Accountability sinks

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...

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.

And, yet these companies won their lawsuits, and no wide scale voter fraud was ever found.

So, your point is entirely irrelevant.