Experts call it a 'clown show' but Arizona 'audit' is a disinformation blueprint(npr.org)
npr.org
Experts call it a 'clown show' but Arizona 'audit' is a disinformation blueprint
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/03/1000954549/experts-call-it-a-clown-show-but-arizona-audit-is-a-disinformation-blueprint
104 comments
What's the next legal step if they do "find" discrepancies? A court challenge? I imagine no fool judge would accept a priavely-funded politically-backed organization's conclusions over that of the legal audit precedent.
I'm having trouble seeing a route that doesn't involve asking people to ignore the law and put someone unelected into power.
I'm having trouble seeing a route that doesn't involve asking people to ignore the law and put someone unelected into power.
There is no legal path that leads from this audit to a change in the election results; the election is over, the results are certified, the electors have voted, etc.
The goal of this audit is to find evidence that will bolster the claims that there was significant election fraud. That evidence could be used to push for changes to future elections, for campaigning purposes, whatever.
Whether this is a good-faith effort to identify actual potential fraud or an attempt to manufacture FUD about the elections process is left as an exercise for the reader.
The goal of this audit is to find evidence that will bolster the claims that there was significant election fraud. That evidence could be used to push for changes to future elections, for campaigning purposes, whatever.
Whether this is a good-faith effort to identify actual potential fraud or an attempt to manufacture FUD about the elections process is left as an exercise for the reader.
The latter is exactly what they want. The former President has literally said he expects to be “reinstated as President” in august
Do you have a source for this, as far as I can tell this is hearsay?
Maggie Haberman, New York Times, one of the most reliable sources on Trump related news[1]: https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1399707794375426051
[1] regardless of one's other beliefs about access journalism, which if you are replying to this because I cited Haberman, I likely agree with.
[1] regardless of one's other beliefs about access journalism, which if you are replying to this because I cited Haberman, I likely agree with.
Another collection of sources: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-ri...
They are not looking to overturn presidential results. Or even local results. All this "middle talk" is just optics. It makes for good coverage.
If this was a legal case they would be doing it differently. It's not. They are using their opposition's tactics for generating support that will extend into future elections.
If they find something wrong, then they know what to fix. If not, they pivot.
The outrage over how the audit is being conducting is expected. They want this to be covered by outlets such as NPR.
If this was a legal case they would be doing it differently. It's not. They are using their opposition's tactics for generating support that will extend into future elections.
If they find something wrong, then they know what to fix. If not, they pivot.
The outrage over how the audit is being conducting is expected. They want this to be covered by outlets such as NPR.
One way to show evidence of audit tampering is to watch the live feed and report on any suspicious behaviour:
https://azaudit.org/
https://azaudit.org/
What does this prove? It's quite literally impossible to see what any of them are doing.
If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly.
Ah, so kinda like the cameras they had in the offices [0] when they counted the ballots the first time?
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-tru...
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-throws-out-tru...
>If, for example, out of blue they declare there is a water pipe burst and rush everyone out, yet a few people remain and bring in fake/doctored ballots, that should prove that votes weren't being counted properly.
Ah yes, one of the numerous and thoroughly debunked Trump camp conspiracy theories about the election. Are you going to bring up missing suitcases full of ballots or sharpies as well?
Now at least we know which side you're on.
Ah yes, one of the numerous and thoroughly debunked Trump camp conspiracy theories about the election. Are you going to bring up missing suitcases full of ballots or sharpies as well?
Now at least we know which side you're on.
It's repotred as debunked by a biased source.
If you actually look at the evidence, you will realise it is not debunked. If youtube hasn't pulled the video, they go through the evidence in a hearing in front of the Georgia State Legislature.
Many of them originally doubt the evidence, believing it to be den=bunked as reported in the media. After seeing the evidence, they are appalled at the deceit of the election officials.
The power structures that be wish to ignore it, but like like Galileo being confident in his findings against a biased establishment Catholic Church, the truth will come out.
If you actually look at the evidence, you will realise it is not debunked. If youtube hasn't pulled the video, they go through the evidence in a hearing in front of the Georgia State Legislature.
Many of them originally doubt the evidence, believing it to be den=bunked as reported in the media. After seeing the evidence, they are appalled at the deceit of the election officials.
The power structures that be wish to ignore it, but like like Galileo being confident in his findings against a biased establishment Catholic Church, the truth will come out.
If "YouTube hasn't pulled the video", I should imagine you'll have no problem finding and linking the purportedly groundbreaking evidence you're claiming exists. Otherwise, Occams razor slices your argument to ribbons.
Well youtube's algorithm made these hard to find, maybe youtube only promote videos turfed by BigTech bots
Long videos, but as you can see has been watched by many. Bit describing the "pipe burst" starts at 13:50 of the 2nd link. But there is so much more evidence here than just that once instance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjbAFuoQOvo&t=9842s&ab_chann...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35f4pUIYOg&ab_channel=Right...
Long videos, but as you can see has been watched by many. Bit describing the "pipe burst" starts at 13:50 of the 2nd link. But there is so much more evidence here than just that once instance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjbAFuoQOvo&t=9842s&ab_chann...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e35f4pUIYOg&ab_channel=Right...
https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90...
^ You can listen to their findings and explanations. They dont' expect anything besides improving elections for the future; this is per the AZ senate.
^ You can listen to their findings and explanations. They dont' expect anything besides improving elections for the future; this is per the AZ senate.
If judges don't listen to private groups challenging the government, then we are in a world of trouble. The judge will ask them to prove it, though.
I believe they already have: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/dominion-sues-fox-ne...
> The judge will ask them to prove it, though.
It won't get that far. At this point, the court does not have the power to change the election outcome of that county. That will lead to immediate dismissal of the case as moot.
It won't get that far. At this point, the court does not have the power to change the election outcome of that county. That will lead to immediate dismissal of the case as moot.
This is actually a good counterpoint. I would expect a good court battle then. But the legal precedent allows third parties, observers, etc, in a regular recount.
It's entirely uncharted territory. There is absolutely no precedent for this. People can cite elections being invalidated for lower positions, but nothing on the level of the Presidency. A do-over for something like state senate seat is no big deal, but a new presidential election is unthinkable and probably unconstitutional as well.
Can you imagine the absolute chaos that would result if the audit was able to find enough evidence that would change the outcome? If I were a judge having to make a decision with such implications I would fear for my life. I would fear for the rule-of-law and being seen as a 21st century Roger Taney. My name would probably be listed in the Wikipedia article under "Causes of the Second American Civil War".
So here's what I predict will happen. The audit will find fraud (that's what it was designed to do here). But the amount and impact will be debatable enough such that the results are not overturned. Media outlets are not interested in making this Watergate 2.0 and they most certainly do not want Donald J. Trump back in office. They certainly do not want to give energy to conducting an audit in Georgia and giving any credibility to the Arizona audit would facilitate that. In 40 or 50 years maybe we will find the truth.
Can you imagine the absolute chaos that would result if the audit was able to find enough evidence that would change the outcome? If I were a judge having to make a decision with such implications I would fear for my life. I would fear for the rule-of-law and being seen as a 21st century Roger Taney. My name would probably be listed in the Wikipedia article under "Causes of the Second American Civil War".
So here's what I predict will happen. The audit will find fraud (that's what it was designed to do here). But the amount and impact will be debatable enough such that the results are not overturned. Media outlets are not interested in making this Watergate 2.0 and they most certainly do not want Donald J. Trump back in office. They certainly do not want to give energy to conducting an audit in Georgia and giving any credibility to the Arizona audit would facilitate that. In 40 or 50 years maybe we will find the truth.
Without cookie warnings, etc.
https://text.npr.org/1000954549
https://text.npr.org/1000954549
If we are building ML models on news, how MLs can filter disinformation? Will we be fact checking every bit of news they receive?
MLs would also need tell the difference between disinformation and real information. This is incredibly hard to do, since disinformation looks like real information unless your understanding of the world is broad and specific. And then eventually you end up with the same problem as humans, which is that if the world context leaves out trustworthy information needed to discriminate real information from faulty information, then the ML will also fall prey to the hack. And of course, for truly nefarious misinformation, it is just consistent enough with trustworthy information to appear trustworthy.
This is no easy slice.
This is no easy slice.
Absolutely.
There is all sorts of methods that can be employed. Facts can be obfuscated, I suppose a natural language model might be able to detect if this is unusual for that source but it doesn’t mean fake news. Another is simply lying with statistics, this would be much harder for NLP as now your talking getting the model to understand statistically information, understanding the background and why certain ways of presenting stats might be disingenuous for that subject.
You are also just relying on a model that only its owner could verify.
Ultimately though, this is fighting a losing battle because the source of the issue isn’t in propaganda which has long existed but in the channels through which it spreads. Something that has been known for a long time is flaming passions is more effective than fact. So too for social media is the spread of information faster when false[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fake-news-spreads-...]. Which makes it difficult to counteract if the false information spreads faster than the rebuttal.
Ultimately though, this is fighting a losing battle because the source of the issue isn’t in propaganda which has long existed but in the channels through which it spreads. Something that has been known for a long time is flaming passions is more effective than fact. So too for social media is the spread of information faster when false[https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fake-news-spreads-...]. Which makes it difficult to counteract if the false information spreads faster than the rebuttal.
The models would need a live, updated data source. What could they have possibly relied on to accurately label e.g. the Wuhan lab leak theory?
Is there an audit of the audit's result plan by the democrats? Where is the end of such rhetoric?
The real disinformation secret recipe is to start with people wanting to believe something. A disinformation campaign can not be construed to sew just any arbitrary belief. Its time to recognize that no one is being tricked by disinformation. It is like willful ignorance but not quite ignorance. Willful wrongness.
And that's where propaganda/advertising come in. It's not just red vs. blue politics, there's brainwashing in effect in the consumer market and about economics/taxation/education as well.
Spend years saying something is true, and when you can will it into power using a power grab, you actualize a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Disinformation campaigns aren't lone wolves - they're part of a wolf pack that's been harrying their prey for a LONG time.
Spend years saying something is true, and when you can will it into power using a power grab, you actualize a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Disinformation campaigns aren't lone wolves - they're part of a wolf pack that's been harrying their prey for a LONG time.
>typically claiming belief in more falsehoods than liberals
I haven't read the whole thing, but here's the major issue which any such study would need to control for (but likely hasn't). Is it proper belief (as in belief as anticipation control) or is it belief as attire?
[1]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nYkMLFpx77Rz3uo9c/belief-as-...
I haven't read the whole thing, but here's the major issue which any such study would need to control for (but likely hasn't). Is it proper belief (as in belief as anticipation control) or is it belief as attire?
[1]https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nYkMLFpx77Rz3uo9c/belief-as-...
ipspam(1)
lettergram(6)
Imagine spending 4 years calling Donald Trump an illegitimate president then having a cry when they want to validate votes.
You want Trump Republicans to calm down? Prove Joe won, let them look at the ballots. Elections should be open and transparent, and trying to stonewall something like this that has no real next step beyond reform to stop any fraud in the future just undermines the confidence you could be building
You want Trump Republicans to calm down? Prove Joe won, let them look at the ballots. Elections should be open and transparent, and trying to stonewall something like this that has no real next step beyond reform to stop any fraud in the future just undermines the confidence you could be building
If there's a way to prove a Biden victory to their satisfaction, I have no idea what it could be at this point.
Funny how "experts" are willing to call this a clown show, yet every single 2016/2020 poll was off by miles. Thought they would have learned by now.
Poll =/= Voting Results. Equating the two makes zero sense.
The polls were off by miles, but in the other direction from the alleged fraud; Democratic candidates received fewer votes and Republican candidates more than would have been predicted by polls.
There have, however, been very few claims of fraud benefiting Republican candidates, because this is mostly explained by high turnout by Republican voters due to strong personal support for Trump in a segment of the party that historically has low turnout. This is illustrated by improved performance by Democrats in runoff elections where Trump was no longer on the ballot.
There have, however, been very few claims of fraud benefiting Republican candidates, because this is mostly explained by high turnout by Republican voters due to strong personal support for Trump in a segment of the party that historically has low turnout. This is illustrated by improved performance by Democrats in runoff elections where Trump was no longer on the ballot.
You lost me at "experts". Blatant appeal to authority. The story should be able to stand on its own.
Even formal mathematical proofs "appeal to authority" when they invoke theorems without re-deriving them every time. It's a shorthand reference to knowledge that time and energy has already been spent discovering. The parallel for this in society, where the present cumulative scope of knowledge is completely impossible for a single person to independently discover on their own, is called expertise. When you are denigrating experts, you are denigrating acquired, shared knowledge.
Pure reason has limits, but one of the neat things about rational argumentation is that it can be applied to itself to discover what alot of its own limits are.
Pure reason has limits, but one of the neat things about rational argumentation is that it can be applied to itself to discover what alot of its own limits are.
No, because with mathematical proof you can realistically go through the derivations to approve/refute them. It is a short hand referencing something which can be disproven, therefore not an appeal to authority.
Using "experts" here IS an appeal to authority. Bias is at play here in a way that it is not in mathematical proofs. "Experts" is used here to provide cognitive ease to the reader, as a way of encouraging them not to examine deeper.
Using "experts" here IS an appeal to authority. Bias is at play here in a way that it is not in mathematical proofs. "Experts" is used here to provide cognitive ease to the reader, as a way of encouraging them not to examine deeper.
To be fair, a good argument only needs to appeal to two sides of the rhetorical triangle. Logos and Ethos are two perfectly viable platforms to make a statement on.
Last time I checked, the "audit" was being very careful to be transparent. (Constant live video feeds.)
What's the problem with another audit? Given the transparency, they aren't going to fake anything.
What's the problem with another audit? Given the transparency, they aren't going to fake anything.
I'm not sure where you check into this but the whole things I a clown show. I'm walking distance to the site, even outside the venue it is weird stuff.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/post-election-audits-ar...
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/post-election-audits-ar...
The audit is being funded by by a private party conservative news network. What results do you think they're going to find?
Does anyoone find it interesting that the expert (Matt Masterson) is a Democrat appointed by the Obama Administration?
Maybe we should get a an International organization to certify the results so we don't have either political party involved in the outcome.
Here is another problem, NPR is the source. I think it's safe to say they will always draw on experts that support their narrative (and that's ok). If I posted a FOX News report with a Republican Expert, would that be ok?
There is nothing wrong with making sure the results were accurate and correct (in a unbiased way), just like there is nothing wrong with requiring an ID that is recognized by the Government to be able to cast a vote in this country.
Maybe we should get a an International organization to certify the results so we don't have either political party involved in the outcome.
Here is another problem, NPR is the source. I think it's safe to say they will always draw on experts that support their narrative (and that's ok). If I posted a FOX News report with a Republican Expert, would that be ok?
There is nothing wrong with making sure the results were accurate and correct (in a unbiased way), just like there is nothing wrong with requiring an ID that is recognized by the Government to be able to cast a vote in this country.
Unless of course said ID is expensive for the poor and they can't afford it (hint: it is). Or you purposely close offices/DMVs in black districts to make it harder to obtain that ID (hint: Republicans do).
Side note: If you're comparing NPR to Fox News in terms of trustworthiness, your bias is showing.
Side note: If you're comparing NPR to Fox News in terms of trustworthiness, your bias is showing.
If you can't afford an ID in the USA (which is already subsidized for poor people), then there is something very wrong. I still don't want anyone voting that can't prove their identity. And I think we can already guess your bias.
Is there some large number of people voting illegally that we and every major US agency has not found?
Never had 66 million votes that were barely vetted.
So if you're pro No-ID for voting, are you pro No-ID for driving or employment? Maybe we should just get rid of the option for people to be identified. I'm sure it work out well for society.
So if you're pro No-ID for voting, are you pro No-ID for driving or employment? Maybe we should just get rid of the option for people to be identified. I'm sure it work out well for society.
How would we know since they can't check the identity of the voter?
Your statement boils down to not wanting older black people to vote. Many black Americans were born at home in the South because they weren't allowed to use the hospitals and their counties refused to record the births and issue certificates. This was as recently as 50 years ago.
So for the next 50 years they couldn't get an ID? You're argument is ridiculous.
It is imperative (and almost universally common) that citizens show solid proof of eligibility to vote. Making excuses for why this should not be so in US elections is absolutely ridiculous. And to take it farther and impute nefarious motives to those you don't agree with is about as biased an action as can possibly exist.
Is there some large number of people voting illegally that we and every major US agency has not found?
No, because the quoted expert continued to serve with integrity during the Trump administration. He appeared to transition from one non-partisan government agency (US Election Assistance Commission) to another (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in DHS).
lettergram(1)
I live in the district that incumbent Anthony Kern ran in and lost, he has been photographed processing ballots at this "audit".
The person who ran the election in the county they are "auditing", Adrian Fontes, lost his seat in the same supposedly manipulated election.
I personally know so many people who believe the election was stolen.
I have never been so fearful for the future of my country.