SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the why-wait-until-AFTER-the-election? dept.
Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results:
Facebook spent years preparing to ward off any tampering on its site ahead of November's presidential election. Now the social network is getting ready in case President Trump interferes once the vote is over.
Employees at the Silicon Valley company are laying out contingency plans and walking through postelection scenarios that include attempts by Mr. Trump or his campaign to use the platform to delegitimize the results, people with knowledge of Facebook's plans said.
Facebook is preparing steps to take should Mr. Trump wrongly claim on the site that he won another four-year term, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Facebook is also working through how it might act if Mr. Trump tries to invalidate the results by declaring that the Postal Service lost mail-in ballots or that other groups meddled with the vote, the people said.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, and some of his lieutenants have started holding daily meetings about minimizing how the platform can be used to dispute the election, the people said. They have discussed a "kill switch" to shut off political advertising after Election Day since the ads, which Facebook does not police for truthfulness, could be used to spread misinformation, the people said.
The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.
[...] The preparations underscore how rising concerns over the integrity of the November election have reached social media companies, whose sites can be used to amplify lies, conspiracy theories and inflammatory messages. YouTube and Twitter have also discussed plans for action if the postelection period becomes complicated, according to disinformation and political researchers who have advised the firms.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Tuesday August 25 2020, @02:28PM (7 children)
You point is valid, sort of. Cleaning up the voting rolls is desirable. Now do it without discriminating against those who are relatively powerless. And *that's* the problem. There is little to no evidence that "people who have moved" are voting in more than one place. The evidence that exists tends to show people being caught trying to vote in more than one place.
Unfortunately, this is what one would expect whether the practice is common or not. I tend to think it's rare, but this is because I've never known anyone who either did it or wanted to do it. And one thing about electronic voting systems is that those who control the systems are the ones that I suspect of tampering with the elections, if tampering is happening. The times I've checked into it my concerns have been brushed over with "we've already signed a contract with that company", which I didn't find exactly reassuring. Particularly as the company had been shown to have easily penetrable security.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @03:38PM (3 children)
First of all, how would we catch people voting illegally when requiring any sort of ID has been made illegal (as it has been in in many, mostly Democrat-controlled areas). In most of the places I've voted, if I could provide a name and address of a registered voter, I could vote as them. If I knew (as the people who actually run the elections would know) that someone would definitely not be voting (because they moved out of state, for example), I would be perfectly safe in filling out a ballot in that person's name. I've looked for information on whether someone else voted as me in those States where I was still illegitimately registered, and that information doesn't seem to be available.
Secondly, if someone were illegitimately disenfranchised by being removed from the voter rolls, they would know it if they actually tried to vote, and they could complain. For all the hand-wringing about removing legitimate voters from the voter rolls, I've never heard of an actual case of that happening. It's easy to register to vote, and if someone is wrongly removed, it's easy to re-register. I also have never heard of an actual case of someone who was registered to vote but was prevented from voting because they couldn't provide a reasonable proof of their right to vote. All I've ever heard was hyped-up concern over the hypothetical possibility. The examples of voter suppression I've heard about involved physical intimidation. That has been a real problem in some areas, but it has nothing to do with cleaning up the voter rolls or requiring voters to prove their identity.
Until someone can explain to me how the States will ensure that they don't send out ballots with my name and former addresses on them, I'm going to assume that mail-in voting is just another way to cheat.
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Tuesday August 25 2020, @05:18PM
During the 2000 election "News organizations unearthed numerous accounts of law-abiding citizens turned away at the polls because they could not prove their innocence. Several thousand people appealed to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and half were found to not be felons." [tampabay.com]
Now that you're heard of it happening and happening in far greater numbers than the total cases of voter fraud in the US [heritage.org], I invite you to join us in fighting to prevent the purge of legitimate voters from voter registration.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:20PM
Maybe if you keep saying this enough it will become true /s
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 26 2020, @04:22AM
Canadian here. Couple of Federal elections back, when the Conservatives were in power, they took advice from the Republicans on how to run an election. Neutered Elections Canada, our independent people who run the election, no power of subpoena, no advertising how to register, no more lists of registered voters in the grocery store etc with some nice old people to help verify if registered and register you if needed. They also tightened up the required ID a lot, we've needed proof when showing up to vote for the longest time but it didn't take much proof, some shitty ID and a bill with your name and address or just sign an affidavit. Suddenly a small list of accepted ID, with current address, great for students who were at university with their parents address on their ID or natives on the reserve where they don't have addresses.
Only place to look up the voter list was online. My wife is a native and the Conservatives really wanted to suppress their vote so I was suspicious. She uses her maiden name, her ID, the phone and power bills, all in her maiden name. Web site showed her registered under her maiden name. Show up to vote, early, and she's registered to vote in her married name with nothing but her marriage license with that name on it for ID. Took hours for the election people arguing on the phone to Ottawa before she could vote. Luckily we had planned to have hours to wait otherwise her vote would have been successfully suppressed. My son just didn't bother as his ID suddenly wasn't good enough, new ID was $75 and a 60 mile round trip with no bus service.
Requiring proof of who you are is fine in principal but it is easy to abuse, make the ID requirements strict and targeted. Make it hard to get ID. Change the voters list to not agree with peoples ID. Make alternatives really hard. Many people, especially poor working people just don't have the time to screw around to exercise their franchise.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by rleigh on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:41PM (2 children)
In the UK, the local authority running elections in your area posts an annual form through your door which is mandatory to return. You fill out the eligible voters at the address and post it back (which is free), or you fill it out online. Old names are dropped, and new ones are added. So the records are continuously kept up to date. And if you move in between times, you can update the details as needed.
What is it with the US system that prevents old records from being dropped?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 25 2020, @06:56PM (1 child)
Budget constraints in postage and man hours to send out those pings as you described?
Concern that poor people won't post a reply?
Reluctance to "mandate" a response to a government request that is considered minor, for exercising a voluntary activity?
There is a process here to clean out old records. Relocations within the county are updated immediately. If voters haven't voted for a couple of years, they need to affirm that they still live at their address. Finally after about 6 years, their entry is purged.
There is also a notification process for people to report the death of their child, parents, wife, which will purge those entries.
(Score: 3, Informative) by rleigh on Tuesday August 25 2020, @10:36PM
I don't believe that "poor people are less likely to reply" is reasonable. Filling in the details takes less than 5 minutes, and you can drop it into a postbox at your convenience. The postage is prepaid for a reason, so that there is no financial barrier to participation, even if it's just a single stamp. And since you have to send in the details to register in the first place, this really only concerns removals and changes. At least in the UK it's also a civil offence not to return the form; you can be fined for not returning it. It's part of your civil obligations, and this part is not a "voluntary activity" (though voting itself is).
As for the cost, the voter registration is part of the cost of running a democracy. They are updating the records in different areas all year round, so there's a fixed cost in people and resources. It's already paid for as part of local government running costs.