For one, galloping in the sense that probably many Chinese citizens would agree with this sentiment.
Try to imagine what Lenny Bruce or George Carlin would think of all this.
So exactly what an I supposed to impute from that?
Is it simply assumed that this is some kind of hack-proof process?
Strange to find that kind of sentiment in this community, assuming that's what being suggested.
This is an election with multiple candidates, if he is lying, his political opponent can reply and point out his point-of-view as well as the lies. Given that this is possible, how is it better for the platform itself to start participating in the debate on a topic requiring some other domain knowledge?
I think when these platforms become mouthpieces for one way communications, like this case, they deserve criticism for what is said.
For instance, in this case the ballots are being automatically mailed to everyone who is registered to vote. Today my roommate is registered to vote. Tomorrow he hypothetically dies of COVID-19. Day after tomorrow, his ballot arrives in the mail. I sign his signature and cast his vote. Fraud.
We are in a status quo where otherwise healthy people are dying by the hundreds and thousands on a weekly basis, plus the other hundreds and thousands dying of typical causes. Their ballots are all being mailed out. Can you explain how the system will be protected from the abuse I am describing? Do I need to provide you with evidence that this is happening before I am allowed to criticize the proposed system?
Anyway - now I have described some hypothetical ways in which the system can be abused. Now I reckon that someone who is better informed about this can reply to this comment and correct wherever I am mistaken and provide references as to how what I am saying is incorrect.
Should a technology company that is running a social media platform now network with expert committees of all topics to provide arguments against electoral candidates whenever they posit something similar to what I have outlined above?
Why is it not better to let their opposing candidates do it themselves? How about a feature where the opponents' replies are pinned below the tweet?
collecting ballots from the mailboxes of dead people is not exactly a scalable enough way to rig an election for the democrats to warrant serious concern — especially considering how the hardest-struck communities vote democratic anyway. and besides, if you wanted to request a ballot for your sick roommate to perpetuate voter fraud, you could already pull that off in most states.
mail-in-ballot fraud concern-trolling is a long-established propaganda effort that doesn't have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis
We're starting to hear a few accounts of "ballot harvesting", and I suspect we'll go through several generations of fixes before this becomes as reliable as in-person voting.
(Personally, I don't really care. I give my ballot to my wife to vote anyway.)
How would you know a priori if it is a serious threat without the final tally?
Gore v Bush 2000 had a very close total in Florida. Would it not be a serious threat in a similar situation?
I think they have an obligation to annotate extremely popular and dangerous comments, but they do not have an obligation to fact check everyone.