Sure, there are indeed bots on twitter, mostly for advertisements, but I kinda doubt that there are bots operated by states. That being said, even if such bots

Sure, there are indeed bots on twitter, mostly for advertisements, but I kinda doubt that there are bots operated by states. That being said, even if such bots existed, what would be the point? The only effect seems to be that you have people from both camps accusing each other of being bots. In addition to quote the user repolfx from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20776752 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20776752 > Namely, their rationale was something like this: the world is dominated by people whose opinions are fundamentally shaped by what others are saying, and moreover, by how frequently other people seem to be saying it. They don't really think about things or rely on their own experience: they're just mimics. > In such a world being able to auto-generate fake messages of support for some political position or another at scale would give you immense power, because the population would automatically swing behind you based merely on the perception that everyone was swinging behind you. > So that's their fear. But is it realistic? > Well, this is where we get into the polarisation. "You aren't smart enough to have an opinion" is the sort of viewpoint that leads to an elitist vs populist conflict. There have been reams of analysis about this and it's not really AI specific - e.g. did people vote for Brexit because of Twitter, or because of things they saw in the press, or did they vote based on their own experiences, or what their close friends/family thought, or what mix of "all of the above" is the truest mix?"