politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
NOTE: This article is from more than 7 months ago.
Edit: I’m on my phone, so forgive any formatting snafus, but I just recently responded to a question about why that Substack post was removed for, and I think it is applicable here.
I’m a mod on c/politics. I don't speak for any of the other mods, and while I don’t recall interacting with your specific post, I’ll give you two reasons today that would likely be sufficient to me, for why I would have removed that post. (1) It’s an article to a Substack post, which isn't necessarily dispositive, but the author is unknown (at least to me), which is a ding against its credibility. (2) I don't know enough about the author's intent to know whether to characterize the article as mis- or dis-information, but I've been involved in elections for more than a decade, so I know that I can say — unequivocally — that the information the author is spewing, is incorrect. Specifically, the author demonstrates ignorance of the technology and logistics involved in the administration of elections, along with different methods of verification.
And just to be clear, the 2024 election was not perfect and there was institutionalized voter suppression; however, that Substack post is not rooted in fact.
The response I got from that post was (the other person quoting me):
This seems to be stating that we must accept what you say at face value without evidence. (End of the other person’s quote.)
To which I responded, and I would say is just as applicable here:
Okay, well here are some facts that you can confirm with anyone else who has been involved in election administration that support my point:
Those are three things undermining the article’s credibility that you can confirm for yourself. It’s spewing the same kind of bullshit theories that I heard about the 2020 election, and spent the years since, fighting. I didn’t like the outcome of the 2024 election either, but I know what I’m talking about.
The entire point of this is that it takes considerably more effort on your end to respond.
I just came back to this thread because I wanted to say: thank you for this write up, you got a lot of details I neglected to mention. The most important of which is that elections are run at the state level and every state is going to have their own security and cybersecurity teams, and the assumptions made in this treat it like either every cybersecurity team in every state is grossly incompetent or the cybersecurity teams were somehow "in on it" and kept their mouths shut (not a skill most of the people in Trumps orbit seem to have) or that the Trump admin had been sitting on a massive zero-day exploit to be used at the right moment, through the right channels, with the right pieces of hardware installed in the right spots every place they needed them (once again, these people are not good about keeping quiet about such things). Which, to me, all three are so highly implausible it really makes no sense to make grand conspiracies in your own head about it all.
It’s wild that a mod can just decide what is misinformation based on whether they personally know who the author is or not.
Just post your rebuttal as a comment. Objectively, you are hardly a more reliable source than the person who wrote this.
You may “know what you’re talking about,” but how do I know that you know? Why should I believe that your opinion is more correct?
I'm quoting OP to make a point here, and that point is they gave you an opportunity to validate the evidence they were presenting and not just take their word for it.
I have never worked in elections but have done enough research on elections to agree with the mod that these are indisputable facts. Elections are run at state and county levels and at each level you literally have security and cybersecurity teams that have to work with each other but were all hired by different groups: State, county, city. Due to this, processes will be different at each level and in each city/county/state. Similarly, each place will be sourcing their hardware from a different vendor, meaning it is highly implausible that somehow they all had the correct Tripp Lite devices in place in all the right districts and that the cybersecurity teams were either all grossly incompetent or somehow in on a grand conspiracy. Hell, I've had a government job for a short time, and even different agencies in the same government will be using different vendors than another agency. There is no overarching "you have to get your equipment from this specific vendor and no one else" more like "you can get your equipment from this large group of vendors who fit the specifications and requirements our city/county/state government has."
These are things you can research and verify. The mod isn't just asking you to their their word on it, they provide evidence and give you the opportunity to go verify that evidence for yourself. To go ask the people who run your local elections and find out. Not just trust the musings of some random asshat on the internet. Also the whole "elections are run at the state level" thing should be pretty common knowledge because that's basic civics.
Click the “more direct source” in the body of the post for a recent tie-in of how it fits in with Rockland county etc.
I just updated my comment, to reflect another conversation about that Substack, and the short of it is: that Substack post is misinformation.
I know it probably wasn’t your intent, but In the future though, please don’t use a “shell” article to post other content.