245
She Won. They Didn't Just Change the Machines. They Rewired the Election.
(thiswillhold.substack.com)
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2025
245 points (79.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
3182 readers
1600 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Reads like conspiracy nonsense. Bring receipts.
Did you read the article? Relevant section below:
“Let’s be clear, Palantir wasn’t brought in for customer service. It was brought in to do what it does best: manage, shape, and secure vast streams of data—quietly. According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include: AI-driven oversight of connected infrastructures Automated analysis of large datasets And—most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints”
The Digital Janitor:also known as forensic sanitization, it was now being embedded into Eaton-managed hardware connected directly to voting systems. Palantir didn’t change the votes. It helped ensure you’d never prove it if someone else did.”
Right, do you see how this reads like conspiracy nonsense.
We make a claim, claim inherently says there's no way to prove it, so just trust us.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Condensed quote below.
“ According to Eaton’s own release, Palantir’s role would include… most critically—“secure erasure of digital footprints””
Again, and I cannot stress this enough, that is from their own press release.
So you say “where are the receipts?”. And their press release explicitly says “we are bringing in this company to erase receipts”. To which you respond “where are the receipts”.
To echo your statement, do you see how this might appear as willful misunderstanding to an outside observer?
Capability of doing something isn't proof of doing something.
I'm on team "something's fucky" but it's still not proof.
☝️
In referring to my above comments, you’ll note I never said they did do something, only that IF they did do it, they had the capabilities in place to do so without leaving a trace.
My issue is only with the top commenters phrase “bring receipts”.
The article author address this pretty thoroughly in why that’s not possible, referencing publicly available information.
The top commenter seemed to deliberately disregard that point
Are you referring to the press release linked in the article, because it doesn't actually say those things.
Focussing further is just about the worst thing you can do - "secure erasure of digital footprints" is there a definition of what this is anywhere? Is there anything that suggests they were doing that on voting machines? Companies absolutely have a requirement to remove customer data on request in many jurisdictions - that would absolutely be covered by that statement. You're take a very narrow statement (which, again, doesn't appear to be in the linked press release) and blowing it up to meet the definition you want it to.