Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The U.S. election system was already wobbling, and now here comes AI

people voting

In some states, more than half of election officials have quit, writes Klug.

Brett Deering/Getty Images

Klug served in the House of Representatives from 1991 to 1999. He hosts the political podcast “ Lost in the Middle: America’s Political Orphans.”

As we head into election season, the potential for misinformation is enormous and the ability of election officials to respond to artificial intelligence is limited.

The new technology arrives at a time when we still haven’t gotten our arms around social media threats.


“The ability to react at the pace that's being developed is almost impossible,” worries Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, a Republican. “By design, our system is meant to be slow and methodical.”

While deep fakes get all the attention, the truth is the threat arrives at a time when election administration itself is shaky. Election officials caught the brunt of the mistrust. In some states more than half of them have quit.

“I have a little PTSD, as do my coworkers,” said Nick Lima, who heads up elections in Cranston, R.I., and who — with some reservations — decided to keep the job he loves. “During election season, you know, you really feel the pressure, you feel your heartbeat increasing a bit.”

Today everyone who works in the campaign infrastructure faces unending scrutiny. If you thought it was easier in a red state, you are mistaken.

“Just the act of standing behind you watching you work just puts you on edge,” said McGrane. “Now you start second-guessing yourself, even if you know you're doing it right. The poll workers don't know about cyber security on voting equipment, but your poll watcher is getting asked these questions. “

Deep fakes are one level of concern, but Edward Perez, who had been director of civic integrity at Twitter and is now a board member at the OSET Institute (whose mission is to re-build public confidence in our voting system), worries about the misuse of AI to disrupt the backroom of every American precinct.

“One of the most important things to understand about election administration is, it’s very, very process oriented. And there’s a tremendous number of layers,” he said. “Are we talking about voter registration? About the security of election administration? All of this technology is never deployed just in a vacuum.”

The fact that the election system is a conglomeration of different rules and regulations from 50 different states with 50 different voting rules adds to the complexity. The challenge is serious as election officials scramble in this election-denying climate to staff 132,000 polling places with 775,000 volunteers. The clock is ticking to deploy the necessary defenses against threats that aren’t fully understood.

From hanging chads to deep fake videos, American democracy wobbles by Scott Klug

Read on Substack

Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less