6 ms·

Yeah, I remember the outrage when the original Diebold hacking announcement was made in the Bush Jr era. The concerns in that were never addressed and doubtless

Yeah, I remember the outrage when the original Diebold hacking announcement was made in the Bush Jr era. The concerns in that were never addressed and doubtless things have simply since got worse. If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election, they could bring some of their engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud.

corey_moncure 9y ago
What does the fact that they don't do so, tell you?
liquidise 9y ago
> Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election I'm still surprised by the anger for this. For the purposes of the viewer, Google and Facebook are effectively media companies. By that measure, all media companies bias elections heavily during election cycles. This is done both with content and well as paid advertising. But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong. Perhaps the argument is that the bias from international influences was wrong. Something else entirely? I suppose i fail to see where the real complaint here is. What behavior or lapse triggered these accusations?
- pnathan 9y ago
  > if their influence is either unprecedented It is. That's the entire point of the "filter bubble" argument that is coming up some 8-10 years old now.
- lurker456 9y ago
  There are some (poor, outdated, ineffective) checks and balances on the use of traditional media for political advertising. The new media successfully lobbied to be even excluded from those. Additionally, a lot of people who are not in this business were surprised about the extent.
- shostack 9y ago
  >"But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong." I think we're too early in Mueller's investigation to definitively be able to say whether their influence was morally or legally wrong, or whether actions of employees/executives of those companies were morally or legally wrong.
ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
>If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election. Since when has Google wanted to make amends for biasing the election? Aren't we quick to forget Eric Schmidt was all in on attempting to bias the election in the direction he wanted. Timshel/THE GROUNDWORK are and were nothing more than tools for the DNC to manipulate the electorate
vkou 9y ago
Does Fox News bias the election? Should it be required to make amends? Do you think it has more, or less influence then a 100K spend Facebook ad campaign by Russia?
- Larrikin 9y ago
  Way less obviously there are laws to help prevent foreign actors from injecting money and influence in to our elections. Which is why there are bipartisan congressional hearings on an unprecedented attack.
  - vkou 9y ago
    I understand that this is illegal. What I don't understand is why domestic manipulation of elections isn't. Eric Schmidt and Rupert Murdoch don't have the interests of the US in mind any more then Putin does. Just because it's quite precedented doesn't make it right.
    - ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
      Nevermind the US government, and its agencies manipulating elections throughout the world going on 70 years
    - Danihan 9y ago
      >domestic manipulation of elections You mean campaigning?
      - vkou 9y ago
        Rupert Murdoch isn't himself running for president, but it's pretty clear that he is trying to manipulate the election into a particular outcome. All the same arguments for why Putin's involvement should be illegal can also be levied against him.
nerfhammer 9y ago
> engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud Simple, don't use fancy electronic voting machines. There's really no benefit.
- CyberDildonics 9y ago
  That isn't a systemic solution and this is a systemic problem.
  - nerfhammer 9y ago
    It's not a "the engineering isn't sufficiently sophisticated and cutting edge" problem.
dv_dt 9y ago
Everyone wants in on the exiting problem solving portion of the the issue, few people are willing (or have the time available) to sit in on the vote process and procedure oriented bureaucratic election bodies, even fewer still are allowed to be appointed onto the boards that aren't vetted by the major parties.

corey_moncure 9y ago

What does the fact that they don't do so, tell you?

liquidise 9y ago

> Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election I'm still surprised by the anger for this. For the purposes of the viewer, Google and Facebook are effectively media companies. By that measure, all media companies bias elections heavily during election cycles. This is done both with content and well as paid advertising. But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong. Perhaps the argument is that the bias from international influences was wrong. Something else entirely? I suppose i fail to see where the real complaint here is. What behavior or lapse triggered these accusations?

pnathan 9y ago
> if their influence is either unprecedented It is. That's the entire point of the "filter bubble" argument that is coming up some 8-10 years old now.
lurker456 9y ago
There are some (poor, outdated, ineffective) checks and balances on the use of traditional media for political advertising. The new media successfully lobbied to be even excluded from those. Additionally, a lot of people who are not in this business were surprised about the extent.
shostack 9y ago
>"But to "make amends" for something sounds as if their influence is either unprecedented or morally wrong." I think we're too early in Mueller's investigation to definitively be able to say whether their influence was morally or legally wrong, or whether actions of employees/executives of those companies were morally or legally wrong.

ZoeZoeBee 9y ago

>If Google, Facebook et al wanted to make amends for biasing the election. Since when has Google wanted to make amends for biasing the election? Aren't we quick to forget Eric Schmidt was all in on attempting to bias the election in the direction he wanted. Timshel/THE GROUNDWORK are and were nothing more than tools for the DNC to manipulate the electorate

vkou 9y ago

Does Fox News bias the election? Should it be required to make amends? Do you think it has more, or less influence then a 100K spend Facebook ad campaign by Russia?

Larrikin 9y ago
Way less obviously there are laws to help prevent foreign actors from injecting money and influence in to our elections. Which is why there are bipartisan congressional hearings on an unprecedented attack.
- vkou 9y ago
  I understand that this is illegal. What I don't understand is why domestic manipulation of elections isn't. Eric Schmidt and Rupert Murdoch don't have the interests of the US in mind any more then Putin does. Just because it's quite precedented doesn't make it right.
  - ZoeZoeBee 9y ago
    Nevermind the US government, and its agencies manipulating elections throughout the world going on 70 years
  - Danihan 9y ago
    >domestic manipulation of elections You mean campaigning?
    - vkou 9y ago
      Rupert Murdoch isn't himself running for president, but it's pretty clear that he is trying to manipulate the election into a particular outcome. All the same arguments for why Putin's involvement should be illegal can also be levied against him.

nerfhammer 9y ago

> engineering prowess to bear on defeating systematic voting machine fraud Simple, don't use fancy electronic voting machines. There's really no benefit.

CyberDildonics 9y ago
That isn't a systemic solution and this is a systemic problem.
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  It's not a "the engineering isn't sufficiently sophisticated and cutting edge" problem.

dv_dt 9y ago

Everyone wants in on the exiting problem solving portion of the the issue, few people are willing (or have the time available) to sit in on the vote process and procedure oriented bureaucratic election bodies, even fewer still are allowed to be appointed onto the boards that aren't vetted by the major parties.