Donald Trump has won a second term in the White House after surpassing the 270 electoral votes needed for victory, CBS News projected Wednesday morning.
That whole thing was about Russia using social media to spend disinformation. The entire thing wasn’t that, Russia hacked into the ballot boxes and changed votes, it was that Russia was using social media as a means to give false information to the public.
Underpinning the whole Russia-gate episode is the fact that human beings still physically pushed the buttons they pushed and that the vote they cast was indeed the vote they wished to cast. So we still accept the results as, technically speaking, the people have spoken.
But c’mon, you’ve seen the increase in AI slop. You know the Russia-gate stuff is true. In fact, I would dare say this election cycle they’ve gotten worse at doing it as they’re still pretty new at the whole AI stuff. Now where I, myself, and other Democrats likely disagree is the how to solve it. Lots of Democrats want to ban AI and regulate social media, but my opinion is you can’t fight fire by banning the match. You have to teach fire safety and hope the public is smart enough to not set themselves on fire.
But the important aspect is in all of this, the ballots that were cast, we still respect the final tally. That’s the fundamental difference between the Russia-gate and Trump’s legal challenges. The Russia-gate stuff is basically people are being misled. Trump’s stuff was that people were literally altering the ballot computer.
I think people are still being misled… BUT, Trump won this one fair and square. The law doesn’t say a person being misled shouldn’t have their vote count, and such a law would be insanely stupid/incredibly dangerous, even if it favored my particular team. We fix being misled by educating people and so losing this election just means that the educating folks game needs to up the ante. Best anyone can do is put the sources out there, show where the misinformation is wrong, and leave it up to the voter to read all of that come to the conclusion that matches reality. But if they don’t, we’ve got to accept that and work on better messaging.
That’s how one makes a point. They present the view, present the evidence, and use a persuasive argument. The rest is up to the voter to put together.
That whole thing was about Russia using social media to spend disinformation. The entire thing wasn’t that, Russia hacked into the ballot boxes and changed votes, it was that Russia was using social media as a means to give false information to the public.
Underpinning the whole Russia-gate episode is the fact that human beings still physically pushed the buttons they pushed and that the vote they cast was indeed the vote they wished to cast. So we still accept the results as, technically speaking, the people have spoken.
But c’mon, you’ve seen the increase in AI slop. You know the Russia-gate stuff is true. In fact, I would dare say this election cycle they’ve gotten worse at doing it as they’re still pretty new at the whole AI stuff. Now where I, myself, and other Democrats likely disagree is the how to solve it. Lots of Democrats want to ban AI and regulate social media, but my opinion is you can’t fight fire by banning the match. You have to teach fire safety and hope the public is smart enough to not set themselves on fire.
But the important aspect is in all of this, the ballots that were cast, we still respect the final tally. That’s the fundamental difference between the Russia-gate and Trump’s legal challenges. The Russia-gate stuff is basically people are being misled. Trump’s stuff was that people were literally altering the ballot computer.
I think people are still being misled… BUT, Trump won this one fair and square. The law doesn’t say a person being misled shouldn’t have their vote count, and such a law would be insanely stupid/incredibly dangerous, even if it favored my particular team. We fix being misled by educating people and so losing this election just means that the educating folks game needs to up the ante. Best anyone can do is put the sources out there, show where the misinformation is wrong, and leave it up to the voter to read all of that come to the conclusion that matches reality. But if they don’t, we’ve got to accept that and work on better messaging.
That’s how one makes a point. They present the view, present the evidence, and use a persuasive argument. The rest is up to the voter to put together.