3 ms·
It is a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that having to configure a few dozen presidential candidate's accounts is tantamount to letting "anybody" g
by frank_nitti 7y ago
It is a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that having to configure a few dozen presidential candidate's accounts is tantamount to letting "anybody" get around Google's fraud controls.
I could understand your line of reasoning if the figure was on the order of 100s or more. But when we are talking about less than 50 candidates, this is a ridiculous claim that comes off as a weak attempt to deceive your audience via false dichotomy.
- dragonwriter 7y ago> It is a bit disingenuous (to say the least) to claim that having to configure a few dozen presidential candidate's accounts Even without it being a route around Google fraud controls, there are 791 declared Presidential candidates for 2020, which is a little more than “a few dozen”. [0] > I could understand your line of reasoning if the figure was on the order of 100s or more. But...it is; heck, there's close to 300 Democratic candidates. And it would be even more if it was a route around Google fraud controls. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2020_presidential_candidates https://ballotpedia.org/List_of_registered_2020_presidential...
- frank_nitti 7y agoOkay, thanks for the information. I suppose I was referring to those candidates which met the threshold of support to be included in the debates on national television. And indeed, that seems to be a reasonable place to "draw the line", in my opinion. There is a very high likelihood that anyone speaking on national TV would be searched on Google. Tulsi Gabbard falls well within the category of candidates. So, while I concede that the line ought be drawn, I still believe the post I responded to was arguing in bad faith, given Hubbard's popularity