Thread by @vanbadham

Hey, friends!

This is a simple thread 🧵 about how to identify an “astroturf” Twitter campaign.

An astroturf campaign is one that *pretends* to be grassroots activism, but is fake.

They’re used to pretend a “mass” movement exists, when it doesn’t & to drive disinformation.

There’s one running right now that crossed my feed this morning.

An astroturf campaign usually appears with a single-purpose hashtag.

Let’s use as an example #EatMoreAluminium.

It starts appearing in Twitter trend lists when a whole host of accounts start pushing it out.

Twitter trends are easily manipulated, especially in smaller Twitter markets like Australia. You only need a handful of people prepared to spend a couple of hours tweeting and retweeting from as many accounts as the can operate to gain visibility.

Early tweets to the hashtag…

… will have other hashtags from other established campaigns. They’re fishing for potential allies in the hope that organic accounts might amplify - & lend credibility to - their content.

So the tweet might read “(blah) #EatMoreAluminium #MetalPieEaters #MetalSnacks4Life.”

You literally only need a couple of activists who tweet heavily around the #MetalPieEaters hashtag to share #EatMoreAluminium for the eating aluminium to become a subject of discussion in the online metal pie snack community - this in turn amplifies the hashtag, ESPECIALLY if..,

… there are metal pie eaters *viciously opposed* to aluminium consumption, who start tagging in friends going “can you believe this #EatMoreAluminium shit?!!”.

You’re on Twitter, so you probably already know the first rule of Twitter really has to be DON’T TAKE THE BAIT.

So…

HOW TO RECOGNISE BAIT 🪱

Have a look at who is posting to #EatMoreAluminium. Go through a few accounts and you’ll see a pattern.

1) the accounts seem to have bios that are *almost entirely* about (aluminium eating), if there are bio details at all.

That’s unusual, yes?

2) the accounts might tell you they are “23, mouthy woman, loves snacks, #AdultAluminiumEater” but there are no identifying details of precisely who this person is. Their avatar will also be generic, blurry, a cartoon, not a photo of them, indistinct.

3) any named person…

… posting content will likely turn out to be a fanatic OR make their living stoking a fanbase on that issue’s circuit. “Rodney Bumfluff, CEO the Aluminium Food Corporation of America”, “Jane Knifepoint-Hat, author ‘The Young Beasthunter’s Aluminium Diet Book’” are not unbiased.

4) the majority of the hazy, generic-looking accounts posting to the hashtag ONLY post about this issue.

Really? On Twitter? I’m terminally obsessed with #auspol but you’ll still get content about my dog, my mum and Dave Grohl (praise be upon his name).

5) very few of these accounts have follower counts of more than a couple of hundred. Have a look at those followers and you’ll notice they’re all drawn from the same pool. Gosh. Coincidence.

6) check the language of the top tweets on the hashtag - you’ll notice that phrases are

… repeated, that the writing styles are actually indistinguishable; the vocabulary is shared, the punctuation habits are the same. Again, gosh, coincidence.

If all of these signs are present, yep, you’re witnessing a campaign coordinated by bad faith actors…

… and you might want to ask yourself: why?

- to scare and intimidate with inflated, false numbers a social group the campaigners oppose

- to puff themselves up as a supposedly powerful electoral force in front of politicians to get policy influence in a space…

- to bully aligned but not as extreme groups into becoming a shared movement

- to muddy the waters on a niche policy issue so bystanders think it’s toxic or confusing and avoid it

- to sow absolute chaos and ratchet up polarisation to make existing movements dysfunctional

Sounds a bit familiar, doesn’t it?

Once more for the folks up the back: DON’T TAKE THE BAIT.

And, also, DON’T #EatMoreAluminium - #MetalSnacks4Life!