Yes. Yes it does matter. A bot that isn't passing the Turing test isn't making a logical argument. Therefore a voter voting based on that isn't basing their vot

Yes. Yes it does matter. A bot that isn't passing the Turing test isn't making a logical argument. Therefore a voter voting based on that isn't basing their vote on a logical considerations. If voters aren't voting on facts, the entire premise of Democracy is flawed. >"Democratic candidate XYZ wants to give free healthcare to illegal immigrants with your tax dollars." >Such a bot would not pass the Turing test, but it would be speaking the truth (for many of the candidates) and that truth would be relevant to many voters' interest. So what? Ironically, I'm pretty sure such a statement is exactly False. No serious candidate (polling >1%) has proposed unconditional healthcare for illegal immigrants. So no, such a bot wouldn't be speaking the truth. By all means prove me wrong. Find any written or recorded instance of a Democratic Candidate saying this. >Now they control...95 percent. And they don't like it. So...Russia Russia Russia Squirrel! Russia Russia Russia Squirrel! By thinking this is what the media does, aren't you implicitly admitting that crude repetition of non-arguments work? Just a moment ago didn't you say such tactics are perfectly fine so long as the statements are truth that are relevant to many voters interests? Russian interference is relevant to my interests.