Foreign influence campaigns, or information operations, have been widespread in the run-up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Influence campaigns are large-scale efforts to shift public opinion, push false narratives or change behaviors among a target population. Russia, China, Iran, Israel and other nations have run these campaigns by exploiting social bots, influencers, media companies and generative AI.
[...]
[Influence campaigns include] which researchers call inauthentic coordinated behavior. [They] identify clusters of social media accounts that post in a synchronized fashion, amplify the same groups of users, share identical sets of links, images or hashtags, or perform suspiciously similar sequences of actions.
[...]
[Researchers] have uncovered many examples of coordinated inauthentic behavior. For example, we found accounts that flood the network with tens or hundreds of thousands of posts in a single day. The same campaign can post a message with one account and then have other accounts that its organizers also control “like” and “unlike” it hundreds of times in a short time span. Once the campaign achieves its objective, all these messages can be deleted to evade detection. Using these tricks, foreign governments and their agents can manipulate social media algorithms that determine what is trending and what is engaging to decide what users see in their feeds.
[...]
One technique increasingly being used is creating and managing armies of fake accounts with generative artificial intelligence. [Researchers] estimate that at least 10,000 accounts like these were active daily on the platform, and that was before X CEO Elon Musk dramatically cut the platform’s trust and safety teams. We also identified a network of 1,140 bots that used ChatGPT to generate humanlike content to promote fake news websites and cryptocurrency scams.
In addition to posting machine-generated content, harmful comments and stolen images, these bots engaged with each other and with humans through replies and retweets.
[...]
These insights suggest that social media platforms should engage in more – not less – content moderation to identify and hinder manipulation campaigns and thereby increase their users’ resilience to the campaigns.
The platforms can do this by making it more difficult for malicious agents to create fake accounts and to post automatically. They can also challenge accounts that post at very high rates to prove that they are human. They can add friction in combination with educational efforts, such as nudging users to reshare accurate information. And they can educate users about their vulnerability to deceptive AI-generated content.
[...]
These types of content moderation would protect, rather than censor, free speech in the modern public squares. The right of free speech is not a right of exposure, and since people’s attention is limited, influence operations can be, in effect, a form of censorship by making authentic voices and opinions less visible.
Then provide your definition of the term "fascist" because it clearly differs from the dictionary definition.
Many of the things that we see are not "stymied progress" or "roll back everything". The modern US government today is in many ways very different than it was even 20 years ago. Republicans and Democrats have been building and modifying how the US government operates and they are making changes that directly change the form and function of government. The supreme Court and presidency did not have as much power as they do now. If you read the "Project 2025 agenda" it is not rolling things back, it is a plan for building a new thing.
If that is your argument then why don't the Democrats simply roll back many of the extensions that have been made? If it's easier to tear down, then the citizen's united case should be easy to destroy? We could revert to 1960s federal tax rates? Repeal the homeland security act? That argument requires an extremely ahistorical understanding, but one you seem to share with the "make America great again" crowd.
If only we could've elected a democratic president in between Trump's first and second term...
You have a good grasp on how the de jure government works, but seem to be rather ignorant (seemingly intentionally) of how the de facto government works. That ignorance is what I'm trying to highlight and why you keep ending up in disagreements. You can keep repeating what you read in your AP US history book but you should really be paying more attention to when it doesn't match the present material conditions.
Funny, that's exactly what I'm saying. Your idealism surrounding what the Democratic party is, and it's purpose, has you actively working and arguing against your beliefs.
I don't care what they say, I care what they do and they will both do the same thing.
They are not, but the messaging surrounding them at the time was. Similiarly going from the first black president to Jim Crow Joe is quite the difference on the Democratic side as well.
Then you live under a rock.
Using presidential powers created under Bush and expanded under Obama. It was a more brazen use of those powers than usual, but not too out of the ordinary if you've paid attention to events in Ferguson, standing rock, etc.
The "mediocre status quo" is absolutely fascist.
yeah, I'm done here. Zero effort is being put in to justify most of your positions, which makes sense because you can't. There's some hilariously bad faith arguments here that's I'm not even going to address because honestly, this post has been superseded by others and we're only ones reading it at this point.
please stop wasting people's time with obviously false arguments like "trump and harris are the same". not only is it wrong, it's painfully simplistic and reductive. no nuance, just black and white thinking so that you never have to think critically. like, you just drop that nonsense so that you don't have to do the hard work of arguing why we should risk a trump presidency.
I know that I haven't been very charitable to you, but you led off this discussion by basically calling me "privileged" and saying I'm pretty much a trumper, and then you drop dumb argument after dumb argument(and I have noticed that you threw my "parroting" and "idealism" criticisms back at me... you're not very original, which tracks for someone who isn't thinking for themselves). It's pretty telling that your most effective arguments are those nitpicking something I've said.
your position is dangerous. that is why i have indulged you this long. trump CANNOT be allowed in, and we must do whatever we must to prevent that. trump will send my trans ass to a camp. harris WILL NOT. this is life and death and i need you to stop making stupid arguments that you obviously haven't thought through
Same, you have a said a lot of words while mostly refusing to seriously engage with anything I've said. If I may though; some parting thoughts:
They are not the same, they are 2 sides to the same coin. I fail to see how that heads/tails isn't the "black and white, no nuance" mindset.
Yeah, because I was hoping it would be a moment for you to stop and do some self-reflection because I actually listened to what you had to say warts and all.
No he will send our asses to a prison the same ones black, Hispanic, indigenous, poor, marganalized etc. people are currently in. The same ones Harris is repeatedly saying she wants to expand and build more of, the same ones Biden has been building out for the last 4 years.