An article about voting fraud in Pennsylvania came out today. This depicts the reality of vote fraud and its importance.
This supports the conclusion that Trump is correct to be very concerned about the prospect of fraudulent voting with mass mail-in balloting. However, the main point is not voting per se. It’s how the anti-Trump forces are using media companies to interject political content.
Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, interfered politically by flagging Trump’s message as questionable. Why didn’t Dorsey ask Trump in public and outside of Twitter to expand upon his claim that mail-in voting will produce fraud? That was a proper way to enter the political fray. But there was no debate. Instead, Dorsey went on a snide attack using Twitter’s flagging tool. He didn’t even issue a tweet himself.
Dorsey’s political interference using a media company as a vehicle is like that of YouTube’s CEO Susan Wojcicki. Her censoring of content is also political and done through a media company.
Socially, Dorsey and Wojcicki have the right to enter political debates. Why not do so in ways in which they clearly identify themselves and their positions? Why do they confuse matters by using company fronts? They claim objectivity, but that claim doesn’t ring true. They’re not arguing their views or attempting to prove them in any way that looks like a real debate. They’re simply expressing their views via company tools. They think that these indirect methods let them off the hook and remove their responsibility, but they don’t. Seeking cover in these ways is cowardly.9:00 am on May 28, 2020 Email Michael S. Rozeff