• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Oct 25, 2017
3,243
Hundreds of social-media accounts with bot-like traits promoted misinformation and content aimed at inflaming racial divisions during both nights of Democratic presidential debates, continuing similar activity during the first set of debates last month, according to data analyzed by The Wall Street Journal.
The hashtag #DemDebateSoWhite was tweeted Tuesday night by an account from a user with the name Susannah Faulkner and then shared by conservative activist Ali Alexander. The hashtag received thousands of interactions, but a Storyful analysis found a high number of the accounts using the hashtag had bot-like characteristics. The original tweet appears to have been taken down, but the hashtag continued circulate on Twitter.
The Democratic field of 24 candidates is the most diverse in the party's history, but the candidates onstage for Tuesday night's debate, selected by random draw, were all white. On Wednesday night half the stage consisted of nonwhite candidates.
During the second debate, conservative actor and comedian Terrence K. Williams tweeted #KamalaHarrisDestroyed after Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard lit into Ms. Harris's record as a prosecutor, saying she had been unfairly aggressive during her tenure. Ms. Harris disputed the charge onstage, saying she was proud of what she had accomplished as a prosecutor, which included time as San Francisco's district attorney and California's attorney general. Mr. Williams's tweet took off, garnering more than 12,000 retweets as of Thursday morning, but the Storyful analysis found hundreds of the accounts retweeting the post had questionable characteristics.
In the first round of Democratic debates in June, an exchange between former Vice President Joe Biden and Ms. Harris put racial issues in sharp focus when Mr. Biden was criticized for his record . Tweets questioning Ms. Harris's ethnicity, saying that she "is not black," were circulated by bot-like accounts. The activity followed a series of tweets by Mr. Alexander claiming that Ms. Harris "is *not* an American Black. She is half Indian and half Jamaican." Donald Trump Jr., President Trump's son, shared that tweet and then deleted it.
While it couldn't be determined who is behind such accounts, they are used to disseminate misinformation. Researchers say malicious actors exploit the anonymity accorded by social media to create legions of bots that flood platforms with an identical hashtag, or retweet of a post, which can artificially boost a topic's popularity. Russian actors used such accounts to influence the U.S. election in 2016.
Conservative activists' claims about Ms. Harris's race also led to a spike in online conversations around the false conspiracy theory that Ms. Harris isn't eligible to run for president. During former President Barack Obama's first term in office, Donald Trump was a vocal proponent of a theory falsely claiming Mr. Obama was born abroad and therefore potentially ineligible for the presidency.


Why Harris?
And are we going to seriously fall for this again?
 

vypek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,561
Something about "#DemDebateSoWhite " seems so lazy that no human should have taken it seriously and propagated it at all. I wish more companies did things about bot accounts doing stuff like this
 

ckareset

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Feb 2, 2018
4,977
The Russians at it again. Social media is a plague on society
 

enzo_gt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,299
Just to round out the picture, so not to devolve discussion into "it's all just bots!", this is somewhat disputed (see thread):



Just like in the 2016 Election, the notion of bots influencing public opinion is scary, but conclusions about actual influence are usually a bit less scary (or difficult to rule on).
 

OtherWorldly

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
2,857
Harris is a legit threat to trump. This is why Tulsi went after her even though Harris poll numbers had collapsed. The bad though is Harris' reaction to get punched by Gabbard was so bad during the debate and in the cnn interview afterwards that she effectively has killed her campaign
 

ckareset

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Feb 2, 2018
4,977
Harris is a legit threat to trump. This is why Tulsi went after her even though Harris poll numbers had collapsed. The bad though is Harris' reaction to get punched by Gabbard was so bad during the debate and in the cnn interview afterwards that she effectively has killed her campaign
I think you are overreacting. It's too early to say she is a legitimate threat to Trump or she killed her campaign.

I think she is better as a VP anyways
 

Boiled Goose

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
9,999
Right?

This wouldn't be an issue if ONLY bots were doing it. Bots are a tool to help spread these things. Lots of normal accounts sharing it is evidence that the bots are working.

Wait. So if normal accounts are sharing it it's the bots.
If bots are sharing it, it's the bots.

Hmmmm

Harris is a bad candidate, and people's concerns about her have been confirmed in recent months. She wants to pander to the left to get elected with platitudes and mediocre policy, while largely maintaining status quo.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
Wait. So if normal accounts are sharing it it's the bots.
If bots are sharing it, it's the bots.

Hmmmm
tumblr_o16n2kBlpX1ta3qyvo1_1280.jpg
 

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
Just to round out the picture, so not to devolve discussion into "it's all just bots!", this is somewhat disputed (see thread):



Just like in the 2016 Election, the notion of bots influencing public opinion is scary, but conclusions about actual influence are usually a bit less scary (or difficult to rule on).

I think you need to reread that tweet.

It's being pushed by bots + people is what they are saying.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
I hate this whole thing. A- there are legitimate criticisms of Kamala Harris and her record as prosecutor. B- there is a smear campaign against her from the right. But the existence of a smear campaign doesn't mean that, on the left, we can't talk about her record. It's got some alarming shit in there, and her attitude towards it is... cavalier. Which troubles me. Harris is almost as bad as Biden for non-apologies. That won't fly in the Democratic primary.

What I think is that ultimately we have to keep pressing her on her record, bots and bad actors be damned. It's irresponsible not to.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,043
I saw this with my own eyes after the debate. THe Tulsi-endorsing "#CopMala" "#KamalaRunningScared" "#KamalaDestroyed" And a number of other bull shit hashtags were all trending at various times. They all denigrated Kamala Harris and supported Tulsi Gabbard.

If you're a Tulsi Gabbard supporter, you have to explain for the number of foreign bots that are suddenly sprouting up endorsing her over Kamala Harris.

Just to round out the picture, so not to devolve discussion into "it's all just bots!", this is somewhat disputed (see thread):



Just like in the 2016 Election, the notion of bots influencing public opinion is scary, but conclusions about actual influence are usually a bit less scary (or difficult to rule on).


There will always be people with stupid opinions. What the foreign-influenced bots are doing is grabbing those tiny percentage of people with stupid opinions and elevating them to seem like they're widely held opinions, which then influences more people to think that they're widely held opinions, which promotes them further. They then elevate the division and focus in on that to try to silo people and make them pick sides. Foreign-originated bots did this in the run up to the 2016 election not only about political candidates, but also politicized issues to divide people.

It only becomes easier and easier to be duped into this the more you're influenced by confirmation bias communities.
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,075
I hate this whole thing. A- there are legitimate criticisms of Kamala Harris and her record as prosecutor. B- there is a smear campaign against her from the right. But the existence of a smear campaign doesn't mean that, on the left, we can't talk about her record. It's got some alarming shit in there, and her attitude towards it is... cavalier. Which troubles me. Harris is almost as bad as Biden for non-apologies. That won't fly in the Democratic primary.

What I think is that ultimately we have to keep pressing her on her record, bots and bad actors be damned. It's irresponsible not to.

It's selective, is the point. Selective towards one party in particular.

We don't see bots working overtime to destroy Moscow Mitch or President Bone Spurs, do we?
 

Yasuke

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
19,817
We gonna keep pretending Russia is just making up shit about Kamala, or...???
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
It's selective, is the point. Selective towards one party in particular.

We don't see bots working overtime to destroy Moscow Mitch or President Bone Spurs, do we?

I get that it is selective, yes. But what are we supposed to do here? Stop discussing legitimate criticisms against our favorite candidates because there's an agitprop bot campaign against them? The OP outlines the problem but gives no solutions. Most of us here know to always look at the credibility and motives of sources, right?
 

Ottaro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,528
I already see legitimate criticism of Harris being hand-waived away as bots. It's frustrating as hell.
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
43,147
Democrats are too diverse
And also they're too white

Perpetuated by bots or not, these are both embraced by right wing leaders, demonstrating there is no genuine moral conviction on that party, only dishonest tactics.
 

Maxim726x

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
13,075
I get that it is selective, yes. But what are we supposed to do here? Stop discussing legitimate criticisms against our favorite candidates because there's an agitprop bot campaign against them? The OP outlines the problem but gives no solutions. Most of us here know to always look at the credibility and motives of sources, right?

Most of us do, sure.

Most of America at large? Certainly not.

We're supposed to be against this, IMO. THIS time, the material that's being discussed is legitimate. That certainly won't be the case in 2020, when the Dems choose a candidate.
 

Deleted member 3058

User requested account closure
Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,728
We gonna keep pretending Russia is just making up shit about Kamala, or...???

It's in the OP. There's attacks on her record which are warranted and have been ongoing within the black community for a while now. There's also bullshit being spread by bots targeting (racist) right wing voters:
WSJ said:
weets questioning Ms. Harris's ethnicity, saying that she "is not black," were circulated by bot-like accounts. The activity followed a series of tweets by Mr. Alexander claiming that Ms. Harris "is *not* an American Black. She is half Indian and half Jamaican." Donald Trump Jr., President Trump's son, shared that tweet and then deleted it.

While it couldn't be determined who is behind such accounts, they are used to disseminate misinformation. Researchers say malicious actors exploit the anonymity accorded by social media to create legions of bots that flood platforms with an identical hashtag, or retweet of a post, which can artificially boost a topic's popularity. Russian actors used such accounts to influence the U.S. election in 2016.

Conservative activists' claims about Ms. Harris's race also led to a spike in online conversations around the false conspiracy theory that Ms. Harris isn't eligible to run for president.
During former President Barack Obama's first term in office, Donald Trump was a vocal proponent of a theory falsely claiming Mr. Obama was born abroad and therefore potentially ineligible for the presidency.

----------------------
I hate this whole thing. A- there are legitimate criticisms of Kamala Harris and her record as prosecutor. B- there is a smear campaign against her from the right. But the existence of a smear campaign doesn't mean that, on the left, we can't talk about her record. It's got some alarming shit in there, and her attitude towards it is... cavalier. Which troubles me. Harris is almost as bad as Biden for non-apologies. That won't fly in the Democratic primary.

What I think is that ultimately we have to keep pressing her on her record, bots and bad actors be damned. It's irresponsible not to.
Exactly. Part of this entire primary process is to vet the candidates. Gabbard's attack on Harris was fine. Harris couldn't defend it. The fact that Gabbard is a compromised candidate is a separate matter, though.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,043
Wait. So if normal accounts are sharing it it's the bots.
If bots are sharing it, it's the bots.

Hmmmm

Harris is a bad candidate, and people's concerns about her have been confirmed in recent months. She wants to pander to the left to get elected with platitudes and mediocre policy, while largely maintaining status quo.

This isn't hard to understand, it's the same playbook from 2016. The playbook goes back much further than 2016. The Mueller Report address how the intelligence community saw this at play as far back as 2010.

Real life fringe accounts hold an opinion on something, maybe it's a legit gripe maybe it is a fringe opinion, a bot army grabs that opinion and promotes it to make it seem like it's not a fringe opinion, and people who are more towards the mainstream, non-fringe, are being influenced into thinking that a fringe, provocative, divisive opinion is actually more mainstream than it is.

And then the conversation and perception shifts, and you get an impression that is not real. The impression that hashtags like "#Copmala" endorse are twisted, not representations of reality, posting propagandized photoshopped images like this:

P9feV6X.png


And when those get promoted and then moved into the mainstream, it shifts opinion that a fringe, extreme point of view that is not representative of reality is actually mainstream or a normal opinion to hold. I'm not even a Kamala Harris supporter, I'm indifferent to her and would certainly vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but photoshopped propaganda like this that's getting retweeted by bot armies is not reality. It's a distorted fringe opinion that's trying to mislead you into thinking that Harris cuffs little black girls, has "Blue Lives Matter" flags, and dresses as a cop. The reality is that Harris was re-elected as AG across California -- both in progressive and mainstream liberal, both in white and black communites -- by a landslide.

ANd... of course... lots of these hashtags aren't only denigrating Harris, but they're also promoting Tulsi Gabbard.

This is the playbook that Russian-backed bots used in 2016 and the run-up to 2016. It's widely documented in the Mueller Report and intelligence community reports. But, we can't help but let it influence us. Also, the more people retreat into confirmation bias bubbles, small niches of sub communities that are easy to influence, the more you're easily influenced by bull shit imaginary propaganda.
 
Last edited:

Double 0

Member
Nov 5, 2017
7,449
There is already a thread about Harris' terrible performance, focus on that there.

This is about the other point, that Gabbard and right wingers are using sketch resources against Harris and others.

I have already seen seven notable pundits and activists, not just "centrists", but legit activists and artists like Molly Crabapple, say they have gotten a flush of trolls and phishing emails sent their way for even saying anything critical about Tulsi.

This isn't some anomaly; she's sketch as hell and is willing to utilize sketch resources for her gain.


This is simple shit that everyone on ERA needs to understand.

Harris being an asshole prosecutor = Bad
Harris being called out on this = Good

Gabbard calling Harris out = Good
Gabbard being a sketchy ass bigot = Bad
 
Oct 25, 2017
32,299
Atlanta GA
Gabbard is shit but she made the move on something that was going to happen to Harris sooner or later. And Harris' response was abysmal. She does deserve to be dragged a bit for it. However, that doesnt mean Russians aren't involved. They're boosting this to favor Gabbard and to weaken Harris, because Gabbard is a weak candidate who will pull attention from the better ones the longer she stays in. And Harris is actually a threat to the vision that Russia and Trump have for the future, so of course they're going to try to increase the amount of attention it gets.
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
This isn't hard to understand, it's the same playbook from 2016. The playbook goes back much further than 2016. The Mueller Report address how the intelligence community saw this at play as far back as 2010.

Real life fringe accounts hold an opinion on something, maybe it's a legit gripe maybe it is a fringe opinion, a bot army grabs that opinion and promotes it to make it seem like it's not a fringe opinion, and people who are more towards the mainstream, non-fringe, are being influenced into thinking that a fringe, provocative, divisive opinion is actually more mainstream than it is.

And then the conversation and perception shifts, and you get an impression that is not real. The impression that hashtags like "#Copmala" endorse are twisted, not representations of reality, posting propagandized photoshopped images like this:

P9feV6X.png


And when those get promoted and then moved into the mainstream, it shifts opinion that a fringe, extreme point of view that is not representative of reality is actually mainstream or a normal opinion to hold. I'm not even a Kamala Harris supporter, I'm indifferent to her and would certainly vote for her if she's the Democratic candidate, but photoshopped propaganda like this that's getting retweeted by bot armies is not reality. It's a distorted fringe opinion that's trying to mislead you into thinking that Harris cuffs little black girls, has "Blue Lives Matter" flags, and dresses as a cop. The reality is that Harris was re-elected as AG across California -- both in progressive and mainstream liberal, both in white and black communites -- by a landslide.

ANd... of course... lots of these hashtags aren't only denigrating Harris, but they're also promoting Tulsi Gabbard.

You make good points, but this:

D-TbdTGXoAAkgIU


Is not a Photoshop. And her record is not being distorted or faked, it's genuinely got some horrible shit in it.

She's a strong candidate and a legit threat to Trump.

Harris is a weaker candidate than she should be. She should have been prepared to answer for her AG record, and she wasn't. Next debate, she's going to be hit on this again. She had better be ready.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
So...we shouldn't discus these flaws now before the general because...Russia bots?
Tweets questioning Ms. Harris's ethnicity, saying that she "is not black," were circulated by bot-like accounts.
The amount of level of self-absorption present with the "PEOPLE ARE ONLY SAYING THIS TO AVOID TALKING ABOUT _______" stuff is ridiculous.
I hate this whole thing. A- there are legitimate criticisms of Kamala Harris and her record as prosecutor. B- there is a smear campaign against her from the right. But the existence of a smear campaign doesn't mean that, on the left, we can't talk about her record. It's got some alarming shit in there, and her attitude towards it is... cavalier. Which troubles me. Harris is almost as bad as Biden for non-apologies. That won't fly in the Democratic primary.

What I think is that ultimately we have to keep pressing her on her record, bots and bad actors be damned. It's irresponsible not to.
We've been talking about her record for months and months and months. The cries of "you're avoiding this topic!" here don't match up whatsoever with the history of the topic here on the forum whatsoever. It's people complaining that other people aren't talking about what they want them to be talking about.
 

Eidan

Avenger
Oct 30, 2017
8,577
Not if she debates like she did two days ago.
I agree that Harris needs to be much better prepared to defend and openly discuss her record as SF DA and CA AG, especially during a Democratic primary. But let's not act like Donald Trump is going to be attacking Harris on her left on this topic on a debate stage.

The most likely outcome of a Harris nomination is the right and foreign actors pushing the "Copmala" narrative to suppress Democratic turnout.
 

Madison

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
8,388
Lima, Peru
I think that the pressure of polling in double digits and crushing Biden in the first debate got her very nervous and she was not expecting to get attacks from the left (which is ignorant but w/e candidates make mistakes). Maybe she can show a better face next debate but her state as a frontrunner has definitely been challenged.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
She snatched Biden's soul in the first debate. I watched her Senate debates too, and I think she has the skills to come out on top.

She just sorely needs to work on better answers to questions about her record.
She's good on offense, can she play defense is now the open question. Which isn't even an ideological thing w/ much to discuss - it's the current state of the race after the debate.
 

The Albatross

Member
Oct 25, 2017
39,043
You make good points, but this:

D-TbdTGXoAAkgIU


Is not a Photoshop. And her record is not being distorted or faked, it's genuinely got some horrible shit in it.

She's attorney general of the state of California. There's going to be photo ops where she's standing side by side with police. As part of the requirements of her job, she works with police.

If she were as horrible to the black community in California as hashtags like #Copmala and the people who promote them would believe, why would black communities in California overwhelmingly re-elect her? Why would one of the most progressive state democratic caucuses in the country, arguably the 2nd or 3rd most progressive caucus in the country, nominate someone for re-election as attorney general who is targeting young black children? How could she be a District Attorney from San Francisco, perhaps one of the most progressive cities in the United States? How could she have been a DA in Alameda, counties with largely minority-majority populations -- if the impressions that these social media propaganda campaigns are promoting are all true?

Now, again, I'm not a Harris supporter, although I'm also not throwing my endorsement (as meaningless as that is) behind any candidate until the primaries run their course further... I'm just committed to not making the same mistake as 2016. But the perception of these hashtag campaigns isn't just that "Kamala Harris is not as progressive of an AG as we'd want..." but that she's a conservative, anti-Black, anti-progressive, "law and order" AG who targets minorities... Something more akin to like a Sheriff Joe Arpiao or something. That's simply, patently false.

I think that this NYT OpEd makes a very good argument for why Harris needs to answer her critics when it comes to law enforcement policies while she was DA: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html

I agree -- I want Harris to answer these criticisms. Why wasn't she more progressive? Why didn't she try to reform law enforcement more in California? But that's not the tenor of these criticisms that are being promoted by bot armies. They're not sharing reasoned arguments or giving her an opportunity to address criticism. The tenor of them is propaganda and misrepresenting reality to try to force people into extreme positions... They're trying to get people to look at a photo of Kamala Harris side by side with cops and "cancel her" or act as though she's "a horrible candidate." She's not, she's a viable candidate with a long record in government who could be a very qualified, good president. The bot armies that are endorsing fringe, extreme points of view about her are trying to skew you into thinking that if she's nominated, then it's better to stay home than vote because "She's gross."

And it works. It worked in 2016, it worked prior to that, it's working now. This is the problem with confirmation bias, echo chambers, and smaller and smaller polarized communities that will tell you exactly what you want to hear about someone.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 907

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,300
The amount of level of self-absorption present with the "PEOPLE ARE ONLY SAYING THIS TO AVOID TALKING ABOUT _______" stuff is ridiculous.
What the hell does the latter have to do with the former unless you're trying to call someone racist?

Xas never said anything close to what you're implying and that's really fucking low of you.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
What the hell does the latter have to do with the former unless you're trying to call someone racist?
Article: "Bots have been circulating racist attacks during both debates". Poster: "This is just people avoiding her history!"

I mean, at a minimum, it's indicating that they don't actually care about the bots spreading racist garbage.
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
The only people falling for this are the ones who are making a bigger deal about the Russia story than the criticisms being levied against Harris (which many of us have been saying for months now). Harris problems need to be reconciled with and her answers need to be better than just denying her shortcomings and acting like she was a progressive DA.
 

Kangi

Profile Styler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,949
Truly what better argument exists against the extent of bot influence over people than to counter by saying that those people are... saying the same thing as the bots
 

Captjohnboyd

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,569
The only people falling for this are the ones who are making a bigger deal about the Russia story than the criticisms being levied against Harris (which many of us have been saying for months now). Harris problems need to be reconciled with and her answers need to be better than just denying her shortcomings and acting like she was a progressive DA.
Except, as kirblar noted above, the article isn't about her poor performance it's about the racist tweets
 

jviggy43

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
18,184
Except, as kirblar noted above, the article isn't about her poor performance it's about the racist tweets
The article is a deflection of the larger racial problem in this country (that Harris helped drive) and i question the usage of the argument as the predominant reaction to the criticisms being levied at her. To focus on the Russian angle trying to rile up racists over the person who made a career pushing racist policy and acting like she was a champion of equality is in and of itself serving to drive racism
 

Kreed

The Negro Historian
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,110
Article: "Bots have been circulating racist attacks during both debates". Poster: "This is just people avoiding her history!"

I mean, at a minimum, it's indicating that they don't actually care about the bots spreading racist garbage.

Posters are ignoring the story in the OP about the racist attacks from Twitter bots and are making the assumption this topic is solely about defending her debate performance/her prosecutor record.
 

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
Truly what better argument exists against the extent of bot influence over people than to counter by saying that those people are... saying the same thing as the bots
Are people really this ignorant as to how gaming algorithms and media to increase how much a certain topic is present in the conversation?

Fox News with the Ebola stuff in 2014. BENGHAZI/BUT HER EMAILS in 2016. The "Migrant Caravan" in 2018. This shit isn't subtle. What they're doing on TV by blasting the propaganda into a bunch of morons watching their network that ends up bleeding everywhere else is the exact same thing botspam does to trending topics on twitter- it's designed to increase visibility and exposure to people using the platform.

This is the horrible, awful version of the reason people will put a bunch of words in white text on a resume. Or put a bunch of tags on instagram. Or a bunch of words at a bottom of a page for SEO optimization.