Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I just read an article about a software tool designed to help Twitter users determine if they're arguing with actual people or something called "propaganda bots".

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/this-twitter-tool-tells-you-if-you’re-arguing-with-a-propaganda-bot/ar-AAulHAZ?li=AA4Zoy&ocid=spartanntp

Now, chatbots are nothing new but in light of the Russian Influence investigations going on, botting takes on new meaning.

My question is, are these bots effective in their purpose (disrupting political discourse)? Or would be be where we are (toxic attitudes) even without them?

Bots are effective in their purpose, I think for a few reasons:

1) They are deployed strategically, creating groups / hashtags that are widely visible. They act as a lightning rod for our worst impulses.

2) They are ubiquitous. The frequency with which they post is more likely to catch the attention of people than a solitary, authentic post.

3) They are tested. Metrics are created around responses and used to refine the message over time. The operators figure out what gets to people, then emphasize it.

It's fine to say people are rotten to the core, not going to argue for or against that. Bots are designed to bring out the worst side of us, which is what makes them special.

The bots exacerbate things, but the underlying causes are varied and many. We'd probably still have a fractious and divided country, but probably a couple notches lower on the Derp scale. The bots are taking advantage of an already existing underlying divide.

Was it enough to swing the election? Possibly, I dont think any of us here would have enough data to say conclusively, but it was close enough in enough places to be plausible, but who knows for sure.

Ultimately however, yes, the bots and similar mechanisms are very real and have a real impact, the extent of which is debateable. Bots, echo chamber hype generation "news" outlets (be it cable news, Facebook pages, talk radio, etc) that people self elect into, and more all factor into the crazy world of today.

I actually suspect they're likely to promote political discourse,

if somebody agrees with the bot they'll feel reassured and emboldened and will be more likely to speak out for their position

if somebody disagrees with the bot they'll feel angry and annoyed and be more likely to disagree out loud

what I think the negative aspect of the bots will be is in hardening political positions, and in potentially influencing 'on the fence' voters

(and that's hardly new, think of all the time/money the west spent on radio services designed to be picked up and listened to in the soviet union)

I fear that the distant nature of social media means that the toxic atmosphere is not a function of the bots (although they do stir the pot it's the jerks with opinions that are the main cause)

Having seen the work bots like to post I doubt its to promote political discourse. Its often pulled so far to one end of the political spectrum that opponents wouldn't even bother and the people who agreed would likely already be pretty ok speaking out online.

Bots are just an easy way to push these opinions into the limelight by pilling on retweets. Its an easier way to see toxic opinions that already exist.

Although I never really thought Twitter lend itself well to discussion, 150 characters only leaves room for soundbites really. Facebook seems to have similar copy-paste bots invading discussion groups. Around the US election anything about politics was getting swamped with bots and their join requests.

FYI - there is still a ban on discussing US Politics on this forum. The staff will just lock any thread that derails into that territory. Thanks!

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I actually suspect they're likely to promote political discourse,

if somebody agrees with the bot they'll feel reassured and emboldened and will be more likely to speak out for their position

if somebody disagrees with the bot they'll feel angry and annoyed and be more likely to disagree out loud

I don't think it's to promote discourse, but I do think you touch on what it's really about with your second sentence there. Bots give reassurance that there are people behind your position.

Thing is, I've spotted plenty of bots disagreeing with me on twitter, but I don't think I've ever noticed one when it was agreeing with me. I doubt I'm alone in that. Who is inclined to doubt the intentions of someone saying that you're right?

So bots work to bolster people's confidence in their own opinions, make them think there are more people out there that agree with them. This would be a much bigger deal for people with fringe views who might typically struggle to find anyone agreeing with them.

This story about fake blogger with 70,000 followers is relevant. How many of these "real people" are actually weapons in this Disinformation War?

And how many of these bots are just an effort to make money? Just as with Facebook there's a host of people trying to get clicks on their sites for advert revenue - so a tweet reinforcing X opinion with links to the clicks is both easy and cheap.

There's a difference between promoting discourse and promoting only the most corrosive parts of the political dialogue.

One fosters understanding and a genuine opportunity for people to grow and learn. The other promotes chaos and discord, strife and conflict.

Automated tools designed to intensify both the frequency and potency of divisive comments is the problem. We're not talking about a forum where people go to talk, we're talking about a system designed to encourage people to attack one another.

Welcome to agitprop 2.0

This is not a new thing. Only difference is that is now a comment on Twitter or Facebook instead of a poster, movie, theater play or cartoon.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Welcome to agitprop 2.0

This is not a new thing. Only difference is that is now a comment on Twitter or Facebook instead of a poster, movie, theater play or cartoon.

The big difference is that this sort of thing makes it seem "closer" to the individual. It makes people think that there are larger voices, swelling up from the ground, centered around certain viewpoints, than there really are.

Movies, posters, cartoons, etc, generally are something of a "top down" message, or at least one where you can readily identify something is being pushed by the creators. With twitter and facebook, it makes it seem like it's much closer to you, you can interact with and get responses from bots and trolls (positive or negative), and that makes it feel much more real and powerful.

Not totally new, people would insert agitators into crowds or movements before, but it's much easier to do so and reach a much larger audience than before.

Not that any one nation, group, etc is guilty of this, everyone engages in this sort of thing, but it's given the nature of the digital reality and the relative newness of the internet being used by the authorities (instead of it being more of an opposition use thing) it has been able to have an outsized impact in the last couple of years, that I'm not sure it will be able to replicate in the future as people adapt and recognize these things better and people recognize the wharblgarbl for what it is (much like many old 90's/early 00's era popup/"click the spider to win"/"you're our millionth visitor"/etc type ads no longer are a thing for the most part either), though I could be wrong.