valar_m

I'm guessing you've never experienced the enormous pressure of needing to find a job to buy food and clothes for your family. That's good, I'm glad that you don't know that feeling. But if you did, you'd know how easy it could be for a person to start feeling more and more desperate for any kind of lifeline.

>The goal should be to reach as many people, of course, but also to ensure that the method and medium of communication is in the interest of the public at large.

Who decides what communication is in the interest of the public at large? The Trump administration?

>The positives you experienced are very possible for a homeschooled student as well, and this seems to be a common boogieman.

How do you do that? Seems like it would be impossible to replicate the experience of learning to navigate daily social interactions in a mixed group of people, especially when it comes to dealing with conflict.

But users like me who hate shorts so much that they want to disable them in the app aren't addicted to shorts because we refuse to open them. And there's no risk of me going to Tiktok or reels because I hate short-form video.

Why would a user who hates shorts so much that they want to disable them in the app be sharing links to shorts with their friends?

If a paying user want to disable shorts, wouldn't allowing that ability make it more likely they will continue to pay?

The reason I started paying for Youtube premium was to turn off the ads. I hate YT shorts and I get annoyed when I accidentally open one. If YT continues to shove shorts down our throats, I'll probably cancel my subscription because I hate shorts that much.

None of this changes the fact that mail-in voting in the United States is objectively and measurably secure, and that instances of fraud are so miniscule that claims of it having an impact on election outcomes are provably false.

Those are simply the facts.

Direct quote from the source you linked:

>>It is unlikely that there has been a significant increase in electoral malpractice since the introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000; available figures suggest that 32 convictions were made from 1994–99. In both periods, the offences arose almost exclusively from local elections, and related to a tiny proportion of all elections contested.

Again, the facts are clear, but that doesn't stop the baseless fearmongering. A direct quote from your source:

>>There is no evidence to date suggesting that electoral malpractice has occurred as a result of pilots of various forms of electronic voting. However, serious questions about the security of electronic voting from organised fraud remain unanswered.

It flatly concedes that no evidence of voter fraud from electronic voting exists, but then somehow concludes that serious questions remain unanswered. Simply absurd.

What do you mean? There is no evidence at all that Trump won by voter fraud.

This is an extremely poor analogy, and it doesn't change the objective fact that mail-in voting is provably, measurably secure.

What would your response be to someone who, hypothetically, might view this sentiment as some unsettling combination of elitist and vaguely authoritarian and then decides that maybe you shouldn't be voting? Would you be bothered by that?

Yes, I very obviously did because I explicitly referred to it in my comment.

Nothing in your comment changes the fact that you linked to an anonymously written article full of baseless speculation that relies on an anonymous Tumblr post that is also full of baseless speculation.

Not a single credible source in the entire mess of nonsense that you linked to. You should be embarrassed.

You believe that an anonymously written article full of baseless speculation that relies on an anonymous Tumblr post as its source is credible?

It would benefit you to educate yourself on how to evaluate the reliability of claims you read online. Here's a tip to help you get started: anonymously written online posts that rely on other anonymous posts should be considered with a very high degree of scrutiny.