‘Bots’ - what are they, in simple terms.

[Harliea]

‘Russian Bots’, ‘Right Wing Bots’ I see it on here where threads are taken over and the initial discussion changes.

I may be completely stupid, though I understand media bias, popular opinion, the impact of money ‘buying/changing views etc.

But I don't actually know what a ‘bot’ is.

Human?
AI?
Volunteers for a cause?
Paid to share a bought opinion?

I sense a threat to democracy?

Anyone who has a different opinion is a bot on here. I have no doubt there's genuine bots here but it's become the lazy response to someone with a different opinion.

I was trying to book tickets for Jimmy Carr tour yesterday and a pop up came up on ticketmaster saying I look like a bot and I would have to clear my search history etc. so annoying!!!

I have certainly seen co-ordinated attacks on Starmer, if that's what you mean @Andwhoisasking . Many threads, over a long period of time.

And yes, there is a preponderance of posters on those threads who pat each other on the back.

I wouldn't say they're all shills. Yes, absolutely, some posters are only ever anti-Starmer, anti-Left of any kind, regardless of issue – indeed flipflop comically on issues according to whether it's Starmer or Johnson/Truss/Badenoch/Farage who has said something.

Despite the best efforts of some of them, though, I don't think MN is an echo chamber – because a lot of posters do genuinely discuss the issues and put issue over party-political position.

On Facebook it's ones who put laughing face emojis on every comment made by Labour or anyone who supports Labour.
Reform party at work.

Yes, astroturfing is a game anyone can play.

There have been some very interesting threads recently about this a non-political context, about alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour by an actor/director, Justin Baldoni, and the allegation that the PR experts he was using kicked off a smear campaign against the actor whom he feared might publicly accuse him.

The PR people's messages were revealed in a law suit, and they were revelling in their success, and in how fans had picked up and run with the material they'd seeded.

Exactly this. Russian bot is a lazy and quick way to shut down a debate with someone who disagrees with you online.

So your post wasn’t a genuine question. It was an outlet for a direct suggestion that: don’t agree with Starmer = Bot. Almost like you know what is is supposed to mean and it’s a deliberately goady and inflammatory post you’ve brought over from chat. Your post has zero relevance to what I said - as you know.

We know that astroturfing exists on Mumsnet. It's been admitted that such threads have been started by, or on behalf of, uk politicians.

That’s a great example of up is down, black is white.

It was an outlet for a direct suggestion that: don’t agree with Starmer = Bot.

WTF? Not even slightly.

I disagree with Starmer over things, and I'm not a bot, so it would be deeply weird to suggest that.

Thank you for giving me a word for what I’m seeing.

There's a second bite of the cherry for bots/trolls/shills on social media.

For clarity, in case it needs saying, this is about accounts which receive tasking from another party; not "people who disagree with me".

The art of the fake poster on any social media site is to collect real posters in their wake, bond with them socially or hope the real posters pick up their narratives and run with them. The latter was described in the Justin Baldoni PR firm messages, and there are examples of the former in the SouthLoneStar and TEN_GOP trolls, which were an accounts run from a St Petersburg troll farm.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/14/how-a-russian-troll-soldier-stirred-anger-after-the-westminster-attack
“We had to write ‘ordinary posts’, about making cakes or music tracks we liked, but then every now and then throw in a political post”

And:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41982569

Any attempt to (correctly!) call out the shill usually has bycatch of perfectly genuine posters who either feel that their "friend" is being wrongly accused, or who end up being accused of not being genuine themselves because they're repeating the shill's material.

Perfectly genuine posters are (correctly!) indignant and protest that they are not shills. Genuine posters feel that because they themselves are genuine, shill must be too; genuine posters defend shill and accuse accusers.

Shill happy as larry, sits back and enjoys the merry-go-round.

A particularly nasty consequence of this type of influencing is that all of us, when sincerely engaged in good and worthy causes, will probably at some point experience befriending by tasked accounts. It's not a nice thought.

Sometimes the taskmaster cares about the direction in which they're nudging people; sometimes it's "I don't care who wins, but I'll pay to watch," because the whole thing is so horribly corrosive to trust.

I really don't know what we can do about it – I suppose other than accept that it's going to happen every now and then, and just be emotionally prepared for that. Just as we have to be for the emotional trolls who lie about bereavement, etc.

F

And because that explains the role of the shill so perfectly, I did fleetingly think "You could be a shill" 😄.

I watched a mumsnetter from the early days become completely radicalised on Twitter and is now completely embedded within prominent shill posters on there - as in meeting in real life. Quite extraordinary to watch.

And because that explains the role of the shill so perfectly, I did fleetingly think "You could be a shill" 😄.

It's quite the problem!