this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
133 points (88.4% liked)
BestOfLemmy
7456 readers
281 users here now
Manual curation of great Lemmy discussions and threads
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The real plan is much worse.
https://www.vcinfodocs.com/what-is-the-network-state
And recent news has confirmed some of the analysis showing voter fraud
Social Media and Political Influence
Whistleblower Alleges AI-Driven Election Interference
A former X (formerly Twitter) employee anonymously shared allegations on Substack claiming the platform was intentionally manipulated during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
According to the whistleblower, X’s algorithms were adjusted under Elon Musk’s leadership to prioritize pro-Trump and right-wing content. Some left-wing posts critical of Democrats were also boosted, but allegedly only to create a façade of balance.
AI-Generated Propaganda: The whistleblower alleges that thousands of fake accounts were created using advanced AI systems, Grok and Eliza, to disseminate political messaging. These accounts were designed to imitate real users and reportedly pushed targeted propaganda related to Trump’s economic claims, border policies, and cryptocurrency initiatives.
To support these claims, the whistleblower pointed to a breadcrumb in the Eliza documentation, which describes how AI profiles could be pre-configured with specific narratives and responses. One example, allegedly labeled “Trump,” was programmed to amplify campaign messaging.
Marc Andreessen’s Connection to Eliza AI
Andreessen’s Political Views
Elon Musk’s Role
Impact and Speculation
Voting System Interference
Evidence of Election Hacking
Stephen Spoonamore, a cybersecurity expert, issued a “Duty to Warn” letter to Vice President Kamala Harris, outlining evidence of vote manipulation in key swing states during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
Working with Smart Elections, Spoonamore revealed that voting tabulators were allegedly programmed to alter results after processing 400 ballots (up from 600 in 2020), a tactic designed to evade detection during recounts.
This tampering reportedly influenced outcomes in critical states, supported by findings in an analysis of Clark County’s election results.
Additional irregularities included the use of “bullet ballots,” where votes were cast only for the presidential race. These disproportionately favored Trump and deviated significantly from historical norms, suggesting deliberate interference.
Trump’s Statements on Manipulation
See all the first part and Trump wanting to rig the election sound completely real. Stephen Spoonamore and his "Duty to Warn" letter are totally made up. It's somewhere in my comments history, I actually looked up the numbers from the State of Arizona web site, and what he's saying is impossible just from how many ballots marked how got turned in and tabulated. It's made up. If you couldn't tell from the fact that there's all kinds of totally insane stuff in it that isn't at all how things work, similar to "The voting locations use StarLink and that's Elon Musk hacked the totals."
They’ve spent months analysing and confirming it which has led to this.
https://www.wcia.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/776992724/analysis-of-2024-election-results-in-clark-county-indicates-manipulation/
https://smartelections.substack.com/p/so-clean
I have read the letter before before, and debunked it to my satisfaction. The numbers in it about "bullet ballots," as far as I can tell, are simply made up. You can think whatever you like. If you want to see my reasons and citations and links, search back through my history, or if you can't find it but really want to see, let me know and I'll see if I can find it.
There wasn’t really much info or data available back then I think you’ve maybe misunderstood as it was unclear and there were questions about what he meant. The method they used and more newly released data is given on that second page. This was an independent team who’s verified it to the point they’ve released a PR. There was also a case opened by NV state yesterday into several types of voter fraud.
Hm... so I spent some time looking over it. It's not immediately crazy, on the face of it, like the "Duty to Warn" letter. And the allegations in the second link are specific, and concerning enough that if they are true, that it sounds like something looking into in more detail.
I did dig through it, just kind of poking to see if anything seemed off, and some of it is pretty suspect. I compared numbers from these two links, just to see if it was internally consistent:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ytDyPprQVqiQG4r0G5BZTpEwvDdKBvH4/edit?gid=1449319225#gid=1449319225
https://smartelections.substack.com/p/so-clean
~~The first link says that the Connecticut Democratic drop-off was -8,612 (roughly -1%), and the Republican drop-off was 59,065 (a little under 10%). But on the second link, the numbers are clearly not that.~~
(Edit: Hm... actually, now looking again with the population of each county taken into account, maybe it is right. Let me look at a few more. I was just overall really skeptical because the first link broke it out by swing states having a much bigger difference, and then the first one listed a bunch of non-swing states and said all the states showed the exact same pattern... but maybe in terms of numbers, they actually do line up. I'll look more.)
It's possible I'm misunderstanding something. I don't completely know what I'm looking at here. I'd like to be able to ask one of these people what's up with that discrepancy, and see what the answer is. I'm still pretty skeptical, though, unless there is some specific answer for why the two sources seem to show different results for what I think is supposed to be the same thing.
This makes me more skeptical. How many votes came in, in each category, was available immediately. If your argument depends on looking at the number of votes for each candidate, and you didn't present it until two months went by because of saying stuff wasn't available, that sounds wrong to me.
That means absolutely nothing. Putting out a press release is about like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. I've done it. It means nothing in terms of validation.
Do you have a link to the case? Where did you get this information? Voter fraud, I can easily believe. What you're talking about is election fraud, which is very different and would be the concerning thing.
Overall, I'm still pretty skeptical, to be honest.
Well the people publicly trying to figure out what he meant at the time were struggling. I stopped paying attention as he said he’d taken it to an independent place and they were trying to analyse it together. May have responded publicly in that time too. PR means they’ve done their analysis and are able to argue their case.
https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/pHJ1Ar9mao
What case was opened by the state? I heard the SOS was doing four investigations, and closed one and referred it to the state just recently, and 0 details at all about that one, or the three that were still open. If the state actually opened a case, I am interested to know the details.