Information overload helps fake news spread

Been done, pentesters have been crying about this for years.

> An incriminating email?

After the compromise of the Clinton email server I think they learned their lesson there.

> Hell, I'd take a suspicious correlation between firmware version and vote count, even. I'm not picky.

Theres been some technical arguments but they require some expertise to evaluate and probably aren't suited for a presser.

> But that's the problem, isn't it? You want the standard of evidence for reporting an allegation (e.g. "the election was stolen") to place the burden of proof on the listener ("Well, you can't prove the election was NOT stolen, can you?").

its a bit ironic that you can ignore existing evidence in favor of a contrary belief but claim the other side isn't presenting evidence.

> And that's pretty much the definition of "fake news". It's a lie. And they tell the lie because they know you'll believe it. And that's the problem. Not "information overload".

Oh I don't believe shit. its just odd that people are so insistent that this election was all on the up and up with no evidence whereas they aren't even willing to consider that someone might cheat in an election because "that would leave evidence and I haven't seen any"

> But certain facts will never go away no matter how much denial they embrace. The sweeping Mueller investigation ended with zero indictments of zero Americans for conspiring with Russia over the 2016 election. Both Donald Trump, Jr. and Jared Kushner – the key participants in the Trump Tower meeting – testified for hours and hours yet were never charged for perjury, lying or obstruction, even though Mueller proved how easily he would indict anyone who lied as part of the investigation. And this massive investigation simply did not establish any of the conspiracy theories that huge parts of the Democratic Party, the intelligence community and the U.S. media spent years encouraging the public to believe.

Unless you are a small child or truly have the mentality of what, I will not speak down to you like that.

I will repeat your quote though:

> "But as a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier. Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. Why, they asked me, would you ever want to protect that?" -Richard Stengel, Biden Transition Team Member

That quote is clearly an observation, not a call to action in itself. It is an observation that the US's notion of free speech is not at all universal, and can be confounding even to people with some quality ("sophistication", perhaps "worldliness" or other terms would be more helpful descriptors) that the author wouldn't expect it to confound.

You're claiming that it's some kind of call to action against "unfettered free speech" (which we already don't have in the US anyways).

Present an actual argument instead of taking a quote (properly attributed but sans context) and jump to conclusions that aren't in it. How hard is that to do? Learn how to construct and present arguments in ways that actually have a chance to persuade instead of making statements that verge on non sequiturs.

Here, I'll help you: Link to the actual opinion piece [0]. It's clear from that that he's arguing in favor of hate speech laws (which is a slippery slope, I'm pretty sure a few "Christians" I know would like hate speech laws so they could stop me from calling them anti-Christians), and thinks there's already precedent for such laws.

> The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted.

You didn't present that part though, I only stumbled on it because someone else linked to it in this thread.

TL;DR: You are terrible at argumentation.

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/29/why-ameri...

Edit: and in the other direction, any input on why the non-machine hand count which just completed in Georgia affirmed the results from the original count? Doesn't that pretty much eliminate the whole conspiracy theory?