It could be a saving grace that the Democrats have eleventy billion candidates running for president. I say that because it’s already clear that there will be a sustained and coordinated social media effort to set Democratic voters against each other. It’s incredibly simple to do this and to do it very effectively.
If you create an army of faux-supporters of one candidate who are abusive to real supporters of another candidate, then there’s a good chance that the two camps will have grave difficulty in reconciling for the general election. We saw this in 2016, where fake BernieBros deliberately launched misogynistic attacks and inflamed hard feelings about how the Democratic National Committee handled the primaries. Later on, they called into question whether the Russians had really been responsible for the hacks and promoted alternative explanations like the Seth Rich murder conspiracy story.
This was crippling in its effectiveness. But it only worked as well as it did because there were only two camps to divide. I’m hoping that it will be more of a challenge to divide and conquer the Democrats when there are thirty or more camps to divide. Either way, the effort is underway and it is focused not only on creating hard feelings but on spreading damaging and, in many cases, completely fake information about the candidates.
“It looks like the 2020 presidential primary is going to be the next battleground to divide and confuse Americans,” said Brett Horvath, one of the founders of Guardians.ai, a tech company that works with a consortium of data scientists, academics and technologists to disrupt cyberattacks and protect pro-democracy groups from information warfare. “As it relates to information warfare in the 2020 cycle, we’re not on the verge of it — we’re already in the third inning.”
So far, the bulk of the disinformation campaign has been targeted at four candidates: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Beto O’Rourke.
Using proprietary tools that measured the discussion surrounding the candidates in the Democratic field, Guardians.ai identified a cohort of roughly 200 accounts — including both unwitting real accounts and other “suspicious” and automated accounts that coordinate to spread their messages — that pumped out negative or extreme themes designed to damage the candidates.
This is the same core group of accounts the company first identified last year in a study as anchoring a wide-scale influence campaign in the 2018 elections.
Since the beginning of the year, those accounts began specifically directing their output at Harris, O’Rourke, Sanders and Warren, and were amplified by an even wider grouping of accounts. Over a recent 30-day period, between 2 percent and 15 percent of all Twitter mentions of the four candidates emanated in some way from within that cluster of accounts, according to the Guardians.ai findings. In that time frame, all four candidates collectively had 6.8 million mentions on Twitter.
It’s hard to believe that as many as one-in-six of the Tweets you see about a presidential candidate have been generated by a single troll farm, but it’s actually quite possible. Trying to combat this kind of behavior in real time is impossible, so it becomes a game of whac-a-mole.
Democratic voters will not be able to avoid being subjected to these kinds of aggressive influence operations. Many will willingly participate in them when they see it as advantageous to their preferred candidate. They’ll share disinformation because it confirms what they want to believe or because they cynically think it will serve their cause. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, people will do the work of the social media trolls for them.
If you want to be a responsible citizen, you should resist this whole process. Sharing posts that are disparaging of other candidates should be done very selectively, and only after you’ve satisfied yourself that they contain factual information vetted by responsible reporters. When anonymous people behave badly in the name of a candidate, you should presume that they’re not actually supporters of that candidate or even necessarily supporters of the Democratic Party or even necessarily American citizens. Pointing at their bad behavior and sharing it widely to harm a candidate is likely to be exactly what they want you to do.
Refusing to personally participate isn’t going to make the problem go away. But you don’t want to be part of the problem. Every person who abstains from participating in these efforts to deceive and divide is lessening the impact these trolls will have on the process.
I saw a segment this morning with Tulsi Gabbard and Ali Velshi started questioning her about the ongoing cyber attacks on Dems and how it had been noted that not only were the candidates you mentioned being set up but that the trolls were promoting her just as strongly.
The inbound influence campaigns are now often coming from inside the US and they have learned their craft well from the Russian example.
Yup.
This is a very apt observation, Martin. Everyone recalls how the mainstream media treated Trump’s chances….
The media landscape and its influence has transformed since the media single-handledly destroyed Howard Dean with the fake “scream”! They won’t be able to take down Sanders in the same manner, though they are clearly determined to do so..
This is not be misinterpreted as me endorsing Bernie as the best candidate to take on Trump, but the MSM’s agenda is clear. The good news is that there are many other progressives in the race, so even if the media effectively targets Bernie, they will have less bandwidth to bleed Warren or Brown.
You seem to have misread Booman’s post. It is not about the MSM’s influence at all.
I see you caught your error above in your post below (which makes some good points).
I am a TPM subscriber and also read LGM and Daily Kos, but I don’t read the comments on any of those sites usually. Only one this site do I take the time to read and sometimes post because it is such a defined community with well established members.
Oops. Posted this to the wrong post. This observation is also true and has led to a ridiculous amount of unfounded animosity between Hilary supporters and Bernie supporters. A vast, vast, vast majority of Bernie supporters were strong Hillary supporters in the general (I voted for Bernie in the primary but donated to and volunteered at Hillary HQ in the general).
There were Russian trolls on both sides that tried to make Hillary and Bernie supporters blood enemies. If you take a look at the TPM comments page, it was very effective, at least with Hillary supporters. I haven’t really seen the same kind of vitriol going in the other direction, but perhaps it’s there.
After reading through this twitter thread, I assume that most “people” on the internet aren’t real.
In any case, I think that the goal should be positive communication when persuading people to back your candidate. Do you really like Kamala Harris? Then talk about her positions/policies/qualities that inspire you! I’m happy that there’s a bunch of different candidates running, because our presidential slate should be representative of our party. There will be time for party consolidation after the convention. Until then, make the strongest possible case for your candidate and call out harassment/trolling/abuse. There will always be a market for negativity, but that doesn’t mean that you have to participate.
“It’s hard to believe that as many as one-in-six of the Tweets you see about a presidential candidate have been generated by a single troll farm, but it’s actually quite possible.”
Not at all hard to believe. The solution is to not engage in politics/current events on social media. But that ship appears to have sailed.
I want to point out that Sanders supporters were far more supportive of Hillary Clinton than Clinton supporters were of Barack Obama in 2008. Remember the PUMAs? They took roughly 1 in every 4 Hillary primary voter to John McCain. Only 6-12% of Bernie voters went to Trump.
Here’s my source. Tell me if I’m reading it wrong.
There are still plenty of good reasons to think more about how we treat each other under the party umbrella, and really how Americans have come to treat each other in general. But Bernie Sanders voters didn’t sink Hillary Clinton. Vladimir Putin did that.
. . . for quite some time the degree to which the PUMAs and Bernie dead-enders are mirror images of the same phenomenon. And also too, the degree to which the PUMA-haters are mirror images of the Bernie-dead-ender-haters (or as they’d probably put it, “BernieBro”-haters). It’s a toxic, destructive, and immensely counter-productive phenomenon.
When we see comments attacking a candidate, we’re should call the poster out as a Russian troll or a dupe of those trolls. Let’s all stick together. Don’t let them divide us.
You know that David Brock run a troll operation in ’16, right? See:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-clinton-digital-trolling-20160506-snap-htmlstory.html
And Democrats did it in Alabama for the special election to replace that racist Keebler Elf:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/misinformation-campaigns-alabama-special-election_us_5c338ec4e4b
0ad0246437bbc
. . . when it was actually “news”.
Then, as now, the absence of factual refutation of the only input allowed from the Brock/Clinton side in this hideously biased “reporting” renders your characterization “that David Brock run [sic] a troll operation in ’16” hideously dishonest or you an embarrassingly gullible dupe:
Unless you can provide evidence that that assertion is false, i.e., that those involved in it did not identify themselves as part of it when confronting false anti-Clinton trolling, then this just looks like a pretty standard and very defensible “rapid-response” operation common to competent campaigns, updated for social media and seeking out and challenging the trolls where they hang out.