3 ms·

No, this is about common rules for everyone. Campaign material had to be marked as such and campaign finances had to be declared. One candidate blatantly failed

No, this is about common rules for everyone. Campaign material had to be marked as such and campaign finances had to be declared. One candidate blatantly failed to do so and won the first round. The court took a bold decision.

ossobuco 2y ago
[flagged]
- warkdarrior 2y ago
  WTF is "NAFO"?
  - pomian 2y ago
    Look it up. It's a fascinating system of the global hacker mindset fighting Russian propaganda.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - vasac 2y ago
    Comic relief.
- Calavar 2y ago
  It's really hard to take this line of argument seriously. Drawing parallels between a Twitter meme account run by a half dozen guys and a state intelligence apparatus is absurd.
  - ossobuco 2y ago
    Those "half dozen guys" are actually thousands of coordinated accounts. They had an official summit in Vilnius during the NATO summit, with official visitors such as ministers and presidents.
    - Calavar 2y ago
      > with official visitors such as ministers and presidents Okay, name two presidents who visited the NAFO summit.
- tdb7893 2y ago
  First, as far as I can tell you're equating likely foreign state propaganda with what appears to be a diffuse meme organization so they can't be assumed to be the same thing. Secondly, for political messages it should be clear who the message is coming from! If this organization is coordinating messages that should be public (though from looking them up it sounds like they are already fairly public with it). Open, fair, and honest elections are important. People always whine on about what the other side is doing but I want that fixed, too and I would gladly work with anyone that wants to fix both but sadly it's much more common to see continuous deflections to the other side (because they know their side is indefensible) rather than a desire for real change.
jdasdf 2y ago
Can you show me where the EU disclose its compaign financing for the romanian presidential election? They've certainly been putting the finger down in the scales far more than the russians
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  The Romanian court had evidence of Russia putting the finger down and breaking the rules. You, on the other hand, are just accusing.
  - jdasdf 2y ago
    Oh? Is there some dispute that did EU called Tik Tok about these elections? https://apnews.com/article/romania-tiktok-elections-european-union-4b5e5c544a1d20da838e7502d46bc8f7 https://apnews.com/article/romania-tiktok-elections-european... If Russia had called them in for not blocking or censoring pro-EU candidates would you not have called that election interference?
- cbg0 2y ago
  The EU don't have to disclose something like that, as Romania has a central authority that handles this stuff, as per the law: > The collection of electoral contributions and the payment of electoral expenses may be made only through bank accounts notified in advance to the Permanent Electoral Authority. The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country.
  - jdasdf 2y ago
    >The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country. Wow, seems like they're spent tens of billions of dollars in long term election interference campaigns. Are we going to see the politicians elected going to jail over it?
    - 2y ago
jahewson 2y ago
That implies campaign material and finances are capable of swinging an election, surely that affirms the statement you’re replying to? Namely: > the general public is so easily influenceable that allowing them to vote is a danger for democracy I hate to admit it but he’s got a point. My counter would be that the recent US election was not won by the biggest spender.
- ben_w 2y ago
  If campaign material was not capable of changing the minds of the electorate, nobody would waste time effort and money on it. Free speech is valuable and worth defending specifically because it has the potential to change minds, not just because people like the sounds of their own voices. (For the recent US election, people also point to Musk buying Twitter and getting his president of choice and saying this demonstrates why Musk is smart and $44bn was worth it, so are you sure it wasn't won by the biggest spenders?)

ossobuco 2y ago

[flagged]

warkdarrior 2y ago
WTF is "NAFO"?
- pomian 2y ago
  Look it up. It's a fascinating system of the global hacker mindset fighting Russian propaganda.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- vasac 2y ago
  Comic relief.
Calavar 2y ago
It's really hard to take this line of argument seriously. Drawing parallels between a Twitter meme account run by a half dozen guys and a state intelligence apparatus is absurd.
- ossobuco 2y ago
  Those "half dozen guys" are actually thousands of coordinated accounts. They had an official summit in Vilnius during the NATO summit, with official visitors such as ministers and presidents.
  - Calavar 2y ago
    > with official visitors such as ministers and presidents Okay, name two presidents who visited the NAFO summit.
tdb7893 2y ago
First, as far as I can tell you're equating likely foreign state propaganda with what appears to be a diffuse meme organization so they can't be assumed to be the same thing. Secondly, for political messages it should be clear who the message is coming from! If this organization is coordinating messages that should be public (though from looking them up it sounds like they are already fairly public with it). Open, fair, and honest elections are important. People always whine on about what the other side is doing but I want that fixed, too and I would gladly work with anyone that wants to fix both but sadly it's much more common to see continuous deflections to the other side (because they know their side is indefensible) rather than a desire for real change.

jdasdf 2y ago

Can you show me where the EU disclose its compaign financing for the romanian presidential election? They've certainly been putting the finger down in the scales far more than the russians

Almondsetat 2y ago
The Romanian court had evidence of Russia putting the finger down and breaking the rules. You, on the other hand, are just accusing.
- jdasdf 2y ago
  Oh? Is there some dispute that did EU called Tik Tok about these elections? https://apnews.com/article/romania-tiktok-elections-european-union-4b5e5c544a1d20da838e7502d46bc8f7 https://apnews.com/article/romania-tiktok-elections-european... If Russia had called them in for not blocking or censoring pro-EU candidates would you not have called that election interference?
cbg0 2y ago
The EU don't have to disclose something like that, as Romania has a central authority that handles this stuff, as per the law: > The collection of electoral contributions and the payment of electoral expenses may be made only through bank accounts notified in advance to the Permanent Electoral Authority. The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country.
- jdasdf 2y ago
  >The EU is not involved in directly financing candidates or political parties in Romania, they've already given us tens of billions of dollars to develop our country. Wow, seems like they're spent tens of billions of dollars in long term election interference campaigns. Are we going to see the politicians elected going to jail over it?
  - 2y ago

jahewson 2y ago

That implies campaign material and finances are capable of swinging an election, surely that affirms the statement you’re replying to? Namely: > the general public is so easily influenceable that allowing them to vote is a danger for democracy I hate to admit it but he’s got a point. My counter would be that the recent US election was not won by the biggest spender.

ben_w 2y ago
If campaign material was not capable of changing the minds of the electorate, nobody would waste time effort and money on it. Free speech is valuable and worth defending specifically because it has the potential to change minds, not just because people like the sounds of their own voices. (For the recent US election, people also point to Musk buying Twitter and getting his president of choice and saying this demonstrates why Musk is smart and $44bn was worth it, so are you sure it wasn't won by the biggest spenders?)