truth to many.
I use soft language because this is a sensitive topic that has become hyper politicized and I am not a partisan (both of the current parties are extremely gross).
I said that I haven't read this article. I do assert that a) state electoral process is generally decided by the legislature b) leading up to the 2020 election the mail-in ballot option was greatly expanded in many states c) in at least several states, the ballot option expansion was enacted by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, as part of the emergency response.
Which of the above isn't true?
Getting into details, I am not sure exactly how many states were involved in (c), or whether the (c) possibly could have affected the outcome. Figuring these out would require significant analysis. I would have to go state by state and read the electoral process laws, and then find the state by state records of electoral process change, and then cross reference those, etc.
I haven't seen this analysis done anywhere, but I would be grateful if anyone could link such an analysis since I am still curious. It seems like people generally don't get into the details, they just start yelling.
I said that I haven't read this article. I do assert that a) state electoral process is generally decided by the legislature b) leading up to the 2020 election the mail-in ballot option was greatly expanded in many states c) in at least several states, the ballot option expansion was enacted by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, as part of the emergency response.
Which of the above isn't true?
Getting into details, I am not sure exactly how many states were involved in (c), or whether the (c) possibly could have affected the outcome. Figuring these out would require significant analysis. I would have to go state by state and read the electoral process laws, and then find the state by state records of electoral process change, and then cross reference those, etc.
I haven't seen this analysis done anywhere, but I would be grateful if anyone could link such an analysis since I am still curious. It seems like people generally don't get into the details, they just start yelling.
You said it would be too much work to go through state by state but you still make strong assertions in you're the three points above. You are speaking from ignorance and declaring things in multiple places and your excuse is that you believe these things and it would be too much work to find the truth. That is the problem.
You are twisting my words, or you have a serious problem with reading comprehension. Getting morally angry while reading can have that effect, I suppose.
I asserted that a, b and c are true. I am 100% sure about that. I have not asserted anything beyond those in this thread (or elsewhere). If you can rebut a, b, or c I would be very interested, since I prefer to become more right over time.
In order to make a stronger claim than I am making, I would need to do more work. Where that work isn't "looking things up on the internet", it's "performing professional level legal analysis".
I asserted that a, b and c are true. I am 100% sure about that. I have not asserted anything beyond those in this thread (or elsewhere). If you can rebut a, b, or c I would be very interested, since I prefer to become more right over time.
In order to make a stronger claim than I am making, I would need to do more work. Where that work isn't "looking things up on the internet", it's "performing professional level legal analysis".
You've accurately covered the facts I think.
Beyond that, as you say, would require legal analysis and courts, and there has been a lot of hand wringing and not much legal analysis and the courts have mostly ignored the issue.
Beyond that, as you say, would require legal analysis and courts, and there has been a lot of hand wringing and not much legal analysis and the courts have mostly ignored the issue.
"Rigged" can mean lots of things, including something being illegally stolen. Such as a rigged boxing match.
> "Rigged" can mean lots of things, including something being illegally stolen. Such as a rigged boxing match.
Perhaps this is just my ignorance of boxing but I dare say that example didn't enlighten me. I can't think of any case in sports (or elsewhere) where I've seen "rigged" to mean illegal conduct. I thought that's generally called something else, like a foul.
Perhaps this is just my ignorance of boxing but I dare say that example didn't enlighten me. I can't think of any case in sports (or elsewhere) where I've seen "rigged" to mean illegal conduct. I thought that's generally called something else, like a foul.
Taking a dive in a fight (losing) in order to fix the fight (for those gambling on it) would be an example of a rigged fight.
> Taking a dive in a fight (losing) in order to fix the fight (for those gambling on it) would be an example of a rigged fight.
That doesn't make sense... the fight is rigged (and you're claiming this would be illegal in the fight) because people happened to gamble on it? I've never seen a sport where the legality of a move depends on whether some outsider had gambled on it.
Wouldn't it be the gambling that would be rigged at that point, instead of the fight?
That doesn't make sense... the fight is rigged (and you're claiming this would be illegal in the fight) because people happened to gamble on it? I've never seen a sport where the legality of a move depends on whether some outsider had gambled on it.
Wouldn't it be the gambling that would be rigged at that point, instead of the fight?
OP’s boxing example was a perfect illustration of the common use of the word rigged. It’s rigged because the outcome was predetermined but not presented that way to the outside viewer.
But it's still legal, no? That's my point. I'm not saying it's good, just that it's an entirely different beast from illegal conduct. US elections have always been rigged (see: legally required electoral college) but they've never been "stolen"/"illegitimate" AFAIK.
No. It’s illegal to fix a sanctioned boxing match. Both in the sense of being against the rules of the entity putting on the match, and in the sense of violating the law.
Wrestling is a different beast but boxing is heavily regulated in the US
Wrestling is a different beast but boxing is heavily regulated in the US
Is this true even if there is no betting/gambling/etc. on the match?
You can rig a game of monopoly, you can rig a jury. The act of something being rigged is separate from it being legal. Sometimes it is both, sometimes it is not.
If the fighter is paid to take a dive, then the fight is rigged and the bettors on the outside know which way to bet. It's fraud, and yes, generally illegal.
Just want to add another voice in favor of OP. They have explained this extremely clearly, it’s hard for me to imagine demanding more
Are misleading political ads this profitable? Or is it just that big tech don't want to spend another dollar on moderation?
I don't think it's about the money. It's probably about being hauled in front of Congress and being threatened with (essentially) nationalization again and again.
> ... being threatened with (essentially) nationalization again and again
I can't think of any major company in the US that has been forcibly nationalized in the past 30 years, excluding failed banks.
I can't think of any major company in the US that has been forcibly nationalized in the past 30 years, excluding failed banks.
Texas and Florida have passed laws putting the states in control of content moderation.
Yes. Political spending during major elections makes up a huge part of advertising revenues so financially it makes sense to err on the side of permissive.
Even general government advertising projects are extremely profitable for online advertisers since in almost all cases the only metric tracked is how much was spent by the project/department not how effective it was so you can get away with showing it to lower valued traffic(high bot chance for example) and still make the same amount.
Even general government advertising projects are extremely profitable for online advertisers since in almost all cases the only metric tracked is how much was spent by the project/department not how effective it was so you can get away with showing it to lower valued traffic(high bot chance for example) and still make the same amount.
profitable for who?
I sense a learned helplessness when it comes to these topics. To say that Meta should police these posts hints at the fact that there is no hope for rhetoric or persuasion and that people are not rational.
Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?
Suppressing speech has downsides (loss of trust, centralization). Allowing speech also has downsides (misinformation, instigation, hate). How do we decide which is the way forward?
Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?
Suppressing speech has downsides (loss of trust, centralization). Allowing speech also has downsides (misinformation, instigation, hate). How do we decide which is the way forward?
> Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?
In short: yes. I haven't given up, nor has everyone. But my experience has been that a shockingly large number of people (possibly even a majority) in the US simply assume bad faith from those with whom they disagree. They aren't even trying to discuss, because they believe that their ideological opponents are unable or unwilling to have a civil discussion. So they are trying to use tools like control of the public square (Facebook in this case) to suppress ideas they believe are dangerous.
I personally believe that this view is quite mistaken. I've had plenty of discussions with people I disagree with, and while we may not have changed each others' minds we at least could walk away with respect for each other at the end of it. But I certainly seem to be in the minority, and that troubles me deeply. Sidestepping discussion in favor of other, more heavy handed, approaches is imo far more dangerous to a democratic society than the ideas that people are trying to suppress in the first place.
In short: yes. I haven't given up, nor has everyone. But my experience has been that a shockingly large number of people (possibly even a majority) in the US simply assume bad faith from those with whom they disagree. They aren't even trying to discuss, because they believe that their ideological opponents are unable or unwilling to have a civil discussion. So they are trying to use tools like control of the public square (Facebook in this case) to suppress ideas they believe are dangerous.
I personally believe that this view is quite mistaken. I've had plenty of discussions with people I disagree with, and while we may not have changed each others' minds we at least could walk away with respect for each other at the end of it. But I certainly seem to be in the minority, and that troubles me deeply. Sidestepping discussion in favor of other, more heavy handed, approaches is imo far more dangerous to a democratic society than the ideas that people are trying to suppress in the first place.
The think-tank -> influencer/trad media pipeline has been optimized to the point where it successfully has captured the long tail of most potential public political discourse.
On virtually any hot button topic, ready made points, counterpoints, and counter-counterpoints have already been disseminated and tested via the crucible of social media.
I don’t even bother engaging in impromptu debates anymore, because it feels like extremely lame high level chess where everyone knows all possible openers and defenses 72 moves out.
On virtually any hot button topic, ready made points, counterpoints, and counter-counterpoints have already been disseminated and tested via the crucible of social media.
I don’t even bother engaging in impromptu debates anymore, because it feels like extremely lame high level chess where everyone knows all possible openers and defenses 72 moves out.
The money tends to be on one side of these things, and money amplifies the message substantially.
You can argue that the election was fair all you want, but who is going to pay to run all the ads to impress that message on everyone?
It's already the case that clickbait headlines and lies are naturally more engaging, so amplifying them with money seems to drown out any rational counter dialogue.
You can argue that the election was fair all you want, but who is going to pay to run all the ads to impress that message on everyone?
It's already the case that clickbait headlines and lies are naturally more engaging, so amplifying them with money seems to drown out any rational counter dialogue.
[deleted]
It is suspected that "fiction spreads faster than facts" on social media.
It is also suspected that "when you present the facts to someone who wants to be believe a lie, that person will hold on more strongly to their belief in the lie".
> the fact that there is no hope for rhetoric or persuasion and that people are not rational.
Right now in the US, the political state has degraded to the point where I this this is a truer statement than anyone wants.
Right now in the US, the political state has degraded to the point where I this this is a truer statement than anyone wants.
> Have we completely given up on making a good counter argument instead of disallowing things to be said in the first place?
Kinda depends upon the subject. I assume you've never argued with a flat earther or a pizzagate believer. It's a waste of time. You can ignore them or silence them, bringing good counter arguments is gonna be a waste of your time.
Kinda depends upon the subject. I assume you've never argued with a flat earther or a pizzagate believer. It's a waste of time. You can ignore them or silence them, bringing good counter arguments is gonna be a waste of your time.
This is why it’s so distasteful when ex-Meta trust and safety hires attempt to lead the disinformation space via various think tanks or publishing risk taxonomy.
They worked at, profited, conveniently left with vested RSUs, and then turn around and try to sell the solutions to a problem they supported. Like taking lung cancer advice from cigarette company scientists.
Such a morally bankrupt company, and only in a bad way bc they wrap up their work in such flimsy ideals.
They worked at, profited, conveniently left with vested RSUs, and then turn around and try to sell the solutions to a problem they supported. Like taking lung cancer advice from cigarette company scientists.
Such a morally bankrupt company, and only in a bad way bc they wrap up their work in such flimsy ideals.
I don't see this going well for any of the sites if things do get ugly again in 2024. Hard federal prison time would be on the table if these ads are tied back into another coup d'état.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/politics/kavanaugh-protests-u...
Let's just treat everyone who storms the capital and disrupts the function of government the same.
It seems like an endless cycle. It was said that Trump’s win was rigged via Russian collusion. Then that Biden’s win was rigged via voter fraud. So seemingly every election will be considered “rigged”
Sure, but one is very much not like the other.
One allegation was that Russia assisted by providing information, basically corruption or collusion, the other allegation is that democracy is dead because votes were literally thrown out.
One allegation was that Russia assisted by providing information, basically corruption or collusion, the other allegation is that democracy is dead because votes were literally thrown out.
Do you not believe in an honest media to sort this stuff out?
If not, then we're all fucked.
If not, then we're all fucked.
Would they allow a Coca Cola run an ad that claims Pepsi donates to the KKK? How about an ad that claims "our competitors" donate to the KKK?
If you claim an election is "rigged" or "stolen", those scenarios require a culprit. Who rigged the election? Who stole it? A very serious smear is being made that has no basis in reality, and I don't think that kind of defamation is generally allowed just because the parties being defamed are ill-defined.
If you claim an election is "rigged" or "stolen", those scenarios require a culprit. Who rigged the election? Who stole it? A very serious smear is being made that has no basis in reality, and I don't think that kind of defamation is generally allowed just because the parties being defamed are ill-defined.
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/17/1087047638/the-truth-in-polit...
> While the Federal Trade Commission regulates truth in commercial advertising, the FCC does not do the same for political ads.
> Some have called for a "neutral government regulator" to oversee political speech, but there's no broad, serious movement in Congress for something like that.
> In fact, various courts have repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right of candidates to essentially say what they want on federally regulated broadcast channels. Local broadcast television stations (think ABC, NBC, CBS) can't reject ads, even if they're blatantly false.
> While the Federal Trade Commission regulates truth in commercial advertising, the FCC does not do the same for political ads.
> Some have called for a "neutral government regulator" to oversee political speech, but there's no broad, serious movement in Congress for something like that.
> In fact, various courts have repeatedly upheld the First Amendment right of candidates to essentially say what they want on federally regulated broadcast channels. Local broadcast television stations (think ABC, NBC, CBS) can't reject ads, even if they're blatantly false.
That assumes the FTC is actually neutral government bureaucrats. We assume the same with the Justice Department, but this may no longer be the case if Cheetos gets back into office.
Being cynical, conspiracy, or half joking (or maybe all of the above? :) ): this means that the big tech bets on the orange guy coming back.
Let's entertain this idea: They have much better behavioral and sentiment analysis tools than anyone else (this is why they are so much better at ad targeting! Their ads work and everyone in marketing says are worth this extra cost). And if they knew he will (obviously not certain, just with a high enough probability), wouldn't they try to play a bit safer for him to avoid an immediate retaliation?
Let's entertain this idea: They have much better behavioral and sentiment analysis tools than anyone else (this is why they are so much better at ad targeting! Their ads work and everyone in marketing says are worth this extra cost). And if they knew he will (obviously not certain, just with a high enough probability), wouldn't they try to play a bit safer for him to avoid an immediate retaliation?
Hey maybe they're just treating Donald Trump like Hilary Clinton or Stacey Abrams. Claiming elections are rigged when you lose didn't start in 2020 or even 2000
It’s an interesting line of thought, but I don’t think it really works as stated. Even if Meta thinks trump has a 10% chance of winning, it makes sense to cozy up to him in ambiguous and deniable ways.
X, YouTube, and Meta all have the same policy?
Jesus fucking Christ. If any of you work at any of these places you are part of the problem.
Jesus fucking Christ. If any of you work at any of these places you are part of the problem.
I think this is a pretty terrible attempt to cater to both sides. Implying that an ongoing election is illegitimate is "against the rules," but saying the current incumbents are illegitimately there is "allowed?" Why?