6 ms·

(googler, opinion is my own). Google did the same thing: https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21456323/google-election-ad-ban-donald-trump-early-victory https://

by kyrra 6y ago

(googler, opinion is my own). Google did the same thing: https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21456323/google-election-ad-ban-donald-trump-early-victory https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/25/21456323/google-election-... As there is a good chance we won't know the result of this elect on election night (or possibly within the first week), the tech companies seem to be getting in-front of a potential problem to keep campaigns from drumming up any kind of fear about the election results after the polls are closed.

erichocean 6y ago
> there is a good chance we won't know the result of this elect on election night (or possibly within the first week) That's by design.[0] The goal is to have the media and protests decide who wins the election if Trump appears to win on Nov 3rd, using the same playbook currently being run in Belarus as we speak (and that was run successfully in 2014 in Ukraine). Why? It works: we can't have another 4 years of Donald Trump. If it looks like he might win, we can attack the legitimacy of the vote and install Biden instead. Of course, if Biden wins in a landslide on Nov 3rd (which seems increasingly likely), then the legitimate media will announce him as the winner immediately, and none of this will be necessary. Better safe than sorry though… > keep campaigns from drumming up any kind of fear about the election results The goal is to keep Trump from doing this, while legitimate media promotes Biden unopposed (regardless of the vote totals). I also will not be surprised if Trump is suspended from Twitter immediately after the election, and any "this election was rigged!" content from Trump's people on YouTube to also be banned. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
- hnaccy 6y ago
  >Why? It works: we can't have another 4 years of Donald Trump. If it looks like he might win, we can attack the legitimacy of the vote and install Biden instead. There's been one camp consistently attacking the legitimacy of the election and it's not Biden's.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Absolutely agree, and it's essential that it remain that way if we hope to have any success with the Color Revolution playbook in November.
  - kyrra 6y ago
    My take on all of this... Lots of states are pushing for larger scale vote-by-mail than has ever happened before. Some states have been doing this for a long time (Oregon, Colorado), but they have the processes in place to handle elections. Other states are trying to do it in a few months with no real prep ahead of time. We're already seeing this lead to ballot printing problems, ex:[0]. To build on that, many of these states aren't allowed to even open/proces absentee/vote-by-mail ballots until election day or after[0.5]. That means that problems with these ballots may not be caught ahead of time. Along with that, having to processing millions of ballets (when they are used to 5-digit amounts of ballots), means it will take a lot longer to handle those ballots. This will lead to a delay in knowing the results. As well, mail-in-ballots get rejected at a much higher rate than in-person voting[1], which will lead to lawyers fighting over which ballots are valid if things are close. Democrats are more likely to vote-by-mail than Republicans[2]. This means those delayed ballots will likely swing towards Biden, which means as days go on for counting, Biden's lead is likely to increase (which is totally fine, but it will definitely stir up controversy). Then you have lawmakers and judges changes the rules[3]. There are a few cases going on around the country where there is a push to allow late mail ballots to be counted. In this case, a Judge decided to allow ballots to arrive up to 3-days post election. These kinds of cases are going on around the country and still being fought. It's going to be messy. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginia-voters-receive-duplicate-ballots/2020/09/25/2e9e52bc-ff51-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginia-vo... [0.5] https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t... [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/904693468/more-than-550-000-primary-absentee-ballots-rejected-in-2020-far-outpacing-2016 https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/904693468/more-than-550-000-p... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/18/election-2020-biden-voters-twice-likely-vote-mail-survey-finds/3394795001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/... [3] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/pennsylvania-becomes-ground-zero-for-election-lawsuits.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/pennsylvania-becomes...
- nl 6y ago
  Saying "the media promotes Biden unopposed" when the most popular media source in the US (Fox) leans the opposite direction is obviously wrong and disappointing to see here.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    I don't think Fox News presents any particular difficulty to running the Color Revolution playbook in the US. They're so obviously biased that decent people can (and do) ignore them. What matters is boots on the ground (aka protests) and whatever the legitimate media promotes to the public. That gives politicians (in both parties) the necessary cover to remove Trump from office by force.
    - vkou 6y ago
      About half the country believes that Fox is legitimate media. Given that legitimacy is exclusively a product of belief, they qualify as a 'legitimate media' source.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > About half the country believes that Fox is legitimate media. > Given that legitimacy is exclusively a product of belief, they qualify as a 'legitimate media' source. If we accept the first part as fact and apply the standard implied by the second, then Fox is in a hazy gray area of equally legitimate and not-legitimate, rather than clearly legitimate. Which seems (ignoring the people who haven't heard of it or have no opinion) about right: https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/media-polarization-appendix-detailed-tables/ https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/media-polarization-app...
        nl 6y ago
        > If we accept the first part as fact and apply the standard implied by the second, then Fox is in a hazy gray area of equally legitimate and not-legitimate, rather than clearly legitimate. This is almost exactly mirrored on the other side of politics. See https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/ https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization...

by kyrra 6y ago

erichocean 6y ago

> there is a good chance we won't know the result of this elect on election night (or possibly within the first week) That's by design.[0] The goal is to have the media and protests decide who wins the election if Trump appears to win on Nov 3rd, using the same playbook currently being run in Belarus as we speak (and that was run successfully in 2014 in Ukraine). Why? It works: we can't have another 4 years of Donald Trump. If it looks like he might win, we can attack the legitimacy of the vote and install Biden instead. Of course, if Biden wins in a landslide on Nov 3rd (which seems increasingly likely), then the legitimate media will announce him as the winner immediately, and none of this will be necessary. Better safe than sorry though… > keep campaigns from drumming up any kind of fear about the election results The goal is to keep Trump from doing this, while legitimate media promotes Biden unopposed (regardless of the vote totals). I also will not be surprised if Trump is suspended from Twitter immediately after the election, and any "this election was rigged!" content from Trump's people on YouTube to also be banned. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution

hnaccy 6y ago
>Why? It works: we can't have another 4 years of Donald Trump. If it looks like he might win, we can attack the legitimacy of the vote and install Biden instead. There's been one camp consistently attacking the legitimacy of the election and it's not Biden's.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Absolutely agree, and it's essential that it remain that way if we hope to have any success with the Color Revolution playbook in November.
- kyrra 6y ago
  My take on all of this... Lots of states are pushing for larger scale vote-by-mail than has ever happened before. Some states have been doing this for a long time (Oregon, Colorado), but they have the processes in place to handle elections. Other states are trying to do it in a few months with no real prep ahead of time. We're already seeing this lead to ballot printing problems, ex:[0]. To build on that, many of these states aren't allowed to even open/proces absentee/vote-by-mail ballots until election day or after[0.5]. That means that problems with these ballots may not be caught ahead of time. Along with that, having to processing millions of ballets (when they are used to 5-digit amounts of ballots), means it will take a lot longer to handle those ballots. This will lead to a delay in knowing the results. As well, mail-in-ballots get rejected at a much higher rate than in-person voting[1], which will lead to lawyers fighting over which ballots are valid if things are close. Democrats are more likely to vote-by-mail than Republicans[2]. This means those delayed ballots will likely swing towards Biden, which means as days go on for counting, Biden's lead is likely to increase (which is totally fine, but it will definitely stir up controversy). Then you have lawmakers and judges changes the rules[3]. There are a few cases going on around the country where there is a push to allow late mail ballots to be counted. In this case, a Judge decided to allow ballots to arrive up to 3-days post election. These kinds of cases are going on around the country and still being fought. It's going to be messy. [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginia-voters-receive-duplicate-ballots/2020/09/25/2e9e52bc-ff51-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/virginia-vo... [0.5] https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-table-16-when-absentee-mail-ballot-processing-and-counting-can-begin.aspx https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/vopp-t... [1] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/904693468/more-than-550-000-primary-absentee-ballots-rejected-in-2020-far-outpacing-2016 https://www.npr.org/2020/08/22/904693468/more-than-550-000-p... [2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/08/18/election-2020-biden-voters-twice-likely-vote-mail-survey-finds/3394795001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/... [3] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/pennsylvania-becomes-ground-zero-for-election-lawsuits.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/09/pennsylvania-becomes...
nl 6y ago
Saying "the media promotes Biden unopposed" when the most popular media source in the US (Fox) leans the opposite direction is obviously wrong and disappointing to see here.
- erichocean 6y ago
  I don't think Fox News presents any particular difficulty to running the Color Revolution playbook in the US. They're so obviously biased that decent people can (and do) ignore them. What matters is boots on the ground (aka protests) and whatever the legitimate media promotes to the public. That gives politicians (in both parties) the necessary cover to remove Trump from office by force.
  - vkou 6y ago
    About half the country believes that Fox is legitimate media. Given that legitimacy is exclusively a product of belief, they qualify as a 'legitimate media' source.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > About half the country believes that Fox is legitimate media. > Given that legitimacy is exclusively a product of belief, they qualify as a 'legitimate media' source. If we accept the first part as fact and apply the standard implied by the second, then Fox is in a hazy gray area of equally legitimate and not-legitimate, rather than clearly legitimate. Which seems (ignoring the people who haven't heard of it or have no opinion) about right: https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/media-polarization-appendix-detailed-tables/ https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/media-polarization-app...
      - nl 6y ago
        > If we accept the first part as fact and apply the standard implied by the second, then Fox is in a hazy gray area of equally legitimate and not-legitimate, rather than clearly legitimate. This is almost exactly mirrored on the other side of politics. See https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization-and-the-2020-election-a-nation-divided/ https://www.journalism.org/2020/01/24/u-s-media-polarization...