Election Interference

[Ken]

Actual election interference is trying to prevent people from voting, not encouraging them to do so.

Your definition.

No, not MY definition. The actual legal definition of election interference which is very thoroughly spelled out in US law.

The actual definition of election interference in US law is the following: https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-52-vo ... 20not%20to

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.

There are other prohibitions related to interfering with the voter registration process, voting process, and process of tabulating votes. Which are some of the things that Trump and his cronies are being charged with. But there is no prohibition on encouraging people to vote. It is not considered election interference. To the contrary. The government actually encourages all citizens to vote.

[Robert]

Sorry Ken, but you definition is no where in the justice.gov definition.

Coercion can be doing things to keep people from voting while promoting one side to vote. If social media is putting a finger on the scale, that is unbalanced. If they can do it, then we can do it more here. So careful what you wish for.

[Bootstrap]

Again, Dr Epstein said they adjusted their algorithms so it is not so blatant. He says there is some bias now but small and mostly down ballet candidates. They know they are being watched so they are being very careful, especially with a Supreme Court case about this very thing going on. You should have searched a in 2016/2020 for Trump.

My impression: Trump dominated social media in both 2016 and 2020. His tweets were amplified, and often even just insulting someone with strong language turned into headlines. Trump used Twitter to amplify January 6th. In fact, I think he basically cracked the algorithm. Say outrageous things that generate emotion. Negative emotion. Stoke chronic anxiety and feelings of being taken advantage of. Stoke feelings of victimhood. Those are precisely the things the algorithm promoted. And they seem to define modern political "conservatism".

I did a lot of searches back then, mostly because of claims made here on MN.

Again, this has nothing to do with election interference, though. Trump won the election in 2016 legally, even though Google and Twitter promoted him in ways they did not promote Clinton. Trump lost the election in 2020 legally, even though Google and Twitter amplified what he said much more than they amplified anything Biden said.

I mean ... does anyone really believe Clinton and Biden drowned out Trump on social media? That's what these claims about algorithms are saying if you take them seriously.

[Robert]

I mean ... does anyone really believe Clinton and Biden drowned out Trump on social media? That's what these claims about algorithms are saying if you take them seriously.

Dr. Epstein and his research says so. Again, he is a Democrat and did not vote for Trump, but showed how this was very biased. Just the suppression of the Hunter Biden Laptop story was enough to change the 2020 elections.

I also disagree with your statement that the 2020 elections were legal.

[temporal1]

DJT was a private citizen campaigning for president.
Not a career politician conspiring with social media controllers .. for any purpose.
Musk / twitter / X exposed a lot. viewtopic.php?t=4713

Career politicians have been found complicit, AND “the world” is trying to figure out how to live with the internet/social media.

This is how new inventions work. Rules FOLLOW invention, not vice versa.

Meanwhile, 2016-forward, i recall members “breathlessly” bringing one titillating tweet after another to this forum for (TDS).

i advised many times, “i don’t twitter. neither should you.”
as i recall, DJT was banned from twitter.

no one is forced to follow or listen to DJT. 100% voluntary.

evidently, he’s just the most interesting thing (of our lifetimes)? he doesn’t do that. the people do.
nothing happens without response. (check out MN’s 15 pages of UNanswered topics).

admittedly, msm must love him. “the golden goose” pays. what would they do without him?

[Ken]

Sorry Ken, but you definition is no where in the justice.gov definition.

Coercion can be doing things to keep people from voting while promoting one side to vote. If social media is putting a finger on the scale, that is unbalanced. If they can do it, then we can do it more here. So careful what you wish for.

My definition is copied word for word from the actual law. Here is a screenshot of the law found at the DOJ link I provided with the paragraph that I copied highlighted:

[ohio jones]

My definition is copied word for word from the actual law. Here is a screenshot of the law found at the DOJ link I provided with the paragraph that I copied highlighted:

Your paragraph is not a definition. It doesn't even pretend to be. The items in (a)(3) just above it are examples of definitions or links to definitions.

Definitions don't use a form of the term being defined, as that would be recursive. A legitimate definition of "election interference" would not include "interfering" as this one does on the second line.

[Bootstrap]

My definition is copied word for word from the actual law. Here is a screenshot of the law found at the DOJ link I provided with the paragraph that I copied highlighted:

Your paragraph is not a definition. It doesn't even pretend to be.

May I suggest this definition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_interference

Election interference generally refers to efforts to change the outcome of a election.

Kinds of election interference may include:

• Electoral fraud, illegal interference with the process of an election
  • Vote buying, when a political party or candidate distributes money to a voter with the expectation that they will vote for them
  • Voter impersonation, when an eligible voter votes more than once or a non-eligible voter votes under the name of an eligible one
• Foreign electoral intervention, attempts by governments to influence elections in another country

That's quite different from the claims they are making about Google.

[Ken]

My definition is copied word for word from the actual law. Here is a screenshot of the law found at the DOJ link I provided with the paragraph that I copied highlighted:

Your paragraph is not a definition. It doesn't even pretend to be. The items in (a)(3) just above it are examples of definitions or links to definitions.

Definitions don't use a form of the term being defined, as that would be recursive. A legitimate definition of "election interference" would not include "interfering" as this one does on the second line.

Fine, don't call it a definition. It is a list of activities that are prohibited because they are considered election interference. The law simply lists the types of activities (interference) in elections that is prohibited. They all involve three basic types of activities: (1) interfering with the ability of people to vote, and (2) interfering in the actual conduct of the election such as interfering with elections workers administering the election or in the tabulation of votes, and (3) committing fraud in some manner in the process of voting or vote tabulation such as vote buying or voter impersonation. Encouraging people to vote is not one of those things. To the contrary. The government encourages all citizens to vote.

Nothing that Google has been accused of doing comes remotely close to any sort of activity that is considered interfering in an election.

It is really rich to see right-wing partisan groups like Media Watch accuse Google of election interference when the sort of thing they are accusing Google of is actually the stock in trade of right wing media sources like Fox News. By the definition of Media Watch, Fox News could be considered to be interfering in the election nearly 24/7 due to their slanted coverage.

[Robert]

Kinds of election interference may include:

This means it is not an exhaustive list.