I've met Hungarian people in the Netherlands and they're doing everything they can to become Dutch. One Hungarian even speaks fluent with no accent, and that is quite a feat.
I think it's quite unfortunate as it will mean that Hungary will become less pro EU, simply because the really pro EU people (that are also highly educated) seem to be going out of the country according to my anecdata. It's n = 2 to be fair, but I think it's enough for it to warrant some more research since I am simply stumbling across this group of people, I'm not actively seeking it out.
Man. I logged in to Twitter the other day and it’s now 100% unfiltered racist fear mongering and nazi propaganda. Truly frightening. And I can’t believe people still consider it a useful platform.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this, but it's the same thing for me. The For You tab is a cesspool, but if you stick to the Following tab and unfollow anybody who says pretty much anything political, it's actually a pretty nice platform.
> Reads a bit like “nah if you ignore the main streets and just walk on the paths that you like you’re safe from crime in your neighbourhood.”
I find it crazy that we accept this madness on social media.
I feel crazy we accept it in real life walking down the street.
We don't accept it on the street either, and if you think that's what Main Street looks like, you either live in Memphis, an active warzone, or you need to turn off the telly.
It is in the EU's interests to get on with Russia, and the Russians haven't crossed any important lines that the US hasn't crossed in recent history. The EU would probably benefit from having more Russian involvement in their policy making, they could do a much better job of promoting peace in Europe if they spent more time communicating with major powers in Europe.
Taking that as a given, the EU doesn't have to be a neighbour of Russia. If they have problems with Russia as a neighbour then they shouldn't be trying to expand the EU into a country that not only neighbours Russia but is currently at war with them. Russia is one of the few powers who's borders have retreated in my lifetime. It is impressive how quickly the EU expanded to but up against them again.
Taking it as not a given, Hungary seems to think that negotiation is possible.
Doubt it. Appeasing hasn't worked. I don't know what would, but polishing Putin's shoes doesn't help. As for the US, least they have the chance to oust their emperor in three years.
Countries understood in the age of TV/newspapers that control of the media was a sovereignty issue. Any nation that wishes to remain truly sovereign, particularly in the English-speaking world is going to have to grasp the nettle and block or force divesture of Meta & the other US social media giants.
Cambridge Analytica was the canary, the gloves are off now. Australia's under-16 social media ban is a good first step but we need to go much further and fast, as much as government control is undesirable at least a democratic government is somewhat accountable, the nexus of US tech giants and it's sprawling intelligence services is not.
There's zero overlap between banning social media for kids and banning news from Rupert.
P.S. that soveregnity issue is not likely to be acted on because there are always a lot of people who prefer foreign influence to domestic opposition! Just ask the Roman Empire.
It’s notable and interesting this research is coming out of University of Cambridge. Cambridge Analytica spun out of academia there too?
Question for folks here who may be familiar: it seems like there’s a strong connection to research (and in the case of CA, commercial application of said research) around social media manipulation and propaganda in the digital age.
Is there any six-degrees type connection to the people doing this research and those involved with the roots of CA? Not as in the same bad actors (which, tbh yes, I consider CA to have been), but as in perhaps the same department and/or professors etc.
Just the price of the account doesn't mean much alone. The other important factor is how easily the account can get (shadow)banned from the region you are trying to influence. And for the price given we just know it's account. We don't know how sketchy it appears to the provider.
Not all accounts are created equal. For example a verified US account will be cheaper than a verified Japan account because Japan has stricter regulations around phone numbers. And then if you don't have a Japan account you might not be able to reach a potential Japanese audience due to not only antitrust of the platform, but also features that use geolocation for relevance.
Take a look at the YouTube algorithm. If those other accounts aren't in the same cohorts as your target audience you aren't going to accomplish much. The idea that accounts are fungible like they were 2 decades ago isn't true.
The people most susceptible to consensus mirage are, by the very nature of the beast, the ones least aware of it happening to themselves. Any opinion that you find yourself praised for by any of the groups in your social circle is infinitely suspect.
The _Science_ paper linked is paywalled, is anyone aware of a preprint?
I find it a bit curious that they've chosen to use SMS verifications as a proxy for the difficulty of creating an account, when there are similar marketplaces for selling the actual end product of bulk-created accounts. Was there some issue with that kind of data? SMS verification is just one part of the anti-bulk account puzzle, for both the attacker and defender.
The conclusion that an account being cheap is the problem as a reason for regulation is a disturbingly wrong-headed on multiple levels. It essentially says. "If only superpowers can use it would be a-okay!". A monopoly on manipulation is a bad thing for the same reasons allowing only incumbents to run political ads would be.
running political ads is in and of itself value neutral, tools for manipulation aren't. Just having them in the hands of fewer people is a straight up win in the same way having bioweapons in the hand of fewer people is. "I wish everyone had Sarin gas to level the playing field" isn't really a great idea.
I think a minimum pricing on accounts, even if it's just a buck or two on most social media sites would do very little to hinder genuine participation but probably eliminate or render transparent most political manipulation.
Arguably the primary reason nobody does it is because it would reveal how fake their stats are and how little value there actually is in it
Even if just 30% is crazy it seriously messes up elections, especially with low overall turnout.
Not sure if mandatory voting is the answer either.
The old way of “only landowners” voting is arguably highly unfair but might also have held a tiny grain of wisdom.
We don’t allow just anyone to drive a car, practice medicine, or give legal advice. But can’t imagine how a “voting license” could be implemented either.
When Citizens United was a big deal, I was torn over the premise of the concern for election integrity. Ideally, voters would make rational, informed decisions. They'd see ads, but know they all have an agenda, so they'd do their own research and come to a conclusion. Worrying about biased or inaccurate noise influencing elections means you think people can't be trusted to vote. Which might be true, and if it is, it's a bigger problem than corporate speech and fake accounts.
Other western democracies go further than the U.S. with campaign restrictions, including restrictions to campaign financing. One might say they protect the functioning of their democracies more with these additional restrictions, protecting voters.
And one might ask why we don't want to protect ours more.
I'll swing wildly in the other direction with campaign financing and point out Bloomberg's run for president. He outspent everybody and won American Samoa. He wasn't unqualified, either. He was mayor of NYC.
Are you saying that one billionaire's loss in the primaries indicates money is not a problem in U.S. politics?
I was thinking of things like the 2015 study referenced in this article [0] that looked at 1,800 policy change polls over three decades indicating that elites got their way more than twice as much as the majority, and the majority never - not a single time - got something the elites didn't support.
The article gave examples of things the elites wanted that were passed into law, even thought he majority opposed. Like NAFTA, the Bush tax cuts, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall banking laws.
It seems that politicians respond more to donors than they do to voters.
Hacked voting machines are a problem... unless our guys do it.
Fake online accounts are a problem... unless our guys do it.
Totalitarian measures like persecuting people for social media posts and forcing digital id are a problem... unless our guys are in power.
It was a good run for democracy. What was it, 200 years? I wonder comes is next. Techno-feudalism? Well, I'm sure it won't be a problem as long as it's our guys.
I don't know man, I think people disappove of voting fraud and sockpuppeting rather unilaterally.
> forcing digital id are a problem... unless our guys are in power.
Digital government ID based mandatory auth, properly implemented or not (read: anon via zk vs. tracking), does not "properly remediate" [0] this issue. You'd limit identity forgery to those who administrate identities in the first place.
[0] if that is even possible, which I find questionable
I'm from the Netherlands. That is slightly relevant given that we have 20+ parties here, so I'm coming in with that mindset. I understand that Americans have a 2 party political system which makes things a lot more entrenched.
The political parties I've voted for (all across the board) have never felt to me like "our guys". They simply felt like the most sane option at the time.
Not everyone sinks into political tribalism.
I simply want a sane democratic voting process.
And I find first past the post voting to be insane. It seems that a country is then doomed into having a 2 party system.
From a CS course called distributed systems, we know that if you only have a single source of failure, that's a vulnerability right there. A 2 party system can be a single source of failure if one of the two political parties is corrupted and gains too much power. To be fair, that could also happen when there are 20+ parties, but it is less likely.
Plenty of people were pointing out that voting machines had poor security for about two decades. Even before that, there was the mechanically disastrous Bush vs Gore Florida ballot.
America being what it is, with endless Voting Rights Act lawsuits required to keep the southern states running vaguely fair elections, it was impossible to get a bipartisan consensus that elections should actually be fair. And so the system deteriorates.
It was known to the Attic Greeks that democracy had a fatal bug: a system that entrusts ultimate authority to the masses will predictably privilege persuasion over knowledge, passion over judgment, and populism over excellence.
It just couldn't be exploited effectively until now. Thanks, Mark and Elon.
No, mass media had been around much longer than just a couple years.
But also, that bug is why our government was initially set up with the structure it was. And why you'll occasionally see complaints about parts of the structure being "undemocratic".
It was set up the way it was because the founders didn't trust voters. Voters don't always make optimal choices. Nobody said democracy was perfect. It's just a lot better than every other system we've ever tried. Benevolent dictatorship is good in theory, but quite rare in practice.
Politics isn't Newton's Third Law of Motion. Prior to Musk's takeover, there absolutely and unequivocally was no "equal but opposite" deliberately biased system in place like there is now.
This is a classic playbook in U.S. politics. Conservative media gins up a conspiracy theory (e.g., Hollywood is biased, universities are biased, mainstream media is biased, social media is biased, etc. etc.) and then they use these imaginary foes as justification for actual retribution. There was no purposeful and systematic bias at Twitter under Jack Dorsey (himself, a pretty conservative character, having backed Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr in the past election, both of whom both now work in the Trump administration).
First off, let me be clear I believe Russian intelligence does a lot of election interference in both EU and US and has a lot of social media presence. And also, I personally think Putin is an evil person worth of being a Bond villain.
That out of the way, if the post were about ballot stuffing by the Democrats with irrefutable evidence like I've seen, would you feel exactly the same way? Rhetorical question. I hope you can come out of the mind-spell and recognize evil for being evil whoever does it. Not just thinking evil can only be done by "the other people".
Note: I'm not even American and dislike both political parties. Same in EU, I deeply dislike the EU self-appointed caste, but I also deeply dislike the new right parties. And don't get me started with UK... So I think I'm reasonably un-biased with regards to those false dichotomies.
> if the post were about ballot stuffing by the Democrats with irrefutable evidence like I've seen
That's incredible. You're not even American, and have seen irrefutable evidence of "the Democrats" participating in blatant electoral fraud? Why haven't you shared this? There's no shortage of literal billionaires who'd reward you handsomely for such proof!
Beyond this, why I constantly make fun of "both-sides!" guys is because they tend to ignore degree. To a vegetarian, eating hamburgers is wrong (some might even call it evil). But you'd be hard-pressed to find one who'd consider hambuger-eaters and murderers basically the same. You'd rightfully consider someone with such beliefs insane. Between murderers and hamburger eaters, one is considerably worse than the other.
The only evidence of Democrats doing ballot stuffing is they also royally failed to get the majority last time around. Therefore they must have done it since they’re good at failing (/s).
Really? Are those the elections to which even TikTok admitted there was an organized meddling? [0]
> We proactively prevented more than 5.3 million fake likes and more than 2.6 million fake follow requests, and we blocked more than 116,000 spam accounts from being created in Romania. We also removed:59 accounts impersonating Romanian Government, Politician, or Political Party Accounts +59,000 fake accounts+1.5 million fake likes+1.3 million fake followers
Next one to look out for: 2026 Hungary. Fidesz is basically a russian backdoor in the EU and they will do everything to stay in power.
https://telex.hu/english/2025/12/11/most-hungarians-fear-rus...
They are also doing everything to bypass the no-political-ads-on-facebook ban https://telex.hu/english/2025/10/29/despite-the-ban-fidesz-c...
I've met Hungarian people in the Netherlands and they're doing everything they can to become Dutch. One Hungarian even speaks fluent with no accent, and that is quite a feat.
I think it's quite unfortunate as it will mean that Hungary will become less pro EU, simply because the really pro EU people (that are also highly educated) seem to be going out of the country according to my anecdata. It's n = 2 to be fair, but I think it's enough for it to warrant some more research since I am simply stumbling across this group of people, I'm not actively seeking it out.
Man. I logged in to Twitter the other day and it’s now 100% unfiltered racist fear mongering and nazi propaganda. Truly frightening. And I can’t believe people still consider it a useful platform.
No, it's not 100% anything. The content you're looking at is what you see.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted for this, but it's the same thing for me. The For You tab is a cesspool, but if you stick to the Following tab and unfollow anybody who says pretty much anything political, it's actually a pretty nice platform.
Reads a bit like “nah if you ignore the main streets and just walk on the paths that you like you’re safe from crime in your neighbourhood.”
I find it crazy that we accept this madness on social media.
> Reads a bit like “nah if you ignore the main streets and just walk on the paths that you like you’re safe from crime in your neighbourhood.” I find it crazy that we accept this madness on social media.
I feel crazy we accept it in real life walking down the street.
We don't accept it on the street either, and if you think that's what Main Street looks like, you either live in Memphis, an active warzone, or you need to turn off the telly.
Baltimore, actually. It’s really that bad.
I don’t watch television.
You should consider keeping more of an open mind, instead of dispassionately rejecting things that don’t fit your worldview.
Nah. I live in Baltimore. It’s really not.
Try not living in your algorithms.
Network effects are powerful, it’s still the “town square” of the world
It’s more accurately the “truck stop bathroom wall” of the world under new management.
Dubious claim now
It is in the EU's interests to get on with Russia, and the Russians haven't crossed any important lines that the US hasn't crossed in recent history. The EU would probably benefit from having more Russian involvement in their policy making, they could do a much better job of promoting peace in Europe if they spent more time communicating with major powers in Europe.
Of course it is in their interest. The problem is that Russia only knows how to bully, oppress, or violently interfere with their neighbors.
You cannot get along with a tiger who only regards you as a meal.
Taking that as a given, the EU doesn't have to be a neighbour of Russia. If they have problems with Russia as a neighbour then they shouldn't be trying to expand the EU into a country that not only neighbours Russia but is currently at war with them. Russia is one of the few powers who's borders have retreated in my lifetime. It is impressive how quickly the EU expanded to but up against them again.
Taking it as not a given, Hungary seems to think that negotiation is possible.
> Russia is one of the few powers who's borders have retreated in my lifetime
What part of russian border retreated in your lifetime?
Doubt it. Appeasing hasn't worked. I don't know what would, but polishing Putin's shoes doesn't help. As for the US, least they have the chance to oust their emperor in three years.
No.
Countries understood in the age of TV/newspapers that control of the media was a sovereignty issue. Any nation that wishes to remain truly sovereign, particularly in the English-speaking world is going to have to grasp the nettle and block or force divesture of Meta & the other US social media giants.
Cambridge Analytica was the canary, the gloves are off now. Australia's under-16 social media ban is a good first step but we need to go much further and fast, as much as government control is undesirable at least a democratic government is somewhat accountable, the nexus of US tech giants and it's sprawling intelligence services is not.
There's zero overlap between banning social media for kids and banning news from Rupert.
P.S. that soveregnity issue is not likely to be acted on because there are always a lot of people who prefer foreign influence to domestic opposition! Just ask the Roman Empire.
It’s notable and interesting this research is coming out of University of Cambridge. Cambridge Analytica spun out of academia there too? Question for folks here who may be familiar: it seems like there’s a strong connection to research (and in the case of CA, commercial application of said research) around social media manipulation and propaganda in the digital age.
Is there any six-degrees type connection to the people doing this research and those involved with the roots of CA? Not as in the same bad actors (which, tbh yes, I consider CA to have been), but as in perhaps the same department and/or professors etc.
CA was not spun out of Cambridge University. There's even a statement from the university about this: https://www.cam.ac.uk/notices/news/statement-from-the-univer...
> Cambridge Analytica has no connection or association with the University of Cambridge whatsoever.
Just the price of the account doesn't mean much alone. The other important factor is how easily the account can get (shadow)banned from the region you are trying to influence. And for the price given we just know it's account. We don't know how sketchy it appears to the provider.
Not all accounts are created equal. For example a verified US account will be cheaper than a verified Japan account because Japan has stricter regulations around phone numbers. And then if you don't have a Japan account you might not be able to reach a potential Japanese audience due to not only antitrust of the platform, but also features that use geolocation for relevance.
Cheap accounts from other regions are equally useful for mass upvoting preferred viewpoints.
Take a look at the YouTube algorithm. If those other accounts aren't in the same cohorts as your target audience you aren't going to accomplish much. The idea that accounts are fungible like they were 2 decades ago isn't true.
The people most susceptible to consensus mirage are, by the very nature of the beast, the ones least aware of it happening to themselves. Any opinion that you find yourself praised for by any of the groups in your social circle is infinitely suspect.
Do we have solid evidence that these accounts actually change votes?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46223522
The _Science_ paper linked is paywalled, is anyone aware of a preprint?
I find it a bit curious that they've chosen to use SMS verifications as a proxy for the difficulty of creating an account, when there are similar marketplaces for selling the actual end product of bulk-created accounts. Was there some issue with that kind of data? SMS verification is just one part of the anti-bulk account puzzle, for both the attacker and defender.
Interesting. How to counteract these online imposters?
The conclusion that an account being cheap is the problem as a reason for regulation is a disturbingly wrong-headed on multiple levels. It essentially says. "If only superpowers can use it would be a-okay!". A monopoly on manipulation is a bad thing for the same reasons allowing only incumbents to run political ads would be.
running political ads is in and of itself value neutral, tools for manipulation aren't. Just having them in the hands of fewer people is a straight up win in the same way having bioweapons in the hand of fewer people is. "I wish everyone had Sarin gas to level the playing field" isn't really a great idea.
I think a minimum pricing on accounts, even if it's just a buck or two on most social media sites would do very little to hinder genuine participation but probably eliminate or render transparent most political manipulation.
Arguably the primary reason nobody does it is because it would reveal how fake their stats are and how little value there actually is in it
I have witnessed obvious and systematic synthetic upvotes of HN posts. Over and over. I don't think the site has enough protections in place.
Maybe have YC invest in some startups combatting this using machine learning?
(Given the focus of HN it's typically some product being pushed, though. Not a politician.)
It is machine learning, not machine telepathy or machine precognition. Without causality you just automate superstition.
You are saying its not feasible to create an antispam filter using machine learning? I mean wtf. Is this a joke?
Edit: Bonus content:
Noam Chomsky and Steve Bannon from today's Epstein release:
https://e3.365dm.com/25/12/2048x1152/skynews-noam-chomsky-st...
https://news.sky.com/story/whos-pictured-in-the-newly-releas...
(I tried posting it on its own five times but HN won't let me. It's unclear if it's because of the keywords or something else.)
I am utterly terrified of elections finally. I didn't expect that to be in my timeline. The masses are really crazy.
Even if just 30% is crazy it seriously messes up elections, especially with low overall turnout.
Not sure if mandatory voting is the answer either.
The old way of “only landowners” voting is arguably highly unfair but might also have held a tiny grain of wisdom.
We don’t allow just anyone to drive a car, practice medicine, or give legal advice. But can’t imagine how a “voting license” could be implemented either.
When Citizens United was a big deal, I was torn over the premise of the concern for election integrity. Ideally, voters would make rational, informed decisions. They'd see ads, but know they all have an agenda, so they'd do their own research and come to a conclusion. Worrying about biased or inaccurate noise influencing elections means you think people can't be trusted to vote. Which might be true, and if it is, it's a bigger problem than corporate speech and fake accounts.
Other western democracies go further than the U.S. with campaign restrictions, including restrictions to campaign financing. One might say they protect the functioning of their democracies more with these additional restrictions, protecting voters.
And one might ask why we don't want to protect ours more.
I'll swing wildly in the other direction with campaign financing and point out Bloomberg's run for president. He outspent everybody and won American Samoa. He wasn't unqualified, either. He was mayor of NYC.
Are you saying that one billionaire's loss in the primaries indicates money is not a problem in U.S. politics?
I was thinking of things like the 2015 study referenced in this article [0] that looked at 1,800 policy change polls over three decades indicating that elites got their way more than twice as much as the majority, and the majority never - not a single time - got something the elites didn't support.
The article gave examples of things the elites wanted that were passed into law, even thought he majority opposed. Like NAFTA, the Bush tax cuts, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall banking laws.
It seems that politicians respond more to donors than they do to voters.
[0] https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-d...
This is “why are we going to space when we haven’t cured cancer” reasoning.
Hacked voting machines are a problem... unless our guys do it.
Fake online accounts are a problem... unless our guys do it.
Totalitarian measures like persecuting people for social media posts and forcing digital id are a problem... unless our guys are in power.
It was a good run for democracy. What was it, 200 years? I wonder comes is next. Techno-feudalism? Well, I'm sure it won't be a problem as long as it's our guys.
I don't know man, I think people disappove of voting fraud and sockpuppeting rather unilaterally.
> forcing digital id are a problem... unless our guys are in power.
Digital government ID based mandatory auth, properly implemented or not (read: anon via zk vs. tracking), does not "properly remediate" [0] this issue. You'd limit identity forgery to those who administrate identities in the first place.
[0] if that is even possible, which I find questionable
I'm from the Netherlands. That is slightly relevant given that we have 20+ parties here, so I'm coming in with that mindset. I understand that Americans have a 2 party political system which makes things a lot more entrenched.
The political parties I've voted for (all across the board) have never felt to me like "our guys". They simply felt like the most sane option at the time.
Not everyone sinks into political tribalism.
I simply want a sane democratic voting process.
And I find first past the post voting to be insane. It seems that a country is then doomed into having a 2 party system.
From a CS course called distributed systems, we know that if you only have a single source of failure, that's a vulnerability right there. A 2 party system can be a single source of failure if one of the two political parties is corrupted and gains too much power. To be fair, that could also happen when there are 20+ parties, but it is less likely.
Yeah. It's complicated. See Veritasium's "Why Democracy is Mathematically Impossible" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk
And also Idiocracy. This one is becoming more relevant. In all countries and all races.
>Hacked voting machines are a problem... unless our guys do it.
If they hack voting machines, they're not my guys, friend.
Plenty of people were pointing out that voting machines had poor security for about two decades. Even before that, there was the mechanically disastrous Bush vs Gore Florida ballot.
America being what it is, with endless Voting Rights Act lawsuits required to keep the southern states running vaguely fair elections, it was impossible to get a bipartisan consensus that elections should actually be fair. And so the system deteriorates.
> What was it, 200 years?
Rant aside, I'm curious where you pin the start of this.
It was known to the Attic Greeks that democracy had a fatal bug: a system that entrusts ultimate authority to the masses will predictably privilege persuasion over knowledge, passion over judgment, and populism over excellence.
It just couldn't be exploited effectively until now. Thanks, Mark and Elon.
No, mass media had been around much longer than just a couple years.
But also, that bug is why our government was initially set up with the structure it was. And why you'll occasionally see complaints about parts of the structure being "undemocratic".
It was set up the way it was because the founders didn't trust voters. Voters don't always make optimal choices. Nobody said democracy was perfect. It's just a lot better than every other system we've ever tried. Benevolent dictatorship is good in theory, but quite rare in practice.
Mass media wasn't enough to wreck the whole concept of democracy.
It was almost enough, admittedly... but not quite. The coup de grace was administered by social media.
> It just couldn't be exploited effectively until now.
Are you saying until Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022 there were no effective election interference problems?
Politics isn't Newton's Third Law of Motion. Prior to Musk's takeover, there absolutely and unequivocally was no "equal but opposite" deliberately biased system in place like there is now.
This is a classic playbook in U.S. politics. Conservative media gins up a conspiracy theory (e.g., Hollywood is biased, universities are biased, mainstream media is biased, social media is biased, etc. etc.) and then they use these imaginary foes as justification for actual retribution. There was no purposeful and systematic bias at Twitter under Jack Dorsey (himself, a pretty conservative character, having backed Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr in the past election, both of whom both now work in the Trump administration).
How is this little "both sides bad" rant related to the article at all?
First off, let me be clear I believe Russian intelligence does a lot of election interference in both EU and US and has a lot of social media presence. And also, I personally think Putin is an evil person worth of being a Bond villain.
That out of the way, if the post were about ballot stuffing by the Democrats with irrefutable evidence like I've seen, would you feel exactly the same way? Rhetorical question. I hope you can come out of the mind-spell and recognize evil for being evil whoever does it. Not just thinking evil can only be done by "the other people".
Note: I'm not even American and dislike both political parties. Same in EU, I deeply dislike the EU self-appointed caste, but I also deeply dislike the new right parties. And don't get me started with UK... So I think I'm reasonably un-biased with regards to those false dichotomies.
> irrefutable evidence like I've seen [...] I hope you can come out of the mind-spell
I kindly suggest that your use of the word "irrefutable" here suggests you may possibly be in a mind-spell of your own.
> if the post were about ballot stuffing by the Democrats with irrefutable evidence like I've seen
That's incredible. You're not even American, and have seen irrefutable evidence of "the Democrats" participating in blatant electoral fraud? Why haven't you shared this? There's no shortage of literal billionaires who'd reward you handsomely for such proof!
Beyond this, why I constantly make fun of "both-sides!" guys is because they tend to ignore degree. To a vegetarian, eating hamburgers is wrong (some might even call it evil). But you'd be hard-pressed to find one who'd consider hambuger-eaters and murderers basically the same. You'd rightfully consider someone with such beliefs insane. Between murderers and hamburger eaters, one is considerably worse than the other.
The only evidence of Democrats doing ballot stuffing is they also royally failed to get the majority last time around. Therefore they must have done it since they’re good at failing (/s).
Romania presidential election were cancelled because wrong guy (pro-Russian, anti-NATO) could win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%83lin_Georgescu
Really? Are those the elections to which even TikTok admitted there was an organized meddling? [0]
> We proactively prevented more than 5.3 million fake likes and more than 2.6 million fake follow requests, and we blocked more than 116,000 spam accounts from being created in Romania. We also removed:59 accounts impersonating Romanian Government, Politician, or Political Party Accounts +59,000 fake accounts+1.5 million fake likes+1.3 million fake followers
0 - https://newsroom.tiktok.com/continuing-to-protect-the-integr...