This is the most unhinged of Lemmy.
What in the world?
Once the government has been taken over, they can force their memecoin as the national currency and then rug pull
Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?
Stealing the election, in the way you’re talking about, is extremely difficult in the modern day. There are a lot of safeguards, paper ballot backups, random recounts and spot-checks. A lot of it is run very locally by people who care quite a lot about the fairness of it. Twenty years ago, you used to have to trust the software and it would just spit out a number, which was horribly unsafe and caused a lot of people to become very upset. It’s actually fairly likely that the Republicans stole some elections in places like North Carolina while that was the system. Modern elections in the US are not bulletproof, but they’re now better than that. It’s not nearly as simple as “the uplink is Starlink so they can change the numbers en route.” It just doesn’t work that way.
It’s hard for me to argue for the negative that it didn’t happen, but this combines stuff that sounds unlikely, stuff that is extremely specific weird speculation like the Starlink thing, and wild stuff that to me is clearly untrue, in a way that leads me to question why the heck it has 50 upvotes.
The real plan is much worse.
https://www.vcinfodocs.com/what-is-the-network-state
And recent news has confirmed some of the analysis showing voter fraud
Social Media and Political Influence
Whistleblower Alleges AI-Driven Election Interference
-
A former X (formerly Twitter) employee anonymously shared allegations on Substack claiming the platform was intentionally manipulated during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
-
According to the whistleblower, X’s algorithms were adjusted under Elon Musk’s leadership to prioritize pro-Trump and right-wing content. Some left-wing posts critical of Democrats were also boosted, but allegedly only to create a façade of balance.
- Backed Up by Research: These claims align with findings from a recent study that audited X’s algorithm. Key findings include:
- Right-leaning users experienced the most significant exposure bias, with the algorithm amplifying content aligned with their views.
- Both left- and right-leaning users saw reduced exposure to opposing viewpoints, reinforcing echo chambers.
- New accounts were reportedly subject to a distinct right-wing bias in their default timelines.
- While the whistleblower’s claims remain speculative, these independent findings suggest that X’s algorithm did, in fact, favor certain political narratives.
- Backed Up by Research: These claims align with findings from a recent study that audited X’s algorithm. Key findings include:
-
AI-Generated Propaganda: The whistleblower alleges that thousands of fake accounts were created using advanced AI systems, Grok and Eliza, to disseminate political messaging. These accounts were designed to imitate real users and reportedly pushed targeted propaganda related to Trump’s economic claims, border policies, and cryptocurrency initiatives.
-
To support these claims, the whistleblower pointed to a breadcrumb in the Eliza documentation, which describes how AI profiles could be pre-configured with specific narratives and responses. One example, allegedly labeled “Trump,” was programmed to amplify campaign messaging.
Marc Andreessen’s Connection to Eliza AI
- Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), is closely connected to Eliza AI. His firm has backed Eliza Labs, the company behind the AI framework, which is also reportedly used internally at a16z (source).
- While it’s possible that the example in the Eliza public documentation in this context was coincidental or even intended as satire, the fact that Andreessen is backing technology capable of such manipulation raises serious concerns. It demonstrates how tools designed for decision-making and automation can easily be repurposed for political influence.
Andreessen’s Political Views
- Andreessen is an open supporter of MAGA politics and an advocate of Curtis Yarvin’s “Dark Enlightenment” philosophy, which proposes replacing democracy with a CEO-led “monarchy.”
- Yarvin recently wrote an article suggesting that “American democracy should be replaced by what he calls a ‘monarchy’ run by a ‘C.E.O.’”
- As The Verge summarized:
- “We are looking at a simple trade against personal liberty — abortion, the rights of gay and trans people, and possibly democracy itself — in favor of crypto, AI, and a tax policy they like better.”
Elon Musk’s Role
- The whistleblower also alleges that Musk was directly involved in these manipulations, reportedly overseeing algorithm changes and content moderation. Musk allegedly joked about being “Black Hat MAGA” while making these decisions.
- The claims further suggest that X allowed foreign influence campaigns from countries like Israel, Iran, and Russia to operate on the platform, as long as their goals aligned with the platform’s manipulated narrative.
Impact and Speculation
- The whistleblower describes the damage caused by these actions as catastrophic:
- “The damage we’ve done is immeasurable, and I don’t know if it can ever be fixed. People don’t know what’s real anymore, and that’s exactly what we wanted.”
- While the full extent of these claims has yet to be proven, the whistleblower’s account is bolstered by independent research and the connections of influential figures like Andreessen and Musk. Together, they paint a troubling picture of how powerful technology may have been used to undermine democratic processes.
Voting System Interference
Evidence of Election Hacking
-
Stephen Spoonamore, a cybersecurity expert, issued a “Duty to Warn” letter to Vice President Kamala Harris, outlining evidence of vote manipulation in key swing states during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
-
Working with Smart Elections, Spoonamore revealed that voting tabulators were allegedly programmed to alter results after processing 400 ballots (up from 600 in 2020), a tactic designed to evade detection during recounts.
-
This tampering reportedly influenced outcomes in critical states, supported by findings in an analysis of Clark County’s election results.
-
Additional irregularities included the use of “bullet ballots,” where votes were cast only for the presidential race. These disproportionately favored Trump and deviated significantly from historical norms, suggesting deliberate interference.
Trump’s Statements on Manipulation
- Donald Trump’s public remarks have fueled speculation that he was aware of these activities:
- “We don’t need the votes,” he said, implying confidence in securing victory through means outside traditional voter turnout.
- At a rally, he remarked, “Elon was very effective. He knows those computers better than anybody. Those vote counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide,” suggesting possible technological manipulation in vote counting.
- His statement, “You won’t have to vote anymore,” further hinted at confidence in a pre-arranged outcome.
See all the first part and Trump wanting to rig the election sound completely real. Stephen Spoonamore and his “Duty to Warn” letter are totally made up. It’s somewhere in my comments history, I actually looked up the numbers from the State of Arizona web site, and what he’s saying is impossible just from how many ballots marked how got turned in and tabulated. It’s made up. If you couldn’t tell from the fact that there’s all kinds of totally insane stuff in it that isn’t at all how things work, similar to “The voting locations use StarLink and that’s Elon Musk hacked the totals.”
They’ve spent months analysing and confirming it which has led to this.
I have read the letter before before, and debunked it to my satisfaction. The numbers in it about “bullet ballots,” as far as I can tell, are simply made up. You can think whatever you like. If you want to see my reasons and citations and links, search back through my history, or if you can’t find it but really want to see, let me know and I’ll see if I can find it.
There wasn’t really much info or data available back then I think you’ve maybe misunderstood as it was unclear and there were questions about what he meant. The method they used and more newly released data is given on that second page. This was an independent team who’s verified it to the point they’ve released a PR. There was also a case opened by NV state yesterday into several types of voter fraud.
The method they used and more newly released data is given on that second page.
Hm… so I spent some time looking over it. It’s not immediately crazy, on the face of it, like the “Duty to Warn” letter. And the allegations in the second link are specific, and concerning enough that if they are true, that it sounds like something looking into in more detail.
I did dig through it, just kind of poking to see if anything seemed off, and some of it is pretty suspect. I compared numbers from these two links, just to see if it was internally consistent:
https://smartelections.substack.com/p/so-clean
The first link says that the Connecticut Democratic drop-off was -8,612 (roughly -1%), and the Republican drop-off was 59,065 (a little under 10%). But on the second link, the numbers are clearly not that.(Edit: Hm… actually, now looking again with the population of each county taken into account, maybe it is right. Let me look at a few more. I was just overall really skeptical because the first link broke it out by swing states having a much bigger difference, and then the first one listed a bunch of non-swing states and said all the states showed the exact same pattern… but maybe in terms of numbers, they actually do line up. I’ll look more.)
It’s possible I’m misunderstanding something. I don’t completely know what I’m looking at here. I’d like to be able to ask one of these people what’s up with that discrepancy, and see what the answer is. I’m still pretty skeptical, though, unless there is some specific answer for why the two sources seem to show different results for what I think is supposed to be the same thing.
There wasn’t really much info or data available back then
This makes me more skeptical. How many votes came in, in each category, was available immediately. If your argument depends on looking at the number of votes for each candidate, and you didn’t present it until two months went by because of saying stuff wasn’t available, that sounds wrong to me.
This was an independent team who’s verified it to the point they’ve released a PR.
That means absolutely nothing. Putting out a press release is about like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy. I’ve done it. It means nothing in terms of validation.
There was also a case opened by NV state yesterday into several types of voter fraud.
Do you have a link to the case? Where did you get this information? Voter fraud, I can easily believe. What you’re talking about is election fraud, which is very different and would be the concerning thing.
Overall, I’m still pretty skeptical, to be honest.
Well the people publicly trying to figure out what he meant at the time were struggling. I stopped paying attention as he said he’d taken it to an independent place and they were trying to analyse it together. May have responded publicly in that time too. PR means they’ve done their analysis and are able to argue their case.
-
Haven’t seen something this unhinged in a long time
What could be expected from a lusty argonian?
You obviously haven’t read that book /s
That looked good at first but it has too many conspiracy theories:
This includes during the Ukraine War when Russia began using Starlink (9) while it was claimed they got them third party and not from Musk himself; however now appears imo to show Elon is a doublecrosser.
Such a claim can’t be attributed to “imo”
Crypto trading, especially memecoins, appears to be an obvious scam to most because it’s the stock market without ownership. So why were these 4chan pedophiles and nazis doing so well? Because it was just meant to give them money the whole time. And crypto is great for transferring money internationally from shady organizations to shady people (24). Far right catchphrases and meme campaigns dispersed online including X, give out the key words/catchphrases for the new coin that isn’t a scam and will disperse money.
Classic conspiracy theory ignoring Occam’s Razor
“If you can watch your vote counter, if we can bring God down from heaven (he’s referencing Starlink), we can win this, win California, win a lot of states.”
Because religious people never talk about god?
Nice summary