4 ms·
> are the lack of facts in how CA melded elections CA's job was to meddle in elections, the question is if it's effective. there is very little evidence that i
by buboard 7y ago
> are the lack of facts in how CA melded elections
CA's job was to meddle in elections, the question is if it's effective. there is very little evidence that it worked.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- n4r9 7y agoWhat would constitute evidence that it worked?
- buboard 7y agoI don't know
- schmilk 7y agoThis really seems like a burden of proof situation. If a bad actor is demonstrably trying to be a bad actor, then they are a bad actor, and we should make a big deal out of it. Saying "yes, they are bad actors, but can you prove they actually accomplished their goal?" just enables more bad actors. Perhaps the burden of proof that a bad actor did not accomplish their goal should be on the bad actor. Otherwise more and more will spring up, and we'll just throw our hands up saying, "meh, we can't prove they were effective".
- buboard 7y agomisdiagnosis usually ends in disaster