Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 308 posts

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#41

Post by alistairSH »

baggy_trough wrote: post #25
the_gastropod wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were literally Russian-sourced bomb threats at several major democratic strongholds' polling locations in the last presidential election. https://www.npr.org/2024/11/06/nx-s1-5181834/election-day-vo... Voter ID and blocking mail-in / early voting are just a few examples of contemporary Republican voter suppression efforts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression_in_the_Unite...

Count me as one who strongly opposes mail-in and early voting because I believe it violates the sanctity of the voting booth.

Do you have anything beyond a gut feeling here? Several states do primarily mail-in voting and it seems to work fine.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#42

Post by bediger4000 »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #10
whatsupdog wrote: post #4

Unpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".

The counterargument is that mail in ballots help increase voter turnouts and that requiring id will turn people away. It's a weak argument because you shouldn't try to increase turnout by making voting less secure. Any other solution should be found instead.

What, exactly is insecure about voting by mail? Are drop off ballot boxes also insecure? In the same or different ways?

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#43

Post by lesuorac »

ilovecurl wrote: post #21
siliconc0w wrote: post #5

It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.

During Dominion's case against Fox News around this same issue Fox News' own lawyers stated that they were not stating actual facts about the topics under discussion and instead were engaged in exaggeration and non-literal commentary. It's not news, it's infotainment.

Lawyers would tell you that water isn't wet it's just slick if it'd help them win their case.

I don't see any fix for the news cycle besides slowing it down. Even if enough happens to fill 24h in a day there isn't enough time to actually analyze it at all.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#44

Post by bediger4000 »

jeltz wrote: post #31
alistairSH wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paper ballots can be faked. Or lost. Or stuffed. Anyways, haven’t most/all districts gone to paper ballots, the electronic part is just auto tabulation. They can be counted manually if necessary.

What is the point then? Why introduce a machine where none is needed. In most countries all votes are counted twice by his d and the initial voubt finishes in a few hours.

They're faster.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#45

Post by ljsprague »

siliconc0w wrote: post #5

It's pretty sad that is these sort of ticky-tacky lawsuits are really the only mechanism we seem have of holding these "news" networks responsible for brazen repeated lies that are hugely damaging to our society (like saying a election was stolen). And that wasn't even the problem, it's that their lies created damages for another corporation.

[flagged]

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#46

Post by normalaccess »

whatsupdog wrote: post #4

Unpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".

100% Agree.

Let's get back to brass tacks and stop all the monkey business. Even if there is no tomfoolery goin on (and I believe there is) why not make it beyond doubt?

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#47

Post by loeg »

felixgallo wrote: post #28
bradleybuda wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of comment comes up a lot On The Internet and it tells me that the commenter has never worked at a company that has lost a massive lawsuit. As someone who has worked at one of those companies, I can tell you that losing a suit like this will absolutely lead to huge operational changes to avoid it happening again. Whether or not those changes actually change the "character" of the company is a different ques…

This would be true if the source of funding were the standard kind of corporate funding. But there’s reason to believe that the backing money behind this corporation does not care in the slightest and regards this sort of poultry fine as merely the cost of doing its particular business, which is also not a standard type of corporate business.

It's "paltry."

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#48

Post by normalaccess »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #18
whatsupdog wrote: post #4

Unpopular opinion: Paper ballots with in person voting (with an ID) is the only 100% fool proof and verifiable voting system. Everything else could be manipulated or hacked. And when there's trillions of dollars and world power on the line, it's just a matter of time when the "could be" turns to "would be".

How on Earth are we able to have a global digital financial system that is able to keep track of trillions in transactions per year but running a seasonal election with < 100 million participants through a digital system seems too hard?

Not a bug but a feature... The messier things get the more "Realpolitik" can happen (using it pejoratively).

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#49

Post by notatoad »

bradleybuda wrote: post #22
alistairSH wrote: post #2

~1/3 of their annual revenue. Not nothing, but likely small enough that it’s just a cost of doing business and not a real deterrent. IMO.

This kind of comment comes up a lot On The Internet and it tells me that the commenter has never worked at a company that has lost a massive lawsuit. As someone who has worked at one of those companies, I can tell you that losing a suit like this will absolutely lead to huge operational changes to avoid it happening again. Whether or not those changes actually change the "character" of the company is a different ques…

i think it's unclear whether newsmax is a "real" company or not. is there any indication that they're trying to make money, or are they trying to push their agenda? because they pretty clearly do have an agenda to push.

if they're a real company designed to make a profit, then sure, 1/3 of their annual revenue is plenty of incentive to make a real change, and could even be a company-ending event. If they're just a rich person's tool to influence public opinion, then whether or not $67m is a big enough number to make a dent depends on the pockets of their funders, not on the company's finances.

Re: Newsmax agrees to pay $67M in defamation case over bogus 2020 election claims

#50

Post by temp0826 »

kg wrote: post #15
FridayoLeary wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterargument is that mail in ballots help increase voter turnouts and that requiring id will turn people away. It's a weak argument because you shouldn't try to increase turnout by making voting less secure. Any other solution should be found instead.

If we really want to increase turnout, we can just make voting mandatory like other countries have. Requiring ID is a problem given that a lot of people don't have easy access (or access at all) to legal ID, for various reasons, some as simple as cost. Having a license costs money on an ongoing basis and you need to have access to documents to prove your identity like a birth certificate, and some citizens don't have…

Enforced compulsory voting and ranked-choice voting (along with term limits and ending citizens united) would be pretty great.
Post reply on HN