Hacker News Reader

Comment by newacct583 | Hacker News Reader

The article is about how ad vendors are allowing for people monentize disinformation, but that seems to me to be entirely the wrong take. Breitbart et. al. are grifters. The disinformation economy is real and vibrant, and they're just catching some of the extra cash. For every Breitbart or Newsmax link shared, there are seven or whatever to a blog or PAC or campaign that is not monetized.

At this point I think the game is lost. I mean... we just had an election which came out (absent higher turnout) more or less exactly like the last one, to within a percent or two. And half the country genuinely believes it was stolen by fraud to the tune of hundreds of thousands of ballots across at least four states.

How do you come back from that? I don't think we do. I just don't know what the endpoint is going to be yet. But disinformation is no longer just competing with real facts, it's won the war.

View on HN

I agree with your take, but I think you understated the case.

Before the 2016 election, the Republican partisans insisted that fraud and malfeasance were likely, and the Democratic ones said it was impossible.

From 2016-2020, the Democratic partisans insisted that there had been some sort of fraud or malfeasance, and the Republicans insisted that it was impossible.

By the end of 2020, we're back where we were in the middle of 2016, where the Republican partisans insist that fraud and malfeasance were likely, and the Democratic ones say it was impossible.

And those are the so-called 'mainstreams' of the respective parties! The situation is part Orwellian, and part real-life satire.

I think there's some "both sides are equal" aspects in your position that mischaracterize the reality as I understand it.

In 2016 Democrats thought manipulation / fake news (exactly the root problem in this article) was happening, and it appears it was. They recognized there is risk to systems and proposed to enhance election security based on the new (and proven) information that state actors were directly involved in trying to manipulate our election. I do not remember (I may be proven wrong), Democrats undermining the fidelity of the election itself, or alleging fraudulent votes, excepting one or two places where it was proven to happen (see the Dan McCready campaign).

My understanding is both parties now are roughly aligned with their longstanding positions in terms of how they view election security and relative occurrence of voter fraud and malfeasance. Comparing the 2016 positions on interference via fake news is apples and oranges, it is fundamentally a different subject – and the allegations of election interference were literally proven true by a justice system run by the Republican party.

First off, I'd like to thank you for responding thoughtfully and directly.

I'm not saying both are equal, I am saying the situation is ridiculous. I think you're about right in your assessment, though I do think each side has shifted its emphasis to whatever points were most convenient.

State actors trolled people on Facebook and Twitter and spent $3100 on Google AdWords - against approximately $3 billion total spent on the 2016 election season.

I think you're misrepresenting both sides. The Republican position has always been "Voter fraud is common and affects our elections". The Democrat position has always been, "Voter disenfranchisement and misinformation is common and affects our elections".

The only thing that changed between 2016 and 2020 is the party of the winners.

Almost nobody alleged fraud in the process of tallying votes for the 2016 election. The assertion was that a rival country fomented (and continues to foment) misinformation with the intent of swaying our elections. Reports by the Senate Intelligence Committee and statements from our own intelligence services affirm that this happened and that it presents a significant risk to the functioning of our democracy.

On the flip side, the allegations from the 2020 election are repudiated by virtually all elections officials. Direct accusations of election misconduct have been recanted by their original claimants. At least as of a few days ago, ten out of ten suits filed by the Trump campaign were lost or thrown out of court. And even if every single suit filed to date was won, it wouldn't overturn the results of the election.

The two sides are not the same at all.

How many prominent Democrats refused to acknowledge election results in 2016?

Edit – the fact that I'm getting downvoted (-2 right now) instead of getting a single valid answer pretty clearly shows the political lean of this forum.

Here's a story on H. Clinton saying Trump is illegitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

Your article is from 2019. Here is her concession speech from the day after the 2016 election - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv4hsmfgRuI.

Ah, but both in 2016, and at the time that the article is written, she acknowledges that he won the election, and that the election was counted correctly.

I said the Democrats were alleging "fraud or malfeasance", not just 'counting errors'; you're putting words in my mouth (or taking them out).

Fraud and malfeasance in propaganda has been a thing for hundreds of years.

But that's not what Republicans in 2020 are complaining about. They are, with a straight face, but with no proof, claiming that the election's results are illegitimate - because they feel that the votes have not been counted correctly.

This isn't a valid case of two-sidism. There is no way to bridge or alleviate or equate those concerns.

> From 2016-2020, the Democratic partisans insisted that there had been some sort of fraud or malfeasance, and the Republicans insisted that it was impossible.

Please provide evidence for this claim. I don’t recall any democrats claiming fraud in the 2016 election. This has been parroted repeatedly lately and I don’t recall anyone saying trump won because of electoral ballot fraud.

There is plenty of evidence that outside nations targeted American voters on social media in 2016. There is 0 evidence for widepspread ballot fraud in 2020.

Polls show that 52% of registered Democrats believe that the Russians actually altered the vote counts.

And there was definitely ballot fraud in 2020. How widespread it was is yet to be determined.

> Polls show that 52% of registered Democrats believe that the Russians actually altered the vote counts.

Source? I can't find a poll that asked this question, or anything closely resembling it, reported.

>From 2016-2020, the Democratic partisans insisted that there had been some sort of fraud or malfeasance

What notable Democrats have "insisted" there was "fraud or malfeasance" in the 2106 election? I'm genuinely curious. The only claims of 2016 fraud that I can recall at the moment are those of Trump (when he tried to account for losing the popular vote).

Here's a story on H. Clinton saying Trump is illegitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum...

Okay that's fair. I don't think Hilary should have said that.

But since Trump lost the popular vote, "illegitimate" is a somewhat reasonable opinion IMHO. As in he won the election legally but is not the "legitimate" leader of the people in a moral sense.

The only party claiming election fraud / voter fraud in 2016 was the winner.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/27/politics/donald-trump-voter-f...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/80297294453220966...

Here's a link to a New Yorker article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/01/how-russia-hel...

And a Time article: https://time.com/5565991/russia-influence-2016-election/

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/26/us/2016-presidential-campaign...

And the Wikipedia page on all the allegations of Russian involvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

There are more...

There's a big difference between influencing the way people vote, and election fraud.

The evidence that Russians do try to influence out electorate is pretty ... evident.

I said "fraud and malfeasance" for a reason, you're omitting the second word.

You didn't say "fraud or malfeasance" though. You said "fraud and malfeasance".

I was actually somewhat careful about my wording, here is what I said about Democratic allegations (unedited):

"From 2016-2020, the Democratic partisans insisted that there had been some sort of fraud or malfeasance"

Why did you include the word "fraud" at all? You haven't yet supported it with evidence.

It's simple - either show us where Democrats have maintained there was widespread fraud in 2016 or withdraw that part of your comment.

You're misunderstanding the difference between election fraud and election interference. They aren't the same thing.

Election fraud means actual illegitimate votes were involved. Election interference means pretty much every other thing that one can do to influence an election. Most notably - disseminate false or misleading information.

So... one side believes an election was stolen with no evidence beyond partisan sources, and you say that's bad, right?

The other side believes that Russia acted to influence the 2016 election (not really the same thing as "stole", but whatever, I'll grant that) based on reputable journalism, and that's... bad for the same reason?

It sounds like you're making a PRO-disinformation argument here! You're saying that sourcing and truth doesn't matter, just the opinion that it produces? Yikes.

That is not election fraud.

I said "fraud and malfeasance" for a reason, you're omitting the second word.

If there is a throwaway word in your argument that has no meaning, why did you pick "fraud" instead of "sodomy" or whatever?

So you're admitting the fraud part of the claim is inaccurate?

I’m ignoring it because it’s widely known that Russia and perhaps other countries tried to influence US voters. What’s your point? The only person claiming election fraud in 2016 was Donald J Trump. While HRC called him “illegitimate”, she accepted the election results.

One side wants a photo Id to vote. A basic fraud prevention technique.

Other side opposes it strongly.

Can’t argue about fraud if one won’t even take a basic precaution.

Is a national photo ID that is freely provided and easy to obtain (no strange DMV hours) acceptable?

As that is where many of the issues with an ID requirement are: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Dem...

National id is a good suggestion at least. Passport is a valid ID. Would definitely need to be free with assistance available. Otherwise would cross line from fraud prevention to “poll tax” territory.

Also a fan of federal standards where states run Their own ID, but have to have some basic security steps in place.

Photo ID at the poll is not a "basic precaution" it is an intentional vote suppression tactic. Many people lack government IDs and a significant number of those lack them because the racist regimes into which they were born did not bother documenting their birth.

And further, these same locations make it difficult for those with working-class jobs to acquire IDs. Not everyone can drive long distances, wait in line for several hours during the work day, and/or pay the cost of a government ID.

If we allow voting by mail—which doesn't require a photo ID—then we can allow voting at the polls without one either.

We shouldn't allow voting by mail either. Absentee voting with a notary public witness signature is fine by voting by mail is ripe for abuse.

Not really. It's very simple to prevent abuse in these elections, because the registrar of voters ... registers ... voters ... hence the name. You don't just mail your preference to the election board on a post card.

They also perform risk-limiting audits. Every state does them.

Every single person I've seen that claims that vote-by-mail systems are ripe for abuse seems incapable of describing how one could reliably affect the outcome of an election by abusing it.

Those who try seem completely unaware of even the most basic steps taken by elections officials to prevent exactly these kind of abuse.

It's almost as if the people we tasked with designing these systems weren't completely incompetent, considered how bad actors might try to interfere, and designed these systems with those considerations in mind!

You don't see how it's possible for abuse in a state that traditionally votes for a certain party to mail ballots unprompted to every citizen that you have in the state records when you don't regularly purge your data even for individuals who haven't filed state income tax in years?

I think we just fundamentally will have to disagree then.

Your position, is essence, is that people who file tax returns should automatically get ballots and people who need not file returns should not get ballots. This position is abhorrent.

No I'm saying it should be one of many types of checks to validate the data.

As of 2020, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming levy no personal income tax.

Are you actually okay with disenfranchising voters in all of these states?

Circular logic. because we have a less secure way to vote. We should make all methods less secure.

Then how do these people receive aid from social programs, without being able to provide proof of identity?

How do they operate motor vehicles to get to or from (or at) jobs, especially in the majority of counties in the United States without substantial public transit systems?

How do these people even purchase alcohol without proof of identity? I still get carded and I've been a legal drinker for well over 20 years.

> Then how do these people receive aid from social programs, without being able to provide proof of identity?

Many of them don't.

I would however like to call out your extremely offensive implicit assertion that anyone who doesn't have ID is likely to be a social aid recipient.

> How do they operate motor vehicles to get to or from (or at) jobs, especially in the majority of counties in the United States without substantial public transit systems?

Many of them don't.

It's extremely common to get rides from friends, family, and/or coworkers.

> How do these people even purchase alcohol without proof of identity? I still get carded and I've been a legal drinker for well over 20 years.

Many of them don't.

And this is locale-dependent. I was carded 100% of the time during a trip to Colorado last year, but I haven't been carded except a handful of times since living in California. I'm 35.

My much older sister was on welfare in California.

It was routine to “borrow” kids from friend to get more benefits.

At some point rules changed, and she stared working again.

While I'm enjoying the clever "fraud" twist in the otherwise well-worn trope about welfare queens in left-leaning states, I'm genuinely confused as to where it fits in with a discussion about voter ID requirements.

Welfare fraud was common and easy. My sister was 3rd generation on welfare.

It was a bit before my time.

But I’m guessing that welfare supporters dismissed concerns at that time as well.

Of course I could be wrong, maybe all politicians knew about the fraud and honestly reported on how easy it was.

I do not choose to doubt your personal story (although, it sounds like fiction) but statistics on welfare fraud show that it is a small fraction of welfare program spending, and that the majority of such fraud is perpetrated by third parties, not beneficiaries. As an example Social Security disburses over a trillion dollars every year but estimates fraud costs them $355 million, much less than one tenth of one percent, basically zero. By contrast retail "shrinkage", or people stealing the inventory, amounts to 1.5% of US retail sales, and compliance with the federal income tax stands at merely 85%. So social spending looks pretty solid by comparison.

So all these poor undocumented people lack an ID to buy alcohol?

Or perhaps a better argument is that millions of foreign undocumented people vote a certain way...

Between 9% and 21% of adults in US cities don't drink. And that certainly isn't a requirement for voting.

https://www.alcohol.org/guides/volume-of-non-drinkers-by-us-...

I'm curious about your "better argument" here. Do you have any data to show how, and where, these millions of foreign undocumented people are voting?

So you're concerned about people who weren't born in the USA not being able to vote because of a ID mandate? If they weren't born in the USA but have become citizens entitling them to a vote I assure you they would need documentation of their birth in order to become citizens.

You have incorrectly interpreted what I meant by "racist regime". I'm not talking about India or Egypt. I'm talking about Texas and Mississippi.

You come back from that by honestly addressing their concerns and issues. What you dont want to do is purposefully misrepresent their perfectly valid concerns and then censor and banish them from the discussion because then they will just go create their own platform leaving both groups in their own echo chambers.

Maybe real information needs a better PR strategy? What would that look like? I think it needs to be bottom up, at least it can't be centralized.

What I hear often from Republicans is they rail against “elitist” attitudes. Liberals need to frame their information as being subversive and stop trying to just slap more credentials onto everything. Half of America doesn’t care at all if you’re a respected scientist in your field, in fact it makes them distrust you even more! A very interesting situation.

> And half the country genuinely believes it was stolen by fraud to the tune of hundreds of thousands of ballots across at least four states.

If you're going to write a comment lamenting about how disinformation is unstoppable, you probably shouldn't use disinformation to try and make a point.

There was a poll just yesterday showing 86% of Trump voters felt that the election result was fraudulent! Are you really dinging me for "hyberbole" for rounding 41% (or whatever) up to "half"?

Just to be clear though, since I'm guessing how this answer will go: do you believe that the election result was correct? Because if you don't, it's rather a different kind of fallacy to argue sideways about it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com