World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Ask Historians !askhistorians@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
But it's much less plausible when you have more secure voting systems.
Two great videos by Tom Scott. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
This is easily solved by never having any portion of the vote counting and transport happen alone. And representatives from all parties all invigilate so there's no funny business.
Not to brag, but there's almost never any doubt in our elections, and rarely anyone claiming fraud.
It's not perfect, but sorry, Australian elections are better than any country using electronic voting.
You simply cannot verify electronic voting in the same way you can physical writing, and anyone claiming otherwise is lying or doesn't understand.
No lay voter has any idea of what constituents "secure" in a material sense.
All you have are people insisting "my system is safe, your system is not". And this thread is a perfect illustration.
Hand marked paper ballots are notoriously prone to failure. Nothing about them is materially more secure than a printed ballot. And yet...
It isn't easily solved, as the number of venues and volume of votes leave ample opportunities for shenanigans (or, at least, alleged shenanigans).
The Ohio Recount in 2004 is a classic example.
There is something inherantly more secure about physical ballots. They exist in the physical world and need to be physically counted, and can't be just erased by the flip of a bit.
I can fully wipe a harddrive fairly trivially, I can't fully erase a pencil mark without some serious chemicals, an iron and probably a bunch else.
First of all, the USA in general has terrible voting practices. Second you're right, no system can ever fully defend against people making shit up and getting voters to distrust an election, however:
An average person can fully comprehend how a paper voting system is kept secure. An average person cannot do the same for electronic voting because inherantly it gets into software and hardware security.
I really encourage you to watch those videos I sent, Tom Scott lays out the arguments very well.
There isn't. They can be easily misread and miscounted, they can be misfiled, hidden, lost, and destroyed. They are a bitch to transport securely. They can vary in format and interpretation. They're comically easy to spoil.
No they can't.
Again, jump back to Bush v Gore. Or go all the way back to Nixon v Kennedy or Tammeny Hall New York. Hell, consider the elections in Iraq and Vietnam and Korea after the various US occupations, and the comically one-sided election results. Or elections in the old Soviet Bloc, which Americans routinely dismissed as fraudulent. Or the most recent elections in Latin America that remain openly disputed.
Very easy to point to historical moments where the paper ballot systems were distrusted. That's pretty much the whole history of their use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
You mean the classic example of once again fucking around with something not just pencil and paper, in a country with a history of laughably bad voting systems?
You are also just lumping in bad election procedure and declaring electronic voting better.
I'm not saying paper elections are secure just by the virtue that they're on paper, and you framing it that way is pretty dishonest. I'm saying that the most secure electronic election can never be as secure as the most secure paper election.
You've just ignored all I've said about invilators from all parties, adequate supervision of all ballots at all times. Do errors happen? Sure, but in far, far smaller fraction that what you could achieve by compromising election machines.
The fact that machines are un-networked is a laughable defence. Ever heard of Stuxnet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
This is ABSOLUTELY within the capabilities of state actors. Like not just theoretically. It's already happened in multiple cases.
I'm sorry, but everyone could learn a thing or two from the Australian system. We certainly don't have a fair democracy because we live under capitalism, and the wealthy will always use their influence to get their way, but at least our election procedures are probably one of the best, if not the best in the world.
If you want to just pretend like electronic voting is secure, then have fun I guess. But you're literally just sticking your fingers in your ears.
Pencil-marked central-count optical scan ballots had a 5.7% undercount rate in Florida counties that adopted the technique.
You can find out more here: https://www.usccr.gov/files/historical/2001/01-021.pdf
These were not unique to Florida, by any moans.
Just from the table of contents, this was an absolutely cluster fuck of a terribly run election. I beg you please stop misrepresenting the argument.
The best paper elections possible are more secure than the best electronic elections possible.
You keep describing terribly run paper elections and pretending it's an argument in your favour.
If you refuse to address this point I'm kinda done with this.
"Paper ballots are more secure!"
"Obviously, the textbook case that exposes all the problems with manually managing and tallying physical ballots is beside the point"
Okay, sure.
Electronically input printed ballots are the best method of tabulating an election result we have formulated to date.
There is absolutely no benefit to using pencils on paper. None. Zero. Zip. Bupkiss.
Your fetish for pencils doesn't change with the election season. It just becomes blindingly apparent when election is fumbled badly enough to necessitate a deep dive into what went wrong.