4 ms·

Not accepting results in the US is bad for democracy. Accepting faked results in authoritarian countries is even worse for democracy. But now Google is in char

Not accepting results in the US is bad for democracy. Accepting faked results in authoritarian countries is even worse for democracy. But now Google is in charge of deciding which is which. Tech barons deciding what the truth is can't be good for democracy either.

Joker_vD 5y ago
What about the faked results in the US? In the early XX century there was quite a significant amount of election fraud at the local-level elections in the USA, so what prevents it from happening again?
- sk2020 5y ago
  Amusingly, if you state that the political process in the United States is corrupt, then most listeners will nod in agreement. However, if you give a concrete example of such corruption, then everyone recoils in horror and disbelief. You must be a misinformation agent on foreign payroll.
sleepysysadmin 5y ago
>Not accepting results in the US is bad for democracy. Accepting faked results in authoritarian countries is even worse for democracy. What if the election was indeed stolen? You must accept the results? Do you just accept the results no matter what? It seems like you have to do that because it's bad for democracy otherwise right? Lets say you accept the results, but what do you do in the face of probably a stolen election? Isn't it over 50% of US states changed/updated their election rules since this last election? I guess actions speak louder than words. I don't know if I have seen so many states agree they needed to fix something so universally and so quickly. Politicians rarely work so quickly.
ekianjo 5y ago
> Not accepting results in the US is bad for democracy. What's bad for democracy is when elections are not auditable. That's why in many countries people do it the old fashion way, with paper balots, ID, and in person, with citizens watching the counting process. Anything else is just prone to be manipulated sooner or later.

Joker_vD 5y ago

What about the faked results in the US? In the early XX century there was quite a significant amount of election fraud at the local-level elections in the USA, so what prevents it from happening again?

sk2020 5y ago
Amusingly, if you state that the political process in the United States is corrupt, then most listeners will nod in agreement. However, if you give a concrete example of such corruption, then everyone recoils in horror and disbelief. You must be a misinformation agent on foreign payroll.

sleepysysadmin 5y ago

>Not accepting results in the US is bad for democracy. Accepting faked results in authoritarian countries is even worse for democracy. What if the election was indeed stolen? You must accept the results? Do you just accept the results no matter what? It seems like you have to do that because it's bad for democracy otherwise right? Lets say you accept the results, but what do you do in the face of probably a stolen election? Isn't it over 50% of US states changed/updated their election rules since this last election? I guess actions speak louder than words. I don't know if I have seen so many states agree they needed to fix something so universally and so quickly. Politicians rarely work so quickly.

ekianjo 5y ago

> Not accepting results in the US is bad for democracy. What's bad for democracy is when elections are not auditable. That's why in many countries people do it the old fashion way, with paper balots, ID, and in person, with citizens watching the counting process. Anything else is just prone to be manipulated sooner or later.