AI is “undermining confidence in our information ecosystem, how the use of biased AI can harm constituents of democracies, and how elected officials with authoritarian tendencies can use it to consolidate power.”
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
The European Union (EU) is set to launch a formal investigation into Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. The investigation was prompted over the EU’s concerns that the tech giant isn’t doing enough to counter Russian disinformation ahead of the EU elections in June, according to reports.
The EU is also likely to express their concerns regarding the lack of effective monitoring of election content, and the inadequate tools they use for flagging illegal content.
Lisa O’Carroll, a correspondent for The Guardian, wrote that the European Commission is worried about Meta’s moderation system, claiming that it is not extensive enough to combat the presence of misinformation, and even suppresses voting.
The Financial Times revealed that government officials are worried about how Meta is handling Russia’s specific efforts to undermine the upcoming elections.
Meta’s plan to discontinue its CrowdTangle tool also has officials concerned. CrowdTangle is a public insights tool that allows researchers, journalists, and others within the EU to monitor in real time the spread of misinformation and any attempts to suppress voting.
The EU currently has new laws in place that require tech companies to regulate their content and have systems in place to guard against any and all systemic risks involving election interference.
“We have a well-established process for identifying and mitigating risks on our platforms. We look forward to continuing our cooperations with the European Commission and providing them with further details of this work,” a spokesperson for Meta stated.
The commission recently carried out “stress tests” on all the major social media platforms as a means of determining if there were proper safeguards in place to prevent the spreading of misinformation. The tests involved a series of made-up scenarios that are based on past attempts at election manipulation, such as using deep fakes and speech suppression.
“The aim was to test platforms’ readiness to address manipulative behavior that could occur in the run-up to the elections, in particular the different manipulative tactics, techniques and procedures,” the commission stated.
This past Monday, parliament released official tips for voters in the upcoming elections, which will be taking place between June 6th and 9th. They cited previous voting issues such as the specific pen colors needed for a ballot to be valid, and warned citizens to be diligent about spotting disinformation.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
Democrats are currently facing somewhat of a stress test over the filibuster which has been triggered by a high-priority bill that has been in the works to remake US election laws. While Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema have been some of the most vocal in their opposition of the rewriting of these voting laws, they’re definitely not alone.
Several other Democrats have indicated in separate interviews that they would be reluctant to kill the filibuster or that they would prefer to make reforms to current laws instead of a total rewrite.
Liberal Democrats have made it clear that they’re anti-filibuster, however, due to the 60-vote rule on the Senate floor, not much progress has been made. Senator Mark Kelly has claimed to be noncommittal on changing the rules and spoke with the press about these tensions.
“What I’m open to is considering and looking at any proposed changes in the rules. And I will ultimately make a decision based on: Do I feel — is this in the best interest of the state of Arizona and the country? And I’m not looking for something that is in the best interest of just Democrats.”
“I have talked about the importance of reforming it. I think it’s critically important that it not be abused and I think that we are having these discussions right now,” Senator Maggie Hassan said in support of reform.
If the voting bill is passed it would undo restrictive voting laws that are in Republican-led states and instead establish universal requirements for all.
When Senator John Hickenlooper was asked if he’s supportive of preserving the filibuster he claimed: “I am still in that place. But I think, like a lot of people, I’m having frequent conversations. I get my advice from other governors, like former Governor Phil Bredesen, who was talking about how it hasn’t been a thing to help the minority get their voice heard, it’s become a tool just for obstruction.”
“There are clearly a number of senators who are reluctant to change the rules but who have also made it clear in recent months that they are frustrated with the status quo and won’t accept inaction forever.”
“So we are very hopeful that once the caucus makes a decision and has Sen. Manchin and Sen. Sinema on board, that the rest of the caucus will be on board and make the changes necessary to make the Senate work,” said former Democratic leadership aide Eli Zupnick.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Thursday that “all Republicans will oppose the voting bill in its current form, even with changes Manchin has proposed seeking compromise. This would federalize elections and shift control of the process away from the states.
Democrats are continuing to fight to change these laws to allow for a more universal understanding of how elections should run.
“What we are talking about isn’t just Senate procedure, it’s a complete takeover of our elections, which will ultimately destroy the American people’s confidence in fair elections,” said Jessica Anderson, the executive director of Heritage Action for America.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
This Tuesday the Supreme Court is set to take on an Arizona case over voting rights for the battleground state; the outcome of which could result in how the nation’s courts resolve future discrepancies over election laws in dozens of other states. The case is also going to be a real test for the Voting Rights Act, which the Supreme Court began scaling back from in 2013.
The two Arizona laws being discussed regard an election officials ability to reject ballots that are cast in the wrong precincts, and voting by mail. The voting by mail law claims that only the voter, a family member, or caregiver can collect and deliver a completed ballot via mail.
Arizona told the Supreme Court justices in the cases filing that “prohibiting unlimited third-party ballot harvesting is a commonsense means of protecting the secret ballot. This out-of-precinct rule is intended to prevent multiple voting.”
Arizona Democrats are arguing, however, that their state has a history of moving polling locations in minority neighborhoods as a means of purposefully causing mistakes with the count. Minorities are more likely to move around and not own a home in Arizona, meaning their polling locations are subject to change however often they move. The current policies make it extremely difficult to properly find and change your polling location to make your vote count; an issue that appeared a ton during the recent presidential election.
Arizona rejects 11 times more ballots than the next-highest state for ballot rejections. Minority voters are statistically more likely to need help making their ballot count in any election. A federal judge in Arizona initially refuted these claims of minority voter suppression, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, so the state is now appealing to the Supreme Court.
The Voting Rights Act in the past has required states with a history of voter discrimination to get specific permission from the Justice Department before they challenge any election procedures. However, in 2013 the Supreme Court suspended that requirement after ruling that Congress failed to properly update the specifics of the Act, making it difficult to determine what states need assistance.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals claims that “state election provisions can be blocked if they disproportionately affect a racial minority’s ability to participate in the electoral process and elect candidates of their choice and if the state has a history of discriminating against voters in that minority group. We concluded that the two Arizona laws failed those legal tests.”
Arizona republicans are arguing that the test of this act should require proof that any voter law that’s challenged causes a “substantial disparity in opportunities for minority voters to participate in an election, not just an incremental burden.” Arizona Democrats, on the other hand, argue that “the law does not require proof of a substantial disparity and that there is no requirement to meet a minimum percentage of minority voters affected to successfully challenge a change in the voting rules.”
The American Civil Liberties Union argued that the test on the act “would impose a categorical approach under which laws that are relatively commonplace, or that do not make voting altogether impossible, are largely immune from liability.”
The Supreme Court is projected to issue a solid ruling over this discrepancy by the summer.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
More than 100 million Americans have already cast their ballots for the 2020 presidential election before the polls opened this Tuesday. This will likely reduce the amount of individuals who will turn up to vote in person this year, however, a lot of issues still remain.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
We’re a little more than a week away from Election Day and Joe Biden’s goal of reaching the White House in 2021 could be dependent on two crucial demographics who’s previous loyalty to Trump led him to his presidency back in 2016.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
This past Tuesday Georgia held its primary elections which gave America an unfortunate look at the possible mess the presidential election in November could become if this pandemic doesn’t begin to ease up. Voters in Georgia claim that they were standing in lines for up to four hours and that they never even received a mail-in ballot, forcing them to go to the actual polls and wait. Local officials and poll workers were unable to manage the major influx of voters as well.
Poll worker shortages are also a major problem amid Covid-19, as many are either sick, or don’t want to risk their health to go work in a community space. Since March local officials have been prioritizing easy and safe means of voting during a worldwide health crisis, however, as many states are seeing now, not a lot of work was actually done.
“We’re just going to have a catastrophe in November. We’ve already passed the point of catastrophic failure. It doesn’t get any better if we have two to three times the number of people who are trying to vote in these polling locations,” said Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida who studies elections.
Voters in Nevada also waited for hours in line for their primaries this past Tuesday, despite having a majority of the state choose to mail-in their ballots. Election officials in Pennsylvania and Washington DC also claim that they struggled to provide acceptance to all of the absentee ballot requests before the elections, even if they were sent in on time. Voters in those states also claim to have been waiting on line for multiple hours.
Maryland and Wisconsin also had reports of long lines and a struggle to receive mail-in ballots, more specifically, it was reported in Milwaukee that they had to reduce their normal 180 polling locations to just five for everyone in the city. The biggest problem, however, is the issue of communities of color receiving an even greater amount of election failures.
“Black voters are especially hard-hit, in some parts of the country, it feels like officials are making reckless decisions that are a recipe for disaster. It took me three hours to vote in my majority African American precinct in Atlanta, but I saw no line at a polling place in a predominantly white area later in the day,” LaTosha Brown, a co-founder of Black Voters Matter, told Politico.
Activists have been very vocal about their concern over mass polling closures amid the pandemic, mainly because politicians have a valid reason for these closings, but not a valid reason as to why they haven’t come up with an easier solution to vote in these massively important upcoming elections.
Many states who haven’t had their primary elections yet are calling for an extension as to when citizens are able to send in applications for absentee ballots. In Wisconsin, Democrats were able to secure a court order that demanded all mail-in ballots be counted as long as the postage was marked six days before the election; and is received by the election date of course.
Wisconsin has been acting as the inspiration for voter activists in many states, as after they had a similar disastrous primary election to Georgia, they released a detailed analysis as to what went wrong and an extensive plan to send absentee ballots to every single registered voter, regardless of if they requested one or not. California and Michigan followed suit and said that they would also be sending ballots to every registered voter in the state.
Right now, all of the states are in a league of their own in terms of how they handle voting in the primaries during two major worldwide pandemics. Some things you can do for yourself in terms of voting is ensuring that you are registered in your proper county, check if your state is offering absentee ballots and request one if you still have time. This is the easiest way to ensure that your vote/voice is still heard, and will hold the least amount of risk in terms of contracting the virus.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.
The city of Hong Kong has for months been embroiled in violent pro-democracy protests, and a recent election during which pro-democracy candidates won in a landslide has proven that the majority of Hong Kong citizens support the expansion of civil liberties in the territory. While the election was relatively minor politically, as it was limited to district councils, it was broadly seen both by people in Hong Kong and in China as a referendum on the protests. In a historic victory for Hong Kong democracy, around 70% of the eligible population turned out to vote, resulting in several pro-China officials being replaced with candidates favored by protestors across the territory.
Beijing was caught off-guard by the results of the election, as the Chinese government believed that a silent pro-Beijing majority lived in Hong Kong and that voters would side with pro-Beijing politicians in order to end the chaos and violence. After the election disproved this theory, however, Chinese state-run media was initially silent, marking a major change from its pre-election rhetoric, which consisted of arguments predicting an electoral rebuke of protestors. In fact, the state-run media did not even report the results of the election at first, instead announcing that the ballots had been cast and that protests had disrupted the electoral process. Eventually, the Chinese government decided on a strategy for framing their electoral loss by placing the blame on a foreign actor, namely the United States.
Blaming the West for domestic problems is a favorite tactic among Chinese officials, and the Chinese people react positively to nationalistic messages of this sort. However, the fact that the Chinese government had to switch propaganda tactics so suddenly reflects not only the extent of their loss, but also their own lack of understanding of the political crisis that has animated six months of massive protests. Although there’s no strong evidence that the US interfered with Hong Kong’s recent election, this message is useful for the Chinese as it allows them to shift blame away from themselves and away from the people of Hong Kong.
For months, Beijing’s portrayal of the Hong Kong protestors was that they were violent thugs looking to tear apart the party by colluding with foreign powers. There is little, if any truth to this claim, which has lost a significant amount of credibility after the election, which represented a tremendous embrace of democracy by the Hong Kong people, both in terms of the number of people who voted and how they voted. The fact that Beijing was caught so off-guard by this result also suggests that the Chinese government, at least in part, believes their own propaganda, and doesn’t understand the extent of the outrage felt by the people of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong’s leadership, which remains firmly in the pro-Beijing camp, sought to downplay the results of the election. Hong Kong’s chief executive Carrie Lam acknowledged that people in the territory are upset, but argued against the view that the election had broad implications. After the election, Chinese officials complained about a bill passed by the US Congress called the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, which supports the protests. Notably, however, President Trump has remained relatively quiet about the protests, instead focusing on his trade war with China.
The future of Hong Kong’s government remains unclear, but neither side of the conflict shows signs of backing down. Hong Kong protests continue to this day, and enjoy wide support from the territory’s citizens, but China is an extremely powerful country that has ramped up its attacks on the pro-democracy advocates. For the citizens of Hong Kong, particularly the young protestors, the gradual loss of democracy in the territory is unacceptable, and they will go to remarkable lengths to ensure that Hong Kong maintains its autonomy.
Tyler Olhorst is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. You can reach him at inquiries@thenationaldigest.com.
Bill Gates, who is known not only for his humanitarian work and his pioneering role at Microsoft but for having amassed massive amounts of wealth, recently sat down with columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin at The New York Times DealBook Conference to discuss matters of finance, philanthropy, and politics. In response to a question about taxation on wealthy individuals, Bill Gates said that he had paid over $10 billion in taxes, and that he’d be happy to pay $20 billion, but he is skeptical of tax rates higher than that. Gates insinuated that under Warren’s plan, he’d have to pay $100 billion in taxes, which he considered unacceptable. (He clarified that he meant that statement as a joke immediately after.) The interviewer then asked Gates if he had ever spoken with Warren about the topic, and he replied that he hadn’t, and that he didn’t know whether she’d be willing to “sit down with somebody, you know, who has large amounts of money.”
Gates’ comment about Warren’s tax plan, as well his comments about the election more generally, received a lot of attention in the media, potentially damaging Warren’s campaign. In response, Elizabeth Warren tweeted yesterday that she’d be happy to sit down with Gates, and that she’d “love to explain exactly how much [he’d] pay under [her] wealth tax.” She promised him it wouldn’t be $100 billion. Gates responded to Warren’s tweets by applauding her commitment to proposing solutions to many of the world’s greatest problems, including climate change and global poverty, and said that he respected her ambition despite their disagreements. Gates added that he’s “always willing to talk about creative solutions to these problems,” suggesting a conversation between the two may be in the works.
Gates is one of several billionaires who has recently expressed doubts about tax plans like Warren’s
Gates, who said during the recent interview that he wasn’t going to make any “political declarations,” stated nonetheless that he is likely to vote for the more “professional” candidate. This comment was criticized as a tacit endorsement of Trump, as many commentators felt that it should have been easy for Gates to denounce the sitting president. However, Gates is known for choosing not to give political endorsements, as he doesn’t want to influence the political process in that way. In fact, Gates’ preference for the more “professional” candidate could easily be read as an implicit criticism of Trump, who defies conventions of professionalism at every opportunity.
If Warren’s tax plan were passed into law, Gates’ taxes would surely go up, though not to the levels he suggested. Under Warren’s plan, fortunes over $1 billion would be taxed at 6%. As Gates is worth roughly $107 billion, this would mean he’d pay at least an additional $6.42 billion in taxes, a far cry from the $100 billion tax he joked about. Nevertheless, while Gates asserted that he supports progressive tax policies, he voiced skepticism and concern about Warren’s plans specifically, asserting he’d prefer “a middle-ground approach.” Notably, Sanders’ tax plan was not discussed, even though his plan calls for even greater taxes on the wealthy than Warren’s does. Perhaps a more significant source of disagreement between the two results from Warren’s proposal to break up big tech companies, which Gates opposes, though he has admitted his bias in favor of Microsoft.
Gates is one of several billionaires who has recently expressed doubts about tax plans like Warren’s; the prospect of paying more taxes drove one billionaire to tears on CNBC, and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon worried that Warren “vilifies successful people,” and expressed concern about her use of “harsh” language.
Tyler Olhorst is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. You can reach him at inquiries@thenationaldigest.com.
The Ten Democratic presidential candidates are preparing to take the stage in Texas Thursday night for what’s looking to be one of the most informative debates we’ve experienced so far during the race to the 2020 election. For the first time Joe Biden will be standing with his two greatest competitors, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, along with the seven other candidates who are trailing shortly behind them.
Eric Mastrota is a Contributing Editor at The National Digest based in New York. A graduate of SUNY New Paltz, he reports on world news, culture, and lifestyle. You can reach him at eric.mastrota@thenationaldigest.com.