3 ms·

The interesting things about these claims of manipulation via social media platforms is we are no longer on the side of the coin saying “my side is censored” bu

The interesting things about these claims of manipulation via social media platforms is we are no longer on the side of the coin saying “my side is censored” but very much “the other side is visible and should not be”. Interfering by censorship is bad because you deny people information on which to base their decision. Interfering by allowing all candidates to be heard is not negative interference at all. This decision by the court is yet another blow for the credibility of democracy in the west. The UK with Brexit was an interesting case: highly contentious, counted promptly, the establishment acknowledged they didn’t like it and reluctantly eventually followed through. That was when democracy went too far, and now the plebs must pick only between pre approved options.

Viliam1234 2y ago
> “the other side is visible and should not be” The other side is visible in millions of ads, despite officially declaring that 0 money was spent on visibility.
- fidotron 2y ago
  Aka “when people look at us it is entirely organic but the only reason they would look at that guy is he is paying for it”.
  - cbg0 2y ago
    The other parties reported spending as per the law, and this guy didn't. You can't run a campaign with no money, and he had no real grass-roots support (he was polling below 5% in all polls).
    - fidotron 2y ago
      > You can't run a campaign with no money, and he had no real grass-roots support The fact he won the first round contradicts you on both points. You seem to think your statements are axiomatic, but they have no basis.
      - cbg0 2y ago
        They do have a basis, as the candidate had flyers printed out, paid ads on social media as well as paid ads that were not marked as political ads, which is against the law, and so is not reporting campaign spending. Political polls from across the spectrum showing him polling poorly as well as not being an established candidate is what led to this whole investigation starting up to figure out exactly how he garnered so much support so fast.
        fidotron 2y ago
        > They do have a basis, as the candidate had flyers printed out, paid ads on social media as well as paid ads that were not marked as political ads, which is against the law, and so is not reporting campaign spending. Did he pay for them? And we all know polls miss things they don’t know about or want to find. As long as the ballots were counted accurately the problem was not the campaign he was running, but the ineptitude of the pollsters. As discussed at length elsewhere in this thread this whole thing opens up so many new ways to abuse the system Romania simply will not be able to have an election anyone believes in again for a generation.
fallingknife 2y ago
Yeah the whole thing very much sounds like "this guy's platform is actually really popular with voters, but he should have remained an unknown because he shouldn't have been able to spread his message that effectively."

Viliam1234 2y ago

> “the other side is visible and should not be” The other side is visible in millions of ads, despite officially declaring that 0 money was spent on visibility.

fidotron 2y ago
Aka “when people look at us it is entirely organic but the only reason they would look at that guy is he is paying for it”.
- cbg0 2y ago
  The other parties reported spending as per the law, and this guy didn't. You can't run a campaign with no money, and he had no real grass-roots support (he was polling below 5% in all polls).
  - fidotron 2y ago
    > You can't run a campaign with no money, and he had no real grass-roots support The fact he won the first round contradicts you on both points. You seem to think your statements are axiomatic, but they have no basis.
    - cbg0 2y ago
      They do have a basis, as the candidate had flyers printed out, paid ads on social media as well as paid ads that were not marked as political ads, which is against the law, and so is not reporting campaign spending. Political polls from across the spectrum showing him polling poorly as well as not being an established candidate is what led to this whole investigation starting up to figure out exactly how he garnered so much support so fast.
      - fidotron 2y ago
        > They do have a basis, as the candidate had flyers printed out, paid ads on social media as well as paid ads that were not marked as political ads, which is against the law, and so is not reporting campaign spending. Did he pay for them? And we all know polls miss things they don’t know about or want to find. As long as the ballots were counted accurately the problem was not the campaign he was running, but the ineptitude of the pollsters. As discussed at length elsewhere in this thread this whole thing opens up so many new ways to abuse the system Romania simply will not be able to have an election anyone believes in again for a generation.

fallingknife 2y ago

Yeah the whole thing very much sounds like "this guy's platform is actually really popular with voters, but he should have remained an unknown because he shouldn't have been able to spread his message that effectively."