Facebook is dead among young people, but there are still some dedicated users.
The thing about Facebook is that it's a far more functional social network than the popular alternatives. It's pretty much the go-to for running local community groups.
Is it so wrong for those who create content to want people to visit their website to consume that content? The alternative being that Facebook and Google summarize everyone's content and keep all the engagement and profit for themselves.
Pangram can sometimes flag human-written writing as AI-generated. Though in practice, the reason you're usually running something through Pangram in the first place is that the writing has no depth of insight and you already have suspicions due to other reasons. In that context, what almost always happens is that the person who wrote it will come out and say "no, I wrote it myself I just used AI for editing" aaaand, you pretty much have your answer.
Please stop simping for Panagram. There are organizations that run everything thru panagram and treat it like gospel. Panagram identifies all kinds of older crap as AI. It also can't deal with any human writing that AI has copied the style of.
> It's easy enough to design them to behave correctly in all cases except actual elections
How? Any possible scheme I can think of that could theoretically allow a tabulation machine to behave differently on audit ballots than it does on real ballots, can also theoretically be mitigated via audit procedures.
> How? Any possible scheme I can think of that could theoretically allow a tabulation machine to behave differently on audit ballots than it does on real ballots, can also theoretically be mitigated via audit procedures.
An audit will only mitigate that if a) you have paper ballots you can check, b) the audit happens very soon after the closing of the polls. If an audit takes place a month later, that's a lot of time for the elections administration to create all new ballots to replace the originals with, so the audit has to come very soon after the election.
The advantage of paper ballots is that the possible ways that the system can be rigged are technologically limited. Either ballots are forged or ballot are miscounted. Both are mitigated by having election officials physically present who validate that voter registrations are valid and that counting is being done accurately, and having those officials be made up of representatives from each participating political party.
Then the defense-in-depth is that paper ballots are inherently decentralized. Even if you manage to pull off a complex operation to rig ballots at a local voting location, you'd have to do the same at hundreds or thousands of other locations to affect the results of the election.
Oh my sweet summer child. During the paper voting, only the act of casting the vote happens on paper, the rest (tallying, allocation, voter lists etc) is all electronic. Both in Estonia and elsewhere.
In Germany it's not, at least not fully. Ballots are hand counted and tallied at the voting stations, and then those results are phoned in, where i assume they are input into software.
It doesn't matter, if the counts were changed after being handed off to election authorities higher up, it would be caught by observers who have the real counts as soon as the incorrect numbers were published.
Not in Spain, we only use electronic means for preliminary aggregate results.
Each voting station gets a paper voter list. When one votes, their name is struck off this list and added to a new one by different people. Then ballots are tallied one by one in front of observers, and the count and both lists are checked to match.
Finally, the preliminary tally is sent, but physical evidence is brought to a nearby court by the station members for custody, plus a copy of some documents sent by mail, so the electoral boards can aggregate the results during public sessions.
In Ireland, tallying is done by hand and in public. You can go along and watch, if you have a high tolerance for tedium!
(As Ireland is a PR-STV country, this leads to _extremely long_ vote counts. I think the most recent European Parliament election didn't assign all the seats for about a week.)
Not in the UK. I've been in one of the many rooms where they count the votes, it's all human powered. If one wanted to rig the counting, there are an awful lot of people to pay off.
To be fair, you can cheat by a couple of percentages at most then. Otherwise it will be pretty obvious that the global results don’t align with the local votes.
Hmmm, maybe I’m underselling this, you probably can cheat by a lot of percentage points still and get away with it. But at some point if the official results are like Putin’s while local results show everyone hates your guts, it might start tipping people off.
The Doorman Fallacy is real but is poorly named. Doormen weren't replaced by automatic doors, they were replaced by simply not having a doorman. People can open doors themselves - doormen have always been a luxury for the most part.
Law enforcement usually are interested in recovering stolen goods, when you have evidence of where the goods are via GPS. Or eyewitness or video evidence of who has them.
Where people often get disappointed is when all the evidence they have is "my [object] is gone!" and they expect the PD to send out a full forensic team.
The thing about Facebook is that it's a far more functional social network than the popular alternatives. It's pretty much the go-to for running local community groups.
reply