Is not really breaking news that people can be influenced through media, is it ?
I'm not surprised that the people in power had the brilliant idea to use this pretext to cancel the free vote and put back PSD on track to win (after they lost the race). But I'm amazed that so many educated people manage to rationalze it and are going along with it - while claiming to value democracy !
I was responding to the call to ban the social media. Of course regulation is needed. To start with, they should enforce KYC.
Calls to ban something just because bad people are using it are often misguided (in particular, when good people find it useful too).
"In the present case, the freely expressed nature of the vote was violated by the fact that voters were misinformed through an electoral campaign in which one of the The candidates benefited from an aggressive promotion, carried out in circumvention of the national legislation in the field of electoral and by abusive exploitation of the algorithms of social media platforms. Vote manipulation was all the more obvious as the electoral materials promoting a candidate did not carry the signs specific to electoral advertising according to Law no. 370/2004. In addition, the candidate also benefited preferential treatment on social media platforms, which had the effect of distorting the manifestation of the will of the voters."
"In the present case, the freely expressed nature of the vote was violated by the fact that voters were misinformed through an electoral campaign in which one of the The candidates benefited from an aggressive promotion, carried out in circumvention of the national legislation in the field of electoral and by abusive exploitation of the algorithms of social media platforms. Vote manipulation was all the more obvious as the electoral materials promoting a candidate did not carry the signs specific to electoral advertising according to Law no. 370/2004. In addition, the candidate also benefited preferential treatment on social media platforms, which had the effect of distorting the manifestation of the will of the voters."
You do realize that the "someone broke the rules" reason, unless supported by clear evidence of actual voting fraud is a very lose reason for canceling a democratic vote and really sticks ? This sets a very dangerous precedent and an unrealistic bar for all future elections.
Note that no evidence was presented to show that any of the candidates broke the rules, just that they might have benefited from third parties breaking the rules.
While the article does a very good job describing the context in which this decision has been made, it is interesting to note that we don't know the reason for this decision. The constitutional court didn't actually give a reason.
He is well known, including in government circles, and was previously proposed for the prime minister role:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%83lin_Georgescu
Rather weird to claim that his over 2 million voters across the country and diaspora were because of TikTok.
Growing relative to what ? The polls that the government media fed the people non stop, claiming that no-one else stands a chance ?
Also, just because he didn't register inside your bubble, doesn't make him "unknown": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C4%83lin_Georgescu
We can certainly see that a powerful entity is working very hard to show that Georgescu is the devil. Meanwhile:
1. We didn't see any proof or any official claims that he did anything wrong, only speculations. There is certainly no justification for cancelling the free elections.
2. The spotlights are only on him, there is no analysis on how the establishment candidates used social media or the source of their campaign funds. Claims that PSD and PNL used public funds for their campaigns were quickly forgotten and not investigated.
3. Ask any Romanian and they will tell you how corrupt the government is. They control the justice system and the Constitutional Court. Any claim that they are on the right side of the law is laughable.
Not forgetting the elephant in the room: free people went to express their choice via a free vote and that freedom was taken from them. In an EU country !
He was actually proposed multiple times for the role of prime minister, not once.
He has also represented Romania at the United Nations for many years. The critics cannot decide between "he's actually part of the system" and "he appeared from nowhere".
See also: https://revdem.ceu.edu/2024/12/05/rise-of-calin-georgescu/
Since the resignations, the PSD candidate was resurrected and is back on course to become president, after the result of the democratic vote was .. cancelled.
How is that "understanding" looking now ?
It looks like they cancelled the elections because the wrong candidate won and now they are scrambling for anything that will justify, after the fact, what they did. Meanwhile, they hope that "he is evil and supported by the Russians" is enough to make people mind their festive holidays rather than what the government is doing.
The difference is who won. We cannot have interference and the wrong candidate winning, can we ?
Also, in this case the spotlight is on one candidate only. There were two condidates that had much more spending on TikTok but nobody is looking at the source of those funds.
Rhetorical question: Why not ban snooping without a warrant first, so that innocent people don't have to worry that the actual goal of these efforts to ban encryption is their surveillance ?
BTW, I know that not everybody can work from home.
All I'm suggesting is that we can move away from the narrative that everybody needs to live and work in London and support other regions - with visas and tax incentives, etc.
Not really !
What is central to solving the housing crisis is de-centralising and building in other places.
What was the first thing that happened when people were allowed to work from home ? They migrated from big cities to nicer places where the house prices reflected the fact that there was no crisis there.
What happened next ? Politicians and companies pushed many to get back to the office.
Must be a hint somewhere in this chain of events...
For some reason, you seem to be assuming that the government only collects biometrics for "antisocial and dangerous behavior" and is only using them to protect others.
I'm quite sure Meta would never break the law on purpose.
I'm pretty sure that on the multiple fronts where they are breaking the law, it can easily be explained by some sort of misunderstanding.
And the fact that they are benefiting a lot in those cases must be just a giant coincidence.