5 ms·

Dominion voting machines, the company falsely accused of rigging the election that also lead to the court case that got Tucker fired from Fox, were just acquire

by esseph 1y ago

Dominion voting machines, the company falsely accused of rigging the election that also lead to the court case that got Tucker fired from Fox, were just acquired by a (R). This was to keep the elections Fair and Balanced.

actionfromafar 1y ago
"Fair and balanced" in the same way some animals are more equal than others? I could see that. Was this ever debunked by the way? https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/new-starlink-election-fraud-claims https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/new-starlink-election...
- dredmorbius 1y ago
  The phrase was quoted with obvious and dripping irony.
- inemesitaffia 1y ago
  No need for debunking. Just ask anyone with a CCNP or equivalent Makes absolutely no sense
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    I don't think you can debunk this with a generic CCNP check. The concern is hacking, not normal network configurations. The Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) provider is Palantir. Tabulator Machine <- usb/serial -> UPS <- cell connection -> Internet. Not uncommon to run SNMP on a UPS either. SNMP is an unloved pile of bugs: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/09/as-many-as-2-million-cisco-devices-affected-by-actively-exploited-0-day/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/09/as-many-as-2-millio... I'm not saying anything nefarious actually happened. But as soon as you connect devices to the net in any way you are in deep water, especially when one or more of your vendors may be one of your threat actors. Complicated hacks are not common, but possible, especially when the stakes are high and competent people are on the task. Stuxnet development started 20 years ago - and the target was even airgapped, which didn't help the target in the end.
    - inemesitaffia 1y ago
      Well, the devices weren't connected to the internet. QED
ta1243 1y ago
I don't understand why Americans require machines to count. Dumping the ballots into a room and having dozens of people counting them while under the watch of all sorts of interested parties scales perfectly well. For president you have a piece of paper with two boxes on. You don't even have ranked voting. Mark an X next to one and put it in a ballot box. Works fine everywhere else.
- terminalshort 1y ago
  That's not how it works everywhere else
  - iainmerrick 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country suggests that centralized electronic counting is somewhat common, electronic voting machines in polling places are uncommon. So I think it's reasonable to say that, to paraphrase the earlier comment, putting an X in a box on a piece of paper is how it's done in most of the world. It's true that the ballots aren't always counted by hand.
    - ta1243 1y ago
      Very few countries do national elections electronically (the ones most subject to interference) electronically. Sure with paper systems you might be able to swing upto say 1% of the vote without being detected (probably more like 0.1%), anything more will involve too many people for a conspiracy to remain. With electronic you can swing 20% without blinking. Scaling is bad when it comes to voting.
      - bilekas 1y ago
        > With electronic you can swing 20% without blinking. You're going to have to give some citations for that because all electronic votes are usually backed by a paper ballot.. I've not heard of 20%~ swing and getting away with it.

by esseph 1y ago

actionfromafar 1y ago

"Fair and balanced" in the same way some animals are more equal than others? I could see that. Was this ever debunked by the way? https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/new-starlink-election-fraud-claims https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/new-starlink-election...

dredmorbius 1y ago
The phrase was quoted with obvious and dripping irony.
inemesitaffia 1y ago
No need for debunking. Just ask anyone with a CCNP or equivalent Makes absolutely no sense
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  I don't think you can debunk this with a generic CCNP check. The concern is hacking, not normal network configurations. The Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) provider is Palantir. Tabulator Machine <- usb/serial -> UPS <- cell connection -> Internet. Not uncommon to run SNMP on a UPS either. SNMP is an unloved pile of bugs: https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/09/as-many-as-2-million-cisco-devices-affected-by-actively-exploited-0-day/ https://arstechnica.com/security/2025/09/as-many-as-2-millio... I'm not saying anything nefarious actually happened. But as soon as you connect devices to the net in any way you are in deep water, especially when one or more of your vendors may be one of your threat actors. Complicated hacks are not common, but possible, especially when the stakes are high and competent people are on the task. Stuxnet development started 20 years ago - and the target was even airgapped, which didn't help the target in the end.
  - inemesitaffia 1y ago
    Well, the devices weren't connected to the internet. QED

ta1243 1y ago

I don't understand why Americans require machines to count. Dumping the ballots into a room and having dozens of people counting them while under the watch of all sorts of interested parties scales perfectly well. For president you have a piece of paper with two boxes on. You don't even have ranked voting. Mark an X next to one and put it in a ballot box. Works fine everywhere else.

terminalshort 1y ago
That's not how it works everywhere else
- iainmerrick 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country suggests that centralized electronic counting is somewhat common, electronic voting machines in polling places are uncommon. So I think it's reasonable to say that, to paraphrase the earlier comment, putting an X in a box on a piece of paper is how it's done in most of the world. It's true that the ballots aren't always counted by hand.
  - ta1243 1y ago
    Very few countries do national elections electronically (the ones most subject to interference) electronically. Sure with paper systems you might be able to swing upto say 1% of the vote without being detected (probably more like 0.1%), anything more will involve too many people for a conspiracy to remain. With electronic you can swing 20% without blinking. Scaling is bad when it comes to voting.
    - bilekas 1y ago
      > With electronic you can swing 20% without blinking. You're going to have to give some citations for that because all electronic votes are usually backed by a paper ballot.. I've not heard of 20%~ swing and getting away with it.