“If the purges [of potential voters], challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.”
"[…] Democracy can win* despite the 2.3% suppression headwind.
And that’s our job as Americans: to end the purges, the vigilante challenges, the ballot rejections and the attitude that this is all somehow OK."
Greg Palaat has been reporting on issues like this for over 25 years.
His book “Best democracy money can buy” is an awesome read, but it’s fucken infuriating corruption he exposes never gets punished.
Okay, sure. Still is a valid question, though.
Also, that doesn’t exactly provide concrete and evidence that he didn’t use AI for this. Only that he has experience in writing without it and provides a character reference.
Plus, he should be aware AI is a bad look and makes it seem like it’s possible AI was used elsewhere, like in his writing, even if untrue. If you don’t know about his credentials and history, like myself, then it’s the simplest next step of logic that they could have used AI elsewhere and we can’t know where without him stating where AI is used.
Additionally, in that case, he should be understanding that using AI for his images helps further diminish a field that his own is similarly being diminished by the same tool and using that tool in that way legitimizes that type of use. Basically, if you make money off of what you’re publishing, then just pay an artist. It’s not difficult. Then you can easily avoid people reasonably questioning whether or not you used AI in the creation of the article.