7 ms·
Experts call it a 'clown show' but Arizona 'audit' is a disinformation blueprint
- ectopod 5y agoWithout cookie warnings, etc. https://text.npr.org/1000954549 https://text.npr.org/1000954549
- the_arun 5y agoIf we are building ML models on news, how MLs can filter disinformation? Will we be fact checking every bit of news they receive?
- bdamm 5y agoMLs 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.
- DaedPsyker 5y agoAbsolutely. 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-faster-and-deeper-verified-stories-180968443/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fake-news-spreads-...]. Which makes it difficult to counteract if the false information spreads faster than the rebuttal.
- generalizations 5y agoThe 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?
- jvanderbot 5y agoWhat'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.
- rejectedandsad 5y agoThe latter is exactly what they want. The former President has literally said he expects to be “reinstated as President” in august
- velox_io 5y agoDo you have a source for this, as far as I can tell this is hearsay?
- AaronFriel 5y agoMaggie Haberman, New York Times, one of the most reliable sources on Trump related news[1]: https://twitter.com/maggienyt/status/1399707794375426051 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.
- methodiosmel 5y agoHaberman is not a reliable source.
- AaronFriel 5y agoAnother collection of sources: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-right/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-ri...
- fallingknife 5y ago
- IIAOPSW 5y agoThe 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.
- threatofrain 5y agohttps://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/23/eabf1234 https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/23/eabf1234
- IIAOPSW 5y ago>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-attire https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nYkMLFpx77Rz3uo9c/belief-as-...
- r00fus 5y agoAnd 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.
- stri8ted 5y agoYou lost me at "experts". Blatant appeal to authority. The story should be able to stand on its own.
- smoldesu 5y agoTo 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.
- pharrington 5y agoEven 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.
- iratic0 5y agoNo, 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.
- generalizations 5y agoLast 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.
- smoldesu 5y agoThe audit is being funded by by a private party conservative news network. What results do you think they're going to find?
- cowmix 5y agoI'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-are-normal-whats-happening-in-arizona-is-anything-but/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/post-election-audits-ar...
- lettergram 5y agoA judge said this audit follows all the laws. It's been litigated. Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points. Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable: https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90ed08e3549737e159421055b20750ccc8bb0248.mp4 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/ https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this. This is amazing gaslighting by the media. This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back. You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/
- iratic0 5y agoHate to say it, but the people on HN base their social worth with how much they agree with the Democrat party. I imagine there is bot activity going on here too, as there is with reddit.
- JohnTHaller 5y ago> the Democrat party. "Democrat Party is an epithet for the Democratic Party of the United States, used in a disparaging fashion by the party's opponents. While the term has been used in a non-hostile way, it has grown in its negative use since the 1940s, in particular by members of the Republican Party—in party platforms, partisan speeches, and press releases—as well as by conservative commentators and Third party politicians" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet) This has no place on HN
- lettergram 5y agoIndeed, I'm flagged all the time for pretty much anything. It's been non-stop since October 2020. I've discussed this with Dang, because it's often topics that are more mundane. I wish a discussion could actually happen, because down voting based on emotion is actually hiding facts from people.
- Kydlaw 5y agoIs there an audit of the audit's result plan by the democrats? Where is the end of such rhetoric?
- jdofaz 5y agoThis spectacle is extra distressing for me personally as someone who lives in Arizona. 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.
- lettergram 5y agoA judge said this audit follows all the laws. It's been litigated. Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points. Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable: https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/ https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this. This is amazing gaslighting by the media. This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back. You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/
- hourislate 5y agoDoes 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.
- lettergram 5y agoA judge said this audit follows all the laws. It's been litigated. Please do your own research -- not listen to partisan talking points. Here's a public discussion around some of the findings, the Arizona Senate is very clear about what is going on and seems extremely reasonable: https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90 https://invintus-client-media.s3.amazonaws.com/6361162879/90... This audit appears solid to me, I've watched all the court cases and read all the public documents. U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provided input regarding the audit (https://www.eac.gov/ https://www.eac.gov/). The president of the Arizona Senate explains this. This is amazing gaslighting by the media. This audit has three people counting, photos of the ballots (to later check), checking folds, etc. This is a very well controlled and good audit. Not perfect, but far better than what we had in the past. There are observers from the secretary of states office, democrats, republicans, independents counting, multiple sign offs and everything is recorded so they can go back. You can view the audit live on some of the cameras: https://azaudit.org/ https://azaudit.org/
- smoldesu 5y agohttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maddow-blog-for-arizona-gop-bonkers-election-audit-creates-financial-rewards/ar-AAKFhat https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/maddow-blog-for-ariz...
- 5y ago
- iratic0 5y agoFunny 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.
- JohnTHaller 5y agoPoll =/= Voting Results. Equating the two makes zero sense.
- CommieBobDole 5y agoThe 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.
- ipspam 5y agoI find the article itself to be a masterclass in propoganda. As someone that follows this loosely, the article makes some good points, but totally skips over everything of importance from the perspective of half the country. The real genesis of these audits, which could fairly be called witch hunts, is the purposeful weakening of security practices in election law. Democrats went first and changed all kinds of laws, legally and not so legally. They purposefully made fraud easier, knowing that no one would be able to look into fraud without probable cause. That means anyone could grab a neighbor's ballot, fill it out, and mail it in. Or troll datasets to find eligible voters and then register and vote for them. Did this happen? No one knows yet. Democrats batted first, and claimed victory with a myriad of shady election laws and procedure changes. Nothing Trump supporters could do. It certainly seems fair to me that Trump supporters get their at bat, and these audits are exactly that. We are at an interesting crossroads where weakened election security meets heightened scrutiny. The interesting thing is that no one actually knows the baseline fraud rate. Almost certainly in this polarized time where everyone and every institution was out to get Trump, the fraud rate is higher. I think the real fear here is that cheating did take place, and Republicans have a pretty good idea where to find it. If they find it, even a 0.25% fraud rate would taint all the other elections, unfairly so because they picked the worse hotspots to investigate. The real devil is in the details, and neither side will tell you the truth. For example, there are probably enough "illegal" votes out there to throw the results of the election in doubt, but no judge would ever overturn the results. What am I talking about? Take Georgia and Stacy Abrams get out the vote campaign. They "Illegally" encouraged teens under the age of 17.5 to register to vote. Thousands registered before they were eligible to register. The problem is they would have been 18 when the election happened anyway, so the illegal registration is kind of moot. And yet it's a perfect illustration of the disregard for laws and rules on the Left, and the Right then using those transgressions to push the narrative that there are tens of thousands of illegal votes. Technically true, but those voters had the right to vote, and their intent was clear. No judge is going to throw those votes out. Another example is the "indefinitely confined" issue in Wisconsin (?). Same deal. 100,000+ people LIED. For convenience, or for whatever other reason. But they were eligible to vote, and made their intent clear even if they registered or voted Illegally. In these instances and more, lawmakers and decision makers, legally and illegally injected the potential for massive abuses into the election system. They did so because they were given the message right from the top, "Every vote counts". Whether massive fraud took place is unknown as of now. The previous audits weren't looking for that. They had their hands tied and were only looking to make sure the system operated as it should. They weren't looking into the weaknesses of the system. They weren't allowed too. And we haven't even touched on the Center for Civic Life and the one sided effort they did. I believe the statistical anomalys seen in urban areas of the 5 states are not proof positive of fraud, but proof positive of a job well done by Mark Zuckerberg. These audits are Trumps revenge, and everyone deserves to know the truth of what happened. To not use illegal rule changes and irregularities as probable cause to perform mass forensic audits would be a disservice to the nation. This opportunity to legally investigate and come up with an answer to "how much fraud is there" may never come around again, certainly not for a generation or two.
- tonfreed 5y agoImagine 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
- beej71 5y agoIf there's a way to prove a Biden victory to their satisfaction, I have no idea what it could be at this point.
- methodiosmel 5y ago"Experts" LOL!