by abricq on 12/6/24, 1:43 PM with 19 comments
by NVHacker on 12/9/24, 2:57 PM
"In the present case, the freely expressed nature of the vote was violated by the fact that voters were misinformed through an electoral campaign in which one of the The candidates benefited from an aggressive promotion, carried out in circumvention of the national legislation in the field of electoral and by abusive exploitation of the algorithms of social media platforms. Vote manipulation was all the more obvious as the electoral materials promoting a candidate did not carry the signs specific to electoral advertising according to Law no. 370/2004. In addition, the candidate also benefited preferential treatment on social media platforms, which had the effect of distorting the manifestation of the will of the voters."
by ImJamal on 12/6/24, 3:51 PM
If a foreign government making posts on tiktok is enough to make an election illegitimate, then do they really think their previous election was legitimate? Surely there was some bad actor doing the same thing in previous elections?
by jfengel on 12/6/24, 2:11 PM
I don't know anything about Romanian courts. I'm not even sure if the US Supreme Court would have that authority. Our Court basically has the authority that it takes and we let it take, since the Constitution is incredibly vague about what the court really does, but I can't imagine it canceling elections unless the vote-counting process itself became suspect.
In the US, a foreign disinformation campaign is just plain legal. We may not like it, but people will insist on their right to vote on whatever basis they want. About the only limit is that you can't literally buy votes, and even that isn't so sure any more.
by canadiantim on 12/6/24, 4:23 PM
by ChrisArchitect on 12/6/24, 4:13 PM