I will add to the above point:
We have a situation where we are constantly bombarded with messages and training about safeguarding which are in direct opposition to all the messages and training about trans awareness.
This in itself would create conflict and polarisation as the cognitive dissonance required to follow both is enormous.
What you would see form would be a conflict point between groups which prioritised each and felt each was an important matter that affected them directly.
This, of course, is EXACTLY the dynamic that has arisen.
In this context, and on a wider scale, when the less invested are asked to 'pick a side' - are they more likely to support safeguarding and ethical practice or an identity belief system? ESPECIALLY if they already have their own religious belief?
In addition to this, if we can identify cognitive dissonance sanctioned by institutions who then seek to oppress questioning of the said cognitive dissonance, then you also feed into taught values about freedom of speech and democracy...
I think when we ponder this, we should look at other issues and whether we have the same institutional level interference and led cognitive dissonance.
Personally since this was starting to affect me on a personal level as far back as the mid 2000s, I tend to think I've not been influenced by bots. And whilst I'm wise enough to think bots will have been deployed to disrupt western politics to a degree(hell I was studying disinformation and the history/future of communication change back in the 1990s were you?), I'm also not arrogant enough to think I'm the only person who has been deeply, directly negatively affected by it to a point where I have wanted to challenge power over it because its inherently flawed and its causing real life problems.
And this is the bit in the conversation that Bot Theorists don't want to acknowledge and deal with; there are problems arising from gender identity replacing sex that need to be looked at, given proper consideration to where there are conflict points and actually fucking deal with them.
Rather than repeating mantras, saying theres no problem, calling people bigots or telling them its all about the bots.
DEAL WITH THE FUCKING PROBLEM YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT. TACKLE DIFFICULT SUBJECTS RATHER THAN RUNNING AWAY FROM THEM.
When I was studying politics and propaganda one of the key things we talked about a lot as it was right in the middle of the 1997 election, was the influence of spin and how it had become such an important tool of political parties to persuade the public.
I think we have reached a point where its almost industralised and definitely ingrained into the fabric of our political structures.
But I also think that the public has got wiser and wiser about the deflect, avoid and change the subject tactics to avoid tackling controversial and difficult issues and they are thoroughly fed up of it. Since the rise of political spin public trust in politicians has declined and I don't think this is a coincidence. I think its the primary cause of it. And of course when the public starts to not trust politicians and the main stream press to that degree, it becomes more vulnerable to other sources. (Adam Curtis's BBC documentaries on the concept are a difficult watch but he very much is focused on this idea of spin and misinformation weaponised by government 'for the greater good' of liberal democracy and how this has ultimately undermined the very principles of liberal democracy. And how this has affected perceptions of western nations outside the western bubble with real life consequences).
But I think politicans are not coping well with the fact that their strategy of the last 30 odd years of spinning a shit story and then carrying on as before, rather than the process of acknowledge, apologise, take action to fix the problem and then put in process to prevent it occuring again which you would have to in a business situation is no longer working. And they are at something of a loss of knowing what to do because they've been too busy chasing votes rather than managing and governing a country effectively and efficiently. And THAT is what voters REALLY want.
Its a loss of power over the public by politicians which is coming out in the wash...
It think its interesting how this has played out really: In the US particularly we've seen a pattern of 'kick the problem to the next election cycle/government' and when you reach a point of the public being fed up, the other lot come in and you repeat the process. There was an understanding between the two parties and something of a balance in this. In some respects the reason the Democrats are so terrified is because Trump breaks this agreement because they know there is no guarentee they will get the opportunity to get back into power.
But I kind of understand it from the public point of view. If you understand that government isn't there to look after you and to serve you, then what is the point in it? How does democracy actually benefit you, if your concerns and interests aren't addressed anyway? If you feel law and order has already broken down and that you don't see anything for your tax dollars? If you don't feel you can speak freely? Then your choice becomes - is this group a better cultural fit for me on a wider level or is that group a better cultural fit? If the narrative then becomes "if that group get in it will be permanent" why would you choose to keep the system of democracy that you felt wasn't working for you anyway?
Now, I am very much pro liberal democracy - I think I've bored the tits off people ranting about this posted enough on the subject over the years to merit this being understood. BUT I make a point of trying to look at things from different view points and picking up on how you always should refer back to the principles of ethics, why laws were introduced in the first place (history of their inception and what they set out to achieve) and the idea of 'unintended consequences'. My over riding thought about politicians over the last few years is they are totally lacking in due diligence skills and understanding the above points. This hasn't always been the case.
And I do think all of this adds up to the situation we find ourselves in. That didn't need the influence of bots to eventually occur. I just think its speeded up a process that would have happened anyway because thats been the course of things for a long time.
Musk as a figure in the midst of all this is really interesting as he doesn't like to go along with what he's supposed to do and think. He likes to challenge status quo thinking (or established or establishment thinking). Again, he'd probably be doing that, at this point, without being amplified by bots anyway.
I just think its far far too easy to go 'its the bots'.
It shows a really shallow depth of knowledge about politics, propaganda and the public over the last 30 to 40 years.
And as I say, it doesn't offer a solution to where we are now.