[HN Gopher] Fox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Fox News Is Sued by Election Technology Company for over $2.7B
        
       Author : nwotnagrom
       Score  : 79 points
       Date   : 2021-02-04 18:22 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
        
       | ibejoeb wrote:
       | > Smartmatic accused Rupert Murdoch's network of promoting a
       | false narrative about the 2020 election
       | 
       | I can't wait to see the evidence. That'll prove that the devices
       | are auditable. They are, right?
       | 
       | If anyone in government really wants to have a notable legacy,
       | here's how: petition the USDS to create an integrated open-source
       | election system, and get people like Matt Blaze and Harri Hursti
       | to run a red team against it.
       | 
       | Enough with the foreign companies creating and operating black
       | boxes. Enough with the smears against people who call for
       | entirely reasonable verification while we have absolute top-tier
       | experts regularly showing us that these systems are deeply
       | flawed. Make elections trustworthy.
        
         | justaguyonline wrote:
         | The most incredible factoid for me: These machines, the
         | Smartmatic machines, weren't even really used in the election.
         | 
         | >Smartmatic technology was used only in Los Angeles County,
         | California in the 2020 election. The system we provided to LA
         | County does not count, tabulate or store votes.[1]
         | 
         | A single county in the whole of the United States used them.
         | Verifiable or not, there's nothing this company could of done
         | to change a national election outcome.
         | 
         | Someone somewhere started repeating that Smartmatic currently
         | owned Dominion when their only connection was that they had
         | sold off Sequoia Voting Systems----which Dominion currently
         | owns, more than a decade ago.[2][3] Once that false factoid got
         | in the system it was a convenient enough fact for some
         | political factions that it got repeated everywhere.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.smartmatic.com/us/smartmatic-fact-checked/ [2]
         | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartmatic#Sale_of_Sequoia_Vot...
         | [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Voting_Systems
        
           | rspeele wrote:
           | Yeah, one of the things you are expected to accept right off
           | the bat going into the conspiracy "evidence" is that all of
           | these companies are essentially the same entity: Diebold,
           | Dominion, Sequoia, SmartMatic, and Edison Research. Once you
           | buy that, you'll also buy that they're all owned by communist
           | China.
        
         | devwastaken wrote:
         | I agree with the anti black boxes, but it won't solve the
         | disinformation. Once the code is available someone who is
         | either ignorant or intentionally lying will make up some story
         | about how it's vulnerable - and the lay people will eat it up
         | because they want to believe it, and will believe they have
         | proof.
        
           | jVinc wrote:
           | That seemed to have happened even though the code wasn't
           | available. So yes, you are absolutely correct, people will
           | lie, willfully or ignorantly.
        
         | mikestew wrote:
         | _I can 't wait to see the evidence. That'll prove that the
         | devices are auditable. They are, right?_
         | 
         | When Fox talking heads are claiming Hugo Chavez had a hand in
         | the design, and "The Smartmatic software is in the DNA of every
         | vote-tabulating company's software and systems", I don't think
         | the ability to audit the machines will come into play. What
         | will come into play is whether or not any of Fox's
         | unsubstantiated shit-talking can be taken to be true. IANAL,
         | and I have might have a particular dislike for all parties
         | involved, but I don't think we'll get the evidence we'd like to
         | see.
        
         | rspeele wrote:
         | Can you give an example of what you would characterize as
         | "smears against people who call for entirely reasonable
         | verification"? And while you're at it, who you consider a "top-
         | tier expert"?
         | 
         | It seems to me that the people getting served with lawsuits
         | weren't just concerned about vulnerabilities and calling for
         | verification, they were outright claiming that the election
         | _was_ stolen. And stating made-up ideas about how it was done
         | as facts, at that. Like Sidney Powell saying Dominion machines
         | were designed to count Biden votes as 1.26 and Trump votes as
         | 0.74.
         | 
         | If all they wanted was verification, well, Georgia recounted
         | all the paper ballots by hand and compared the results to what
         | the machines scanned. So did Antrim county in Michigan. So did
         | Dane and Milwaukee counties in Wisconsin -- which Trump's
         | campaign paid $3M to recount. Those recounts didn't show a
         | problem with the machines.
         | 
         | If you believe it was stolen, you have to believe they faked
         | the recounts too, or that they recounted fake paper ballots
         | fabricated to back up the original numbers. But at that point,
         | is it really about the voting machines? You could take the
         | machines out of the picture completely, have an all-paper
         | election, counted by hand starting on Nov 3, and have the exact
         | same allegations that you don't trust the count.
        
         | xxpor wrote:
         | What makes you think people will accept The One True Machine
         | from the feds is any better?
        
           | easton wrote:
           | Source code. If they don't like it, they can audit it
           | themselves.
        
             | Traster wrote:
             | Or, you know, they can do what they always do - take a
             | piece of totally benign information (in this case source
             | code), confidently and wrongly contend that it's a back
             | door for the socialists and scream about it on fox news.
        
             | triceratops wrote:
             | You vastly underestimate the imaginations of conspiracy
             | theorists. And the gullibility of those who follow them.
        
             | Buttons840 wrote:
             | How will they know the source code they're reading is
             | what's on the machines?
             | 
             | An important part of elections is for people to understand
             | and trust the process. Paper is easy to understand; you and
             | a bunch of your neighbors counting paper votes is easy to
             | trust. Maybe mix in a machine to speed up the process that
             | is also verified by hand.
             | 
             | Yet I can't help but think nothing will convince those who
             | so easily believe in a vast conspiracy to alter election
             | results spanning multiple states with different political
             | leanings and cultures.
        
               | Errsher wrote:
               | You can use homomorphic encryption that allows the vote
               | (after-the-fact) to be auditable but secure and allows
               | individuals to validate that their vote was counted
               | accurately.
               | 
               | Microsoft has a project that seems to work in this
               | direction:
               | 
               | https://github.com/microsoft/electionguard
        
               | vlang1dot0 wrote:
               | Ah yes, the average citizen will definitely trust that
               | "homomorphic encryption" isn't just some nonsense made up
               | so the election can be rigged.
        
               | Errsher wrote:
               | The difference is that with something like ElectionGuard
               | - as long as the encrypted result is publicly available -
               | you would remove an entire class of complaints that
               | people have with the current system - individuals would
               | be able to validate that their personal vote was counted
               | appropriately, and you would be able to audit the
               | authenticity of every vote without disclosing/revealing
               | who individuals vote for. Unlike the current system which
               | allows opportunity for fraud and is not always auditable
               | (at least not immediately), the actual voting
               | infrastructure and procedures do not matter as much if we
               | can independently verify the authenticity of the
               | _outcome_.
        
               | ouid wrote:
               | The thing that really keeps elections secure,
               | practically, is adversarial observers. If you want people
               | to have faith in the election, this is the system to
               | explain, and demonstrate. You can even go be an observer
               | if you like.
        
             | cardiffspaceman wrote:
             | Source code, binaries, and a reproducible binary build
             | system. If you don't modify your compiler to enable
             | reproducible binaries, YOU'RE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | jandrese wrote:
       | > Smartmatic, which provided services for the 2020 election in
       | only one county
       | 
       | > Smartmatic's complaint takes into account not only the
       | reputational and financial damage the company said it had
       | suffered, but also the harm done to the United States by the
       | claims promoted by Mr. Trump's allies and the Murdoch-controlled
       | networks he had long favored.
       | 
       | It appears that they are also trying to add the United States of
       | America as defendants after Fox News slandered them with lies
       | during the post-election period.
       | 
       | In other words, this lawsuit is going to be laughed out of court.
       | I agree that Fox News lied a lot, maybe even more than usual and
       | is at least partially responsible for the riots on the capitol,
       | but these guys are nuts I don't want them representing me against
       | a giant media empire.
        
       | redis_mlc wrote:
       | It's suspected that the CCP bought Dominion/Smartmatic the summer
       | before the 2020 election for $400 million. That would make these
       | lawsuits "lawfare", a CCP non-kinetic warfare strategy. The
       | various holding companies all deleted the names of Chinese
       | directors when the ownership started to be investigated shortly
       | after that.
       | 
       | (The State of Texas dropped Dominion after the ownership was
       | unclear, but 29 states kept using it.)
       | 
       | You'll notice the NY Times article uses the leftist keyword
       | narrative word "debunked" about ownership questions, without, you
       | know, naming the owners. (The other keyword narrative words and
       | phrases you see used in a coordinated fashion across news
       | channels are "insurrection" and "no widespread voter fraud.")
       | 
       | The CCP also used a front organization in the US in some of the
       | recent banned app defense lawsuits.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | jimjimjim wrote:
       | There must be repercussions for lies. There must be. It's not a
       | free speech issue.
        
         | jandrese wrote:
         | This has come up before for Fox News in the courts. They won.
         | Because they are not a news channel and only air opinion pieces
         | they aren't subject to the Fairness Doctrine.
         | 
         | Also, Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine so it doesn't really
         | matter. Basically Fox is free to lie as much as they like and
         | it's perfectly legal because some politicians found it to be
         | beneficial.
         | 
         | https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...
         | 
         | https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-host-shepard-smith-opinion...
         | 
         | https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sean-hannity-the-whole-newspa...
         | 
         | Any time a Fox News host is pressed about their lies they fall
         | back to the "nobody would believe these obvious lies" defense,
         | and it works. Accountability is dead.
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | Ah, so glad that only one side lies. So nice of the other
           | side to keep telling us constantly. Wonderful how we can
           | trust big brother on everything.
        
             | jandrese wrote:
             | The whatabboutism sure came quick.
             | 
             | Dude, you messed up the playbook. Deny first _then_
             | deflect. Or were there too many sources posted and you
             | thought the denial would look silly?
             | 
             | Also, put up or shut up. Find a legal case where an NBC,
             | ABC, PBS, Washington Post, NYT, etc... reporter uses the "I
             | only broadcast opinions so the truth doesn't matter"
             | defense. I'm waiting.
        
           | gwbrooks wrote:
           | It's questionable whether the Fairness Doctrine was ever an
           | issue. It was originally established because the government
           | owned the airwaves and leased them to broadcasters -- like a
           | landlord, they could have standards.
           | 
           | But the doctrine never applied to print publishers because
           | the government didn't have a similar stake in that medium.
           | Given that cable companies and the wires they use are all
           | private, it seems unlikely they could be restricted under a
           | revised Fairness Doctrine without running into 1A issues.
        
         | triceratops wrote:
         | > There must be repercussions for lies
         | 
         | Nah that's cancel culture. /s
        
         | treeman79 wrote:
         | When government decides a group must be punished then bad
         | things happen.
         | 
         | Genocide, civil war, etc.
         | 
         | http://www.projetaladin.org/holocaust/en/history-of-the-holo...
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | gwbrooks wrote:
         | Traditionally, the repercussion for lying was loss of
         | reputation/business/relationships. It didn't always work that
         | way, of course, but it was a moderately effective dynamic
         | overall.
         | 
         | What's new now is that everyone's ability to create a network
         | (and leverage network effects) via social media is tremendously
         | amplified. That means both a reward system for embracing lies
         | as long as the lies agree with in-group beliefs, and a greatly
         | increased ability to spread them.
         | 
         | Congress can't legislate that media (or Karen on Twitter for
         | that matter) has to tell the truth -- that's a pretty well
         | established point of law and you'd likely need to amend the
         | Constitution if you wanted wholesale, mandated change. Against
         | the backdrop of that not-gonna-happen-in-our-lifetime heavy
         | lift, the boomlet in deplatforming is actually a pretty good
         | (although I personally dislike it) and organic solution.
         | Private-sector actors are doing what Congress and the Court
         | cannot.
         | 
         | Now, does it solve for the dopamine drip and self-reinforcing
         | vitriol that caused our current problem? No. But it does, at
         | least partially, quarantine it.
        
         | Nasrudith wrote:
         | That populist soundbyte has been spreading like a virus but I
         | have yet to see any elaboration let alone a coherent plan. What
         | consequences, and how would it be remotely constitutional?
         | Boycott those who advertise on Fox News? Sure - that is well
         | within your rights of freedom of association. Libel to the
         | typical standards of actual malice for public figures sure.
         | Outlawing "lies"? There are so many things wrong with that.
         | Forget the zeitgeist and imagine what your worst enemies or
         | worst people in history could do with such tools and deciding
         | what counts as a lie. 'Fake news' punishments for pointing out
         | the lack of evidence of hydroxychloroquine as effective for
         | COVID-19.
        
       | spaceisballer wrote:
       | I don't think this is going to go anywhere, probably just handing
       | out lawsuits. I do believe they may be able to win their case
       | against Giuliani. Read a long article going into depth about it
       | and seems like a strong case that he was very negligent. I mean
       | there are court records of him saying they have no evidence for
       | his claims yet he continued to spew them in public.
        
       | ashneo76 wrote:
       | To all the naysayers, is there any other way to hold fox
       | accountable for all the propaganda and division that they have
       | down for that 5 years at least? And to hold rupert murdoch
       | accountable?
        
         | blablablerg wrote:
         | And still are doing! It's disgusting how selective their
         | reporting is.
        
         | glial wrote:
         | Not just 5 years. They were lead cheerleaders for the 2003 Iraq
         | War.
        
           | stevesimmons wrote:
           | And Murdoch's media in UK were cheerleaders for Brexit, and
           | in Australia for climate change denial.
           | 
           | At least Rupert Murdoch's son James has split from the family
           | media interests and spoken out:
           | 
           | * https://www.ft.com/content/9eab68e1-7afb-4282-95fa-3149bd09
           | 1... [paywall]
           | 
           | * https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/15/media/james-murdoch-
           | elect...
        
         | glial wrote:
         | If someone had enough money, would it be possible to buy a
         | controlling share in NewsCorp?
        
         | jacob2484 wrote:
         | Only if the same can be done to CNN & MSNBC with the leftwing
         | propaganda and divisiveness.
        
           | anemoiac wrote:
           | Perhaps this may come off sounding a little too "no true
           | Scotsman"-y for HN, but I have to shake my head and chuckle
           | quietly to myself whenever I hear about a "left wing" multi
           | billion dollar corporation.
           | 
           | Additionally, divisiveness is not inherently bad - or, at
           | least, it's often better than the alternative. The American
           | Civil Rights Movement was extremely divisive, for example.
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | Cancel culture means only once view point is allowed.
           | 
           | Anyone that disagrees is automatically attacked and given
           | many horrible labels.
           | 
           | Want to move the tax rate up or down? Your a racist if you
           | pick wrong.
        
             | ihumanable wrote:
             | We want structural change with laws and government
             | regulation!
             | 
             | No, you can't have that, the market must decide, it's most
             | efficient!
             | 
             | Ok, then when people do things we don't like, we will
             | boycott them since we can only use market based solutions.
             | 
             | No, that's cancel culture!
             | 
             | Hmm.... seems like these two ideas together is basically
             | just a long way of saying that those with power should be
             | immune from society at large.
        
           | fungiblecog wrote:
           | It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing the way that
           | right-wing extreme selfishness is so often justified by
           | trying to make a false equivalence with unselfish left-wing
           | ideas.
           | 
           | Wanting people to be less shit to each other - and to the
           | rest of nature - is not the same as advocating for the right
           | of the rich to shit on everyone else.
        
         | txsoftwaredev wrote:
         | CNN as well?
         | 
         | Some CNN lies:
         | 
         | 1. "When President Trump met with Japanese Prime Minister
         | Shinzo Abe last November, the pair took part in a koi fish
         | feeding ceremony. A video posted by CNN appeared to show Trump
         | dumping his entire box of food into the koi pond unprompted.
         | 
         | An unedited video revealed that Trump was simply following the
         | lead of Abe, who emptied his box of food first."
         | 
         | 2."CNN claimed that only Democratic members of Congress
         | gathered to pray before the 2017 Congressional Baseball Game --
         | the first game after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise was shot
         | and nearly killed."
         | 
         | 3. "After a May shooting at Santa Fe High School in Texas, CNN
         | reporters immediately began claiming that there were 22 school
         | shootings on the year.
         | 
         | However, CNN wildly exaggerates the number of school shootings
         | by using methodology that includes accidental firearm
         | discharges on school property, domestic disputes, and other
         | non-active shooter events."
         | 
         | 4. "Multiple CNN reporters speculated about the whereabouts of
         | Melania Trump after a scheduled kidney surgery and then denied
         | responsibility for any conspiracy theories about the first
         | lady.
         | 
         | Media reporter Brian Stelter led his "Reliable Sources"
         | newsletter on June 3rd with the headline "Melania M.I.A," and
         | insisted the first lady's whereabouts were a "mystery" because
         | she had not been seen in public since May 10."
         | 
         | 5. "CNN fakes internet meme to smear alt-right. CNN told their
         | viewers that this racist meme was going viral in alt-right
         | circles. However it was revealed that the network actually
         | created the image themselves in an attempt to smear Trump
         | supporters as white supremacists. The internet did not exist on
         | the internet at all."
         | 
         | There is so much more fake news from CNN than these few
         | examples.
        
           | Craighead wrote:
           | This is such an obnoxiously bad take to draw a false parallel
           | between CNN and Fox. Please go back to Parler or 8chan with
           | this nonsense.
        
           | SR2Z wrote:
           | There's a massive difference between "Trump dumped a box of
           | fish food into a fish pond!" and "The election was rigged and
           | the government of the most powerful nation on earth is
           | illegitimate!"
           | 
           | You KNOW that these two are totally incomparable. None of
           | your examples are any better.
        
           | isbadawi wrote:
           | What are these quotes from?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-02-04 23:02 UTC)