←back to thread

Accountability sinks

(aworkinglibrary.com)
493 points l0b0 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.607s | source
Show context
spit2wind ◴[] No.41893449[source]
This is a terrible example because it's simply not true:

> Davies gives the example of the case of Dominion Systems vs Fox News, in which Fox News repeatedly spread false stories about the election. No one at Fox seems to have explicitly made a decision to lie about voting machines; rather, there was an implicit understanding that they had to do whatever it took to keep their audience numbers up.

Rupert Murdoch conceded under oath that "Fox endorsed at times this false notion of a stolen election."[1] He knew the claims were false and decided not to direct the network to speak about it otherwise.

Communications from within Fox, by hosts, show they knew what they were saying was false.[2]

These two examples clearly fit the definition of lying [3].

The "External Links" section of Wikipedia gives references to the actual court documents that go into detail of who said what and knew what when [4]. There are many more instances which demonstrate that, indeed, people made explicit decisions to lie.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/28/1159819849/fox-news-dominion-...

[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dominion-releases...

[3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lie

[4] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems_v._F...

replies(2): >>41893467 #>>41893699 #
throwaway48476 ◴[] No.41893699[source]
Voting machines are hacked every year at DEFCONs voting village. They're wildly insecure and no one should trust them. Frankly, any claims of manipulation of voting machines are at worst plausible.
replies(2): >>41893842 #>>41893932 #
1. notTooFarGone ◴[] No.41893842[source]
Accounts are hacked every second. They are wildly insecure and noone should trust them. Frankly saying you are just a hacked account is at worst plausible.

You logic is flawed at the core. With that train of thought you can infer everything.

Why trust voting it can be manipulated.

replies(1): >>41893868 #
2. throwaway48476 ◴[] No.41893868[source]
Is the objective truth of what I say contingent on whether it is a hacked account? I'd say no.

All voting systems can be manipulated, there's no need to make it so easy though.

replies(1): >>41893912 #
3. 082349872349872 ◴[] No.41893912[source]
In the days before voting machines, the dead people simply voted in alphabetical order, eg (1962) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41706655

[my recommendation: try to build a high trust society instead of patching epicycles onto the side of a low trust one]