#NEW BATTLEGROUND polls

🔴 ARIZONA: Trump+6.8
🔴 NEVADA: Trump+5.5
🔴 NORTH CAROLINA: Trump+3.6
🔴 GEORGIA: Trump+1.8
🔴 PENNSYLVANIA: Trump+1.7
🔴 MICHIGAN: Trump+1.5
🔴 WISCONSIN: Trump+1.3

AtlasIntel | 11/1-2 | LVs

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024

#NEW NATIONAL poll

🔴 Trump: 49% (+2)
🔵 Harris: 47%

AtlasIntel | 11/1-2 | N=2,463LV

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 3, 2024

!chuds !trump2024 Most accurate pollster in 2020: https://atlasintel.org/media/atlasintel-is-confirmed-as-the-most-accurate-pollster-of-the-2020-presidential-election

#NEW FINAL IOWA poll

🔵 Harris: 47% (+3)
🔴 Trump: 44%

Last poll: Trump+4

Selzer & Co. | 10/28-31 | N=803LV

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 2, 2024

Emerson has Trump winning Iowa by 10.5 points.

Selzer has Harris winning Iowa by 3 points.

Dear lord.

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 2, 2024

Polymarket is reacting to the Selzer Iowa poll showing Harris+3. pic.twitter.com/4H1bL3c5EG

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) November 2, 2024

Biden: MAGA Republicans "are the kind of guys you'd like to smack in the ass."pic.twitter.com/sflWWrAPMc

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) November 2, 2024

!chuds

Kamala Harris is running ads targeting Jewish voters in Pennsylvania and Michigan that touts how much she loves and is devoted to Israel.

She's targeting Muslims and Arabs with ads with the opposite message: she's horrified about suffering in Gaza.https://t.co/Jco6EYMFz5 pic.twitter.com/NOqdqSmfRU

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 1, 2024

Trump: *Stroking and pretending to deep throat a microphone stand* pic.twitter.com/8AJFj8RIzM

— Polling USA (@USA_Polling) November 2, 2024

🚨 WATCH: Minnesota Somali leaders endorse President Trump:

“Our conditions are horrible, we can’t afford anything. As working class and middle class people. Now please understand this, we love our brothers and sisters who are Democrats, but you left us.” pic.twitter.com/hbzH8TyEhm

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) November 2, 2024

!trump2024 Getting the muzzie vote

Watch this powerful testimony from a former Minnesota Democrat Somali leader:

“I fundamentally believe that [Trump] is our best bet moving forward.” pic.twitter.com/gVSFEcQeNX

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) November 2, 2024

As the presidential election approaches, a Pew Research survey this year found that "about two-thirds of Americans say they think social media is bad for democracy." A similar Pew survey reports that about 70 percent of Americans believe social media makes people "less civil in how they talk about politics."

Baked into our continuous scrolls and clicks, social media has inadvertently fostered the rise of anonymous human bad actors along with "bot farms" --- that is, networks of fake accounts. These bot brigades are frequently operated by foreign governments, including Russia, Iran and China, in order to impersonate Americans and interfere in elections. They deliberately spread misinformation, sow groomercord and poison the well of civil discourse. Russian operatives recently bragged that social media companies detect only 1 percent of their fake accounts.

How do we balance protecting a user's privacy while holding them accountable for actions violating the law or a site's Terms of Service? How do we eliminate anonymously boosted content from all originators and the manipulation of our opinions? How do we protect the rights of free speech by nurturing civil discourse among real people? That's the backbone of democracy.

There certainly are many circumstances where anonymity must be protected, as for whistleblowers, journ*listic sources, political dissidents and others speaking truth to power. But when it comes to social networking, anonymity creates far more problems than it solves.

Online platforms that market themselves as anonymous, such as 8kun (formerly 8chan), have enabled their users to engage in violent and sometimes illegal activities without fear of consequences. Similar dynamics play out on the larger mainstream networks like Facebook and X, where countless anonymous accounts routinely wreak havoc.

How do we solve this puzzle? It's time for a non-tracking user ID verification system, requiring social media platforms to verify the true identities of their users.

Previously, I have been outspoken against verification systems. A decade ago, as a steering committee member of the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace and the Identity Ecosystem Steering Group, I fought against the proposed "national identity system." It was, I believed at the time, a violation of the individual right to privacy.

Fast-forward to today, however, and user ID verification has become a necessity. True verification is the only viable way for a social media platform to avoid the onslaught of bots, trolls and manipulative human forces hiding behind the curtain of anonymity. The present and future of democracy is at stake.

It's also the only way to protect kids. According to the U.S. Surgeon General's national advisory in 2023, "nearly 40 percent of children ages 8--12 use social media." At the same time, adults can pretend to be kids to deceitfully interact with them.

Here's the reality check: Our personally identifiable data is already out there. It's in the hands of marketing companies, data brokers, the dark web and governments worldwide. It's time to end the charade and acknowledge that our human and digital identities are known. We should leverage this data constructively, while vigorously protecting our privacy as much as possible.

The ideal user ID system has the sole purpose of verifying legitimate users. It won't track or monitor, and won't collect user data beyond the minimum necessary for verification. The system needs to work not just for users on our shores but for users worldwide. It can be supported by exceptional AI cowtools.

The movement toward user ID verification is gaining legislative traction. Last year, a bipartisan group of senators introduced the Protecting Kids on Social Media Act. If passed, this federal bill would require social media platforms to verify the age of account holders. In September, California Gov. Gavin Newsome signed a bill requiring social media companies verify users' ages. Several states have introduced similar laws, although many face challenges in court.

Momentum is also building abroad. Australia announced plans in September to implement mandatory user ID verification to prevent young children from joining social media.

Social media companies aren't going to do this voluntarily; federal legislation is required. Instead of relying exclusively on government-controlled verification processes, an alternative is for social media companies to partner with a vendor or create their own verification systems. Of note, a handful of independent companies already provide user verification for financial services and other industries.

No solution is perfect, but in weighing the benefits versus the risks, user ID verification is the best option we have. It will give social media platforms the upper hand in the battle against bad actors creating fake accounts online to disrupt the genuine communication of real human beings.

Kids win, democracy wins, and anonymity is the loser — RIP.

!nooticers

they are playing WWE clips to the Trump faithful ahead of his rally in North Carolina. #IdiocracyIsADocumentary pic.twitter.com/nEwqQrUAsC

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 2, 2024

!trump2024 no fun allowed

Reddit user u/MyDarlingCaptHolt has built a database of Trump supporters he intends to target after the election.

He built this database by taking photos of Trump signs in people's yards and recording their names and addresses. pic.twitter.com/rsIZrWZliH

— Reddit Lies (@reddit_lies) November 2, 2024

/u/MyDarlingCaptHolt brave and stunning

!chuds !trump2024 Be warned! You will be in the database!

Yesterday’s Wordle in 2.

That’s gotta be a sign, people. pic.twitter.com/LJAUk0K3kS

— Tim Walz (@Tim_Walz) November 1, 2024

He added that his comments were "wrong" and did not encompass the true meaning of the former president's remarks.

He actually admitted to a mistake! What kind of supernatural power is behind this?

Tim Walz strangely called Elon Musk "gay" while talking about taxes on the campaign trail in Michigan. pic.twitter.com/GhIpnBhRXH

— New York Post (@nypost) November 1, 2024

Me either. https://t.co/0Gm0q3Bv56

— Stephen King (@StephenKing) November 1, 2024

OMG Trump is hilarious!

That single moment is the reason why i voted for him!!!

— Jakey (@JacobBaker613) November 1, 2024

Was it like This is the End when Jonah Hill gets gaped?

LOL Christcucks, Demons aint real.

!nooticers

WASHINGTON (AP) --- White House press officials altered the official transcript of a call in which President Joe Biden appeared to take a swipe at supporters of Donald Trump, drawing objections from the federal workers who document such remarks for posterity, according to two U.S. government officials and an internal email obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

Biden created an uproar earlier this week with his remarks to Latinx activists responding to racist comments at a Trump rally made by the comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, who referred to the U.S. island territory of Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage."

Biden, according to a transcript prepared by the official White House stenographers, told the Latinx group on a Tuesday evening video call, "The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters --- his --- his demonization of Latinx is unconscionable, and it's un-American."

The transcript released by the White House press office, however, rendered the quote with an apostrophe, reading "supporter's" rather than "supporters," which aides said pointed to Biden criticizing Hinchcliffe, not the millions of Americans who are supporting Trump for president.

The change was made after the press office "conferred with the president," according to an internal email from the head of the stenographers' office that was obtained by The AP. The authenticity of the email was confirmed by two government officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.

The supervisor, in the email, called the press office's handling of the matter "a breach of protocol and spoliation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices."

"If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently," the supervisor wrote, adding, "Our Stenography Office transcript --- released to our distro, which includes the National Archives --- is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff."

The edit of the transcript came as the White House scrambled to respond to a wave of queries from reporters about Biden's comments. The president's remarks clashed with Vice President Kamala Harris' near-simultaneous speech outside the White House in which she called for treating Americans of differing ideologies with respect.

The Trump campaign quickly moved to fundraise off the quote, and the next day, Trump himself held a photo op inside a garbage truck to try to capitalize on Biden's criticism.

Harris on Wednesday distanced herself from Biden's comments --- making the clearest break from the president since she took over for him at the top of the Democratic ticket just over three months ago. "Let me be clear," she told reporters, "I strongly disagree with any criticism of people based on who they vote for."

According to the email, the press office had asked the stenographers to quickly produce a transcript of the call amid the firestorm. Biden himself took to social media to say that he he was not calling all Trump supporters garbage and that he was referring specifically to the "hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally."

The stenographers office is charged with preparing accurate transcripts of public and private remarks of the president for preservation by the National Archives and distribution to the public.

The two-person stenography team on duty that evening --- a "typer" and "proofer" --- said any edit to the transcript would have to be approved by their supervisor, the head of stenographers' office.

The supervisor was not immediately available to review the audio, but the press office went ahead and published the altered transcript on the White House website and distributed it to press and on social media in an effort to tamp down the story.

White House senior deputy press secretary Andrew Bates that evening also posted on X the edited version of the quote and wrote that Biden was referring "to the hateful rhetoric at the Madison Square Garden rally as 'garbage.'"

The supervisor, a career employee of the White House, raised the concerns about the press office action --- but did not weigh in on the accuracy of the edit --- in an email to White House communications director Ben LaBolt, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and other press and communications officials.

"Regardless of urgency, it is essential to our transcripts' authenticity and legitimacy that we adhere to consistent protocol for requesting edits, approval, and release," the supervisor wrote.

The supervisor declined to comment to The AP and referred questions about the matter to the White House press office.

Asked to comment, Bates did not address the alteration of the transcript and said: "The President confirmed in his tweet on Tuesday evening that he was addressing the hateful rhetoric from the comedian at Trump's Madison Square Garden rally. That was reflected in the transcript."

House Republicans, meanwhile, were debating launching an investigation into the matter. House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., and House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., on Wednesday accused White House staff of "releasing a false transcript" of Biden's remarks.

In a letter to White House counsel Ed Siskel on Wednesday, they called on the administration to retain documents and internal communications related to Biden's remarks and the release of the transcript.

"White House staff cannot rewrite the words of the President of the United States to be more politically on message," the lawmakers wrote to Siskel.

Stefanik and Comer said the action could be in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978.