It will be interesting to see how much longer CISA Rumor Control exists in its current form given that the head of the department was recently asked to resign[1].
Electronic voting machines are the primary weakness in the entire system, this is hacker news and we should know this for the fact that it is. I also would like to see the data on their claim that "the vast majority" have a paper system that can be audited, (and data on how much actually are). They even admit that CISA doesn't do any of that, and that it is at the state and local level, and almost anyone who knows how corrupt state level politics are would rightly doubt how well such abuses are being guarded against at that level.
What a great list of disinfo + debunkings. If I could tweak one thing, I think it would make sense to put the red X statement before the green checkmark, since the checkmark statement is the response
At first, I thought that, too. But I think I see the reason they did it the unusual/backwards way. It's to make sure the text with the green checkmark is seen by both careful readers, and those skimming the page.
I can envision someone skimming through the headings and reading the first thing they see in each section, thinking that it's the correct information.
I’m suspicious of the green checkmarks and red crosses in this context. If the argument is convincing you don’t need it. If it’s bogus the nice design may take your attention away from it.
A convincing design is more important to propaganda while a convincing reasoning is more important to fact checking.
Of course a site may serve as both, propaganda for the ones unable to reason and carefully crafted argument for the interested.
@dang -- I don't know how many flag votes it takes before something gets [flagged], but letting that happen to an anti-disinformation site has big 2020 energy.
Dear Trumpist flagger -- have patience, the White House will have him fired and the website struck before too long.
> If the secretary of state confirms that the four votes were cast in the names of dead people, it will hardly be enough to overcome Joe Biden’s 14,000 vote lead in Georgia.
And how do we know that the information presented is not itself disinformation? It's simply an appeal to authority with no data presented to validate the claims. Would love to hear them address the data in this video: https://youtu.be/Ztu5Y5obWPk
Precisely. This is lies with statistics. Put enough graphs in front of an audience with no knowledge of how statistics worked and already predisposed to your message... spread it around. This guy is no better than Q anon wackadoodles. I know it’s best to refute their arguments but this guy is not worth listening to. He has an agenda and it’s clearly politically motivated. No need to wade into his web of statistical lies.
He is in some ways part of the Qanon crowd. If you have the courage to dive into 8kun and other Qanon-related forums, a common refrain you'll discover is that Fauci must be replaced with Dr. Shiva. He's sort of their prophet as it turns out.
In addition to what others have said about the video's author being discredited in other, similar claims, many of the statements made on the CISA are trivially true, if you stop and think. E.g.,
> Rumor: If a social media account claims an identity, the account must be run by that person or organization.
I could claim to be the King of France himself right here, right now, but that wouldn't make it so.
As Buster (the rabbit) said: Someone would do that? Just go on the Internet and lie?
As another example, the claim that a website outage could be caused by something other than hacking — is trivial to prove by thinking about it. High load — particularly on election night, likely the busiest night for an election site — can cause the site to go down.
Further, most of them are backed by citations, many to not CISA. Even if you think "it's a giant federal conspiracy" many of the claims are still trivially fact checked by punching them into Google, where non-federal and non-governmental sources further back them up. (E.g., that voter rolls are generally public can be fact-checked that way.)
And how do we know that the guy in that youtube video isn't just another quack saying things so people will pay them attention?
If you're going to dismiss all information out of government agencies simply on the basis that they're authorities and you don't like what they have to say, you should probably buy a gun and move into the woods
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-officials-exclu...