3 ms·

This article is basically a summary of this article. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/ http

This article is basically a summary of this article. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bo... I often wonder when we are going to see more left wing reactions to this sort of behavior. Seems the right, based on my limited information, seems to be more aggressive about these disinformation campaigns. Also it stands to reason that this particular misinformation campaign is being sponsored by a foreign state. I think that this would be an effective weapon to use against the United States. Sort of like biological warfare by proxy of disinformation.

abduhl 6y ago
Why would the use of bots to push a narrative be restricted to “the right”? Isn’t it more likely that 50% of all posts on divisive topics are made by bots? The talking points for both sides seem imminently scriptable. Perhaps we should all step back and evaluate whether our internal thought processes are being shaped by bad actors via an appeal to our innate tribalism? Notice how easily you fall into the script: 1) it’s the other team only 2) my team should do something to fight back 3) maybe it’s sponsored by a foreign state.
sokoloff 6y ago
I have quite a “purple feed” on FB. I have to say that I see a lot of utterly ridiculous content created ostensibly supporting both blue and red causes/topics. If you primarily think one side is crafting ridiculously bad content and it’s therefore a misinformation campaign from a foreign state, I think it’s wise to consider how much of that is personal bias and if you’re perhaps “giving a pass” to stupid content that at least aligns with your views. “Well, they meant well, so it’s probably just a right-minded American who made a simple off-by-factor-of-a-million arithmetic error and no one spent 50ms doing a basic sanity check. No one’s perfect.” Or “Look, maybe I think Obama did an Ok job, but I saw all that content about he wasn’t born here, and there has to be something to it if so many people are talking about it. The government hides things; the truth is out there, ya know? Oh, and Epstein didn’t kill himself.”
- bluedays 6y ago
  It's telling that I bring this up and this is the response I get. Maybe there is a possibility that it is a state sponsored disinformation campaign? There is overwhelming evidence that disinformation is being spread by several state sponsored groups. Again, I said from my "limited view", as it's impossible to have all the information. It seems TO ME that there is quite a bit more targeted misinformation coming from the right. I would love to be corrected. However, I don't think saying "I got a Facebook feed with lots of stuff stuff coming out of it", and "you're stupid because of xyz I assume about you for no reason whatsoever" qualifies in this regard.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    If “I think it’s wise to consider how much of that is personal bias” translates directly to “you’re stupid because of xyz I assume about you”, then it seems like we’re not effectively communicating. I’m sorry for the portion of that where the fault is mine.
    - bluedays 6y ago
      Maybe you're right. Your tone, and granted this it the Internet where tone is implied by the reader, seemed very presumptuous. I think ultimately the first part of my post was an, admittedly, biased opinion. So yeah, I am probably wrong about that. Though, I would really like to see some data on this. However, I am concerned about a disinformation campaign which could, theoretically, be sponsored by a foreign state to get people to ignore the very real threat of coronations.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Sorry for the tone. I tend towards a little formal perhaps, but it’s intended to be optimized for precision not presumption. I am also concerned about foreign influence, but I also observe that we meddle in other countries’ affairs as well, so it’s just a fact of life and social media changes it but didn’t start it. I’m more concerned with a population who isn’t thinking critically and with the right balance of short and long term (and is therefore especially susceptible to influence), but whether the influence is foreign or domestic doesn’t matter as much to me as the effect of the influence.

abduhl 6y ago

Why would the use of bots to push a narrative be restricted to “the right”? Isn’t it more likely that 50% of all posts on divisive topics are made by bots? The talking points for both sides seem imminently scriptable. Perhaps we should all step back and evaluate whether our internal thought processes are being shaped by bad actors via an appeal to our innate tribalism? Notice how easily you fall into the script: 1) it’s the other team only 2) my team should do something to fight back 3) maybe it’s sponsored by a foreign state.

sokoloff 6y ago

I have quite a “purple feed” on FB. I have to say that I see a lot of utterly ridiculous content created ostensibly supporting both blue and red causes/topics. If you primarily think one side is crafting ridiculously bad content and it’s therefore a misinformation campaign from a foreign state, I think it’s wise to consider how much of that is personal bias and if you’re perhaps “giving a pass” to stupid content that at least aligns with your views. “Well, they meant well, so it’s probably just a right-minded American who made a simple off-by-factor-of-a-million arithmetic error and no one spent 50ms doing a basic sanity check. No one’s perfect.” Or “Look, maybe I think Obama did an Ok job, but I saw all that content about he wasn’t born here, and there has to be something to it if so many people are talking about it. The government hides things; the truth is out there, ya know? Oh, and Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

bluedays 6y ago
It's telling that I bring this up and this is the response I get. Maybe there is a possibility that it is a state sponsored disinformation campaign? There is overwhelming evidence that disinformation is being spread by several state sponsored groups. Again, I said from my "limited view", as it's impossible to have all the information. It seems TO ME that there is quite a bit more targeted misinformation coming from the right. I would love to be corrected. However, I don't think saying "I got a Facebook feed with lots of stuff stuff coming out of it", and "you're stupid because of xyz I assume about you for no reason whatsoever" qualifies in this regard.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If “I think it’s wise to consider how much of that is personal bias” translates directly to “you’re stupid because of xyz I assume about you”, then it seems like we’re not effectively communicating. I’m sorry for the portion of that where the fault is mine.
  - bluedays 6y ago
    Maybe you're right. Your tone, and granted this it the Internet where tone is implied by the reader, seemed very presumptuous. I think ultimately the first part of my post was an, admittedly, biased opinion. So yeah, I am probably wrong about that. Though, I would really like to see some data on this. However, I am concerned about a disinformation campaign which could, theoretically, be sponsored by a foreign state to get people to ignore the very real threat of coronations.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Sorry for the tone. I tend towards a little formal perhaps, but it’s intended to be optimized for precision not presumption. I am also concerned about foreign influence, but I also observe that we meddle in other countries’ affairs as well, so it’s just a fact of life and social media changes it but didn’t start it. I’m more concerned with a population who isn’t thinking critically and with the right balance of short and long term (and is therefore especially susceptible to influence), but whether the influence is foreign or domestic doesn’t matter as much to me as the effect of the influence.