792
Elon Musk’s X engaged in a ‘pattern of election interference' to help Trump
(www.alternet.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
792 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59598 readers
2783 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How does a US citizen "interfere" in a US election? Nothing described in the article is illegal. "Interfere" is usually used to denote actions by outside powers.
Xwitter is definitely promoting disinformation, which is election interference and can be committed by American citizens. Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman pled guilty in 2022 to hiring a firm to make calls spreading disinformation during the run-up to the 2020 election.
Xwitter is providing a measurable, financial benefit to the Trump campaign. That's soft money, and using soft money to exceed individual campaign contribution limits is against the law.
Also pretty sure that creating a voter registration site that only appears to register voters in swing states (while gathering their data so you can follow up with only the ones you want to target) could also lead to criminal charges if the matter were to be pursued.
Wohl and Burkman were fined for sending threatening and intimidating robocalls. Not spreading misinformation.
Fox News is also providing measurable benefit to Trump. They also spread disinformation. If euther of those things were illegal they'd been shut down back when they were calling Obama a Kenyan Muslim.
Please identify exactly which law Musk is breaking and with exactly which action.
Wohl and Burkman were sentenced to community service.
The charge they pled guilty to was fraud; that they "falsely claimed that mail-in voting would put voters into a database that would be used to collect outstanding debt, track down warrants or enforce mandatory vaccinations." It doesn't matter what the outcome was (intimidation or something else), the fraud was the crime.
Fox is a slightly different case, as they're technically press and thus have a first amendment protection that automatically makes any case against them harder. But either way, the lack of prosecution is far from evidence that a crime was not committed.
I already identified exactly which law Musk is breaking and with what action. 52 USC 20511 and 52 USC 30101, if you find it particularly important.
They were also fined 2,500 USD each.
The case against them that most relates to what you're talking about is in Michigan. They're charged in accordance to a Michigan statute that bans deterring voters through "corrupt means or device", referring specifically to disinformation that the two individuals specifically engaged in and their stated goals. That's a world of difference from having a social media platform whose policies cultivate a userbase that seeks to get out the vote for a candidate and whose owner uses as a platform to advocate for that candidate. The case is actually going to the supreme court because the statute may be overly-broad.
You haven't provided any evidence or compelling argument that what they or Musk do falls outside of 1A protection. It seems to me that you're implying that media institutions with a slant towards a political actor or party during an election is violating campaign laws? Please clarify.
Invoking 20511 implies you believe pro-Trump disinfo on X posted by thousands of users constitutes "intimidation" of prospective voters. 30101 makes the "X support for Trump constitutes campaign finance fraud" argument look ridiculous:
Nah, honestly, by now the length of this conversation is way out of proportion to my interest in it. I'm not convinced by your argument even a little bit, but I'm really not compelled by talking about it anymore. Have a good one.
That's fair, I'm also bored with the topic.
Cool. Glad we agree on that, at least. Cheers!
Nobody gives a flying fuck about campaign finance laws with this supreme court.
Whether or not it will be prosecuted is immaterial to whether or not it is legal.
There are lots of potential ways, especially when you own a large social media platform that doesnt have rational reasons for blocking certain political content over others that skew a particular way.
There are no laws on the books that force social media platforms to tolerate all political expression. While there are laws allowing then to be sued for violating civil rights, that's not the same thing. Selective bans on people of specific political background are still a common thing across the internet.
So until that's remedied we're trapped with billionaire cretins trying to swing politics with their huge platforms.
Lol tell that to Tina Peters.