Progressive Francesca Hong was seen as a front-runner in the primary to be the Democratic nominee for Wisconsin governor, but went on to lose.
Median Strategies, which billed itself as a trustworthy, non-partisan polling company, projected that Ms Hong had a more than 20-point lead over moderate David Crowley.
However, on Aug 11, she narrowly lost to Mr Crowley, handing establishment Democrats a win following a wave of victories by Left-wing candidates.
Median Strategies has now admitted the polling data were faked and part of a “short-term social experiment”, following a report by The Los Angeles Times.
I really don’t think criminalizing speech is a great idea given the kind of shit bags we have running our criminal punishment systems. Also, this one is pretty clear, but hypothetically I could imagine polls where it’s a lot more ambiguous whether they’re faked or not (e.g. if they only get like 40 respondents because they’re lazy/cheap, is that fake? If they ask misleading questions is that fake? etc.)
What’s needed here is a better media ecosystem with more journalists who have more time to follow up on suspicious seeming things and get accurate information out there in a more effective manner
Also, the names of everyone involved with the Median Strateg6 uncovered and published, otherwise they will try to do this Mass deception again
I’m pretty sure fraud is already illegal and most people don’t consider those laws a dangerous stifling of free speech.
I’m pretty sure fraud laws all require demonstrable financial harm or unjust enrichment (which this might end up being when more info comes out but that hasn’t been proven yet).
If cops and prosecutors cpuld just call every statement they don’t like fraud everybody who ever wrote an article on, like, flock cameras or gender affirming care would end up in prison. Misinformation/disinformation is a problem that deeply pisses me off, but if we try to imprison our way out of it those laws are 100% going to be used on people saying true things conservatives don’t like hearing.
Yep we restrict speech all the time, the usual example being yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.
Is “we criminalize making people panic and stampede to exits where the crush of people is deadly, so let’s criminalize this speech too” your argument as well as being a false equivalence?
I don’t either, but it also isn’t a great idea to think that the speech of individuals is equal to the speech of corporations. This pollster may have swayed the outcome of an election with knowingly false statements; that should be illegal.
I see the point about needing time for real journalists to blow it open, but given the current landscape, I don’t think it’s a good idea to kick this can. What happens when the poll with fake data is released only hours before the election?
Adding an edit: I also see the point about margin of error and how it isn’t clear sometimes and it ultimately makes the polls worthless. But isn’t that a conflation or even a red herring here? If the poll is bad, it’s bad. But what we are talking about was intentionally false.
I don’t think that could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also, you could make an argument that, like, some diner near a polling place doing a special swayed the outcome of an election because it made the area look busy and potential voters decided they didn’t have time.
Actually my point was more about needing more journalists and editors and newsroom support staff so that someone could have looked into this sooner and more aggressively
Probably only a few people see it and it doesn’t have much impact
I appreciate the idea of limiting ourselves to people who make intentionally false statements, but when I intentionally say something like “race is a social construct” or “the president is a criminal” the average Republican thinks it’s a false statement.
What these people did was super shitty, but I don’t see a way to criminalize it without handing fascists a giant weapon to beat loud mouth leftists like me over the head with. I think the best remedy here is we get the names of everyone involved in this and then for the rest of their lives whenever they say anything of consequence we’ll be able to say “Oh you’re one of those liars who lied to all of us one time, I don’t think I believe what you’re claiming now.”
Swaying something does not mean changed the results of it, it means influencing it strongly.
This isn’t about free speech. This is about selling information. Someone paid for this poll, and they didn’t get what they paid for, which is relatively accurate information (polls are never 100% accurate, but 20% would be a crazy margin of error). That’s what the fraud is. Like if someone paid you to photograph a dog show, but instead of the dogs, you only took photos of the humans in attendance.