Happy to have a short debate with you regarding the bill.
1. You say, election integrity is limited to “whether final election vote tallies accurately represent the numbers of lawfully cast votes by lawful voters.” Although I agree that is a component of election integrity, I believe interfering with the administration of an election IS directly undermining an election and it’s integrity. I have identified this as a potential major issue in this years presidential election cycle, as highlighted in line 49, which explicitly prohibits actions that sow confusion about election administration.
2. You claim to have not heard of any instance where election outcomes in America were altered. However, I urge you to investigate instances such as the use of AI-generated phone calls impersonating Joe Biden to discourage voting in the New Hampshire primary. Deceptive media and election interference has already occurred and poses a growing threat.
3. You mention that any attempt by PACs or political entities to deceive voters, as prohibited by the bill, would backfire. This seems to imply acknowledgment of the narrow scope of the bill's definition of individuals. I appreciate this concession and suggest revising your subtitle, "Police State Bill Will Imprison You 2-5 Years and $50K fine for Offering Your Opinion," as it is misleading. I sincerely do appreciate you conceding the original point of my comment.
4. Everyone has their right to their beliefs on what conservatism is and I think that is bigger conversation than this string. Overall, it appears we largely agree, but it is not appropriate to pass judgment on what constitutes conservatism. I believe it is crucial to implement safeguards to protect elections and prevent the use of Artificial Intelligence in the fraudulent use of identities to deceive voters. We just disagree on this point and that's okay. Conservatives uphold free speech, not fraudulent speech.
Thanks for the debate but I have no more time to respond to this thread.
Happy to have a short debate with you regarding the bill.
1. You say, election integrity is limited to “whether final election vote tallies accurately represent the numbers of lawfully cast votes by lawful voters.” Although I agree that is a component of election integrity, I believe interfering with the administration of an election IS directly undermining an election and it’s integrity. I have identified this as a potential major issue in this years presidential election cycle, as highlighted in line 49, which explicitly prohibits actions that sow confusion about election administration.
2. You claim to have not heard of any instance where election outcomes in America were altered. However, I urge you to investigate instances such as the use of AI-generated phone calls impersonating Joe Biden to discourage voting in the New Hampshire primary. Deceptive media and election interference has already occurred and poses a growing threat.
3. You mention that any attempt by PACs or political entities to deceive voters, as prohibited by the bill, would backfire. This seems to imply acknowledgment of the narrow scope of the bill's definition of individuals. I appreciate this concession and suggest revising your subtitle, "Police State Bill Will Imprison You 2-5 Years and $50K fine for Offering Your Opinion," as it is misleading. I sincerely do appreciate you conceding the original point of my comment.
4. Everyone has their right to their beliefs on what conservatism is and I think that is bigger conversation than this string. Overall, it appears we largely agree, but it is not appropriate to pass judgment on what constitutes conservatism. I believe it is crucial to implement safeguards to protect elections and prevent the use of Artificial Intelligence in the fraudulent use of identities to deceive voters. We just disagree on this point and that's okay. Conservatives uphold free speech, not fraudulent speech.
Thanks for the debate but I have no more time to respond to this thread.