4 ms·
This is a terrible example because it's simply not true: > Davies gives the example of the case of Dominion Systems vs Fox News, in which Fox News repeatedly s
by spit2wind 2y ago
This is a terrible example because it's simply not true:
> Davies gives the example of the case of Dominion Systems vs Fox News, in which Fox News repeatedly spread false stories about the election. No one at Fox seems to have explicitly made a decision to lie about voting machines; rather, there was an implicit understanding that they had to do whatever it took to keep their audience numbers up.
Rupert Murdoch conceded under oath that "Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election."[1] He knew the claims were false and decided not to direct the network to speak about it otherwise.
Communications from within Fox, by hosts, show they knew what they were saying was false.[2]
These two examples clearly fit the definition of lying [3].
The "External Links" section of Wikipedia gives references to the actual court documents that go into detail of who said what and knew what when [4]. There are many more instances which demonstrate that, indeed, people made explicit decisions to lie.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159819849/fox-news-dominion-voting-rupert-murdoch-2020-election-fraud https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159819849/fox-news-dominion-...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dominion-releases-previously-redacted-slides-fox-news-lawsuit-rcna77257 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dominion-releases...
[3]
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie
[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._Fox_News_Network https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._F...
- BartjeD 2y agoI think the point of the citation is that there wasn't an original decision to lie about it. It happened without coordination and later on wasn't stopped by the people in management, either. It was number-2 all the way up.
- bjornsing 2y agoSo there were many decisions to lie about it, and the lying was condoned from the top.
- throwaway48476 2y agoVoting machines are hacked every year at DEFCONs voting village. They're wildly insecure and no one should trust them. Frankly, any claims of manipulation of voting machines are at worst plausible.
- notTooFarGone 2y agoAccounts are hacked every second. They are wildly insecure and noone should trust them. Frankly saying you are just a hacked account is at worst plausible. You logic is flawed at the core. With that train of thought you can infer everything. Why trust voting it can be manipulated.
- throwaway48476 2y agoIs the objective truth of what I say contingent on whether it is a hacked account? I'd say no. All voting systems can be manipulated, there's no need to make it so easy though.
- 082349872349872 2y agoIn the days before voting machines, the dead people simply voted in alphabetical order, eg (1962) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41706655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41706655 [my recommendation: try to build a high trust society instead of patching epicycles onto the side of a low trust one]
- jazzypants 2y agoAnd, yet these companies won their lawsuits, and no wide scale voter fraud was ever found. So, your point is entirely irrelevant.
- throwaway48476 2y agoYou're confusing terms here. Voter fraud is fraud by voter. This is not what we're talking about with the voting machine susceptibility.