The folly of retreat in the face of defeat

How bad actors have penetrated social media platforms like Reddit. And why letting them dictate the rules of engagement is a mistake.

Note: This is a long read

Political discourse on social media taught me that bad faith operators and tactics are not only prevalent, they are widespread and effective.

Their objectives are much narrower than one might imagine.

The rules of political discourse are not as they appear. The chess board has undeniably shifted.

It’s not about genuinely debating opinions, policies, and facts. It’s about obfuscating truths, spreading misinformation, and in many cases, a must-take-down of certain targets who are effective, strong voices of opposition.

Social media is just a microcosm of the same tactics employed elsewhere.

On a societal level, we already see take downs of academics, environmental figures - even if they are children - judges, health experts, investigative journalists, and civil leaders.

Those are the same must-take-downs.

Small or large - it’s the same ploy.

Even if I am late to this party, and by God I’m late to socio-political affairs, I’d like to share my take.

---

Bad faith political tactics around social media are nothing new

Let’s examine some of the most egregious examples:

Facebook

In 2018, whistleblowers revealed that Facebook (Meta) was careless and let bad actors take the personal records of 78 million users.

Facebook were tricked by Cambridge University’s Professor Aleksandr Kogan-Spectre, a data scientist, who told them he had a great app to help users get a psychological profile.

All Kogan needed was access to their data.

Kogan was working for Cambridge Analytica (CA) here.

CA’s key investors were right wing American billionaire tycoons like Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebecca. Mercer had Steven Bannon serve on the CA Board. And they were closely linked to Donald Trump’s campaign.

CA was also connected to its parent company in Britain. That firm had close ties to the UK Conservative (Tory) Party. It collaborated closely with a Kremlin-linked oil giant over this time. According to New York Times, Russia was “interested” in the ways data was used to target American voters.

Facebook gave Professor Kogan permission.

When users downloaded his app, they were not only giving him their full unbridled data set, they also allowed him to retrieve data from all their Facebook connections.

i.e. If 100,000 people opted into the app, and if they had an average of 150 friends each, Kogan would have access to 15 million people’s data, which he could then use for the purposes of political persuasion.

Kogan scored a treasure trove of 78 million, and that data was passed on to friendly allies in the Trump campaign, Brexit campaign and who knows where else.

Suffice to say: Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016 had intel.

Yet this data harvesting for political manipulation was already being advanced by other mega billionaire right wing figures.

Koch Brothers

In 2014, Politco reported that the right wing, anti-climate, anti-public transport Koch brothers (one’s since passed) were “pumping tens of millions of dollars into a data company that’s developing detailed, state-of-the-art profiles of 250 million Americans, giving the brothers’ political operation all the earmarks of a national party.”

Developing profiles is the first step towards targetted messaging, and through that, influence over the targets.

And then it only becomes a matter of time for bad actors to issue, control and even twist large scale narratives for psychological persuasion.

Brexit

Just look at Brexit. How else do you convince millions of people to act against their own interests, and destroy their own economic futures, and social outcomes, except by lying about it?

Is there another non-criminal way that we know of?

One of the Leave campaign’s most well known and effective messages was on a bright red bus that travelled the country.

“We send the EU £350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave.”

Where do I sign up, right?

The UK Statistics Authority made it clear it was a “clear misuse of official statistics.”

Let’s call that what it is. A lie.

There’s a lot more on the ledger. Not only was it twisted and taken out of context, there was never any evidence or facts that suggested any credit would go to fund the NHS.

Now Britain is losing 6% of economic output every year, there’s 1.8 million less jobs, people are poorer, the country’s Councils are going bankrupt, the health system is broken, there’s sewage in their water, and pro-Brexit voters regret that choice.

But do you see how the strategy works?

It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or a lie - what matters is people remember a headline over any subsequent clarifications - or even worse (eyes glazing over) - detailed explanations.

Does this make it clearer why Nicola Willis messsages the way she does all the time?

From lying that she would never borrow for tax cuts up to the minute she dropped her budget with the $12bn of additional borrowing, to omitting critical information about the Kiwirail contract cancellation.

Ms Willis has been trained well.

Turn on the football and give me that beer? I don’t have no time for no “analysis.”

Again, if there’s one thing that the bad faith actors learned, it’s that lies work. Make no mistake: the “laboratory” of the Brexit campaign exceeded expectations - even for them.

It doesn’t matter if you get slapped on the wrist. Or someone writes a blog or article about it afterwards.

The damage is done, or rather, the goal is achieved.

History is written by the one who holds the pen. And if you’re on the right side of politics these days, you probably have bucketloads to play with.

---

New Zealand’s Taxpayers Union (and whatever else organisation Jordan Williams and David Farrah is puppeteering)

Does this look familiar?

Not quite a bright red bus but ..

I mean sure, they’re running a budget version of the script, but top marks for trying, lads.

---

Can you explain more about misinformation and disinformation?

Allow me to quote from an expert here:

The COVID-19 pandemic spawned an infodemic, a vast and complicated mix of information, misinformation and disinformation.

In this environment, false narratives have spread like wildfire across social media and other communication platforms.

The notion of disinformation often brings to mind easy-to-spot propaganda peddled by totalitarian states, but the reality is much more complex. Though disinformation does serve an agenda, it is often camouflaged in facts and advanced by innocent and often well-meaning individuals.

As a researcher who studies how communications technologies are used during crises, I’ve found that this mix of information types makes it difficult for people, including those who build and run online platforms, to distinguish an organic rumor from an organized disinformation campaign.

And this challenge is not getting any easier.

Rumors, misinformation and disinformation

Rumors are, and have always been, common during crisis events. Crises are often accompanied by uncertainty about the event and anxiety about its impacts and how people should respond. People naturally want to resolve that uncertainty and anxiety, and often attempt to do so through collective sensemaking. It’s a process of coming together to gather information and theorize about the unfolding event. Rumors are a natural byproduct.

Rumors aren’t necessarily bad. But the same conditions that produce rumors also make people vulnerable to disinformation, which is more insidious. Unlike rumors and misinformation, which may or may not be intentional, disinformation is false or misleading information spread for a particular objective, often a political or financial aim.

Disinformation has its roots in the practice of dezinformatsiya used by the Soviet Union’s intelligence agencies to attempt to change how people understood and interpreted events in the world.

It’s useful to think of disinformation not as a single piece of information or even a single narrative, but as a campaign, a set of actions and narratives produced and spread to deceive for political purpose.

Lawrence Martin-Bittman, a former Soviet intelligence officer who defected from what was then Czechoslovakia and later became a professor of disinformation, described how effective disinformation campaigns are often built around a true or plausible core. They exploit existing biases, divisions and inconsistencies in a targeted group or society. And they often employ “unwitting agents” to spread their content and advance their objectives.

Regardless of the perpetrator, disinformation functions on multiple levels and scales. While a single disinformation campaign may have a specific objective – for instance, changing public opinion about a political candidate or policy – pervasive disinformation works at a more profound level to undermine democratic societies.

---

How might misinformation or disinformation spread on social media platforms?

The way I came to think of it was like this:

A group of cells exist. Most of these, say 97% of them, are relatively healthy and functioning ‘normally.’ Let’s take it from there:

• Within a political environment then, it means that most of us genuinely want a better future for future generations, good social cohesion, positive systems e.g. health, education, food and water etc.

• However, a small percentage, say 2%-3%, have different goals.

• Their framework and perspective is not about the normal parameters of life but one centered on: consolidating power for themselves, accumulating even more wealth, manipulating social structures and financial systems, and importantly, manipulating society’s values to their image/beliefs. Egotism overlaps with psychopathy in a dazzling display of non-empathy.

• Now if these 2-3% came out and said what they wanted, or how they felt, the 97% would probably be repulsed.

• So what they do instead is adopt masks and send in operative cells.

• And these cells mimic the values of the majority i.e. they purport to care about better outcomes, the economy, health systems, education etc.

• But their true aim is disruption and influencing the majority - slowly but surely - to their ways. To do that, they stand within the crowd as “one of you,” and call out.

• They must also help spread narratives, harvest anger and fear they create based on misrepresentations, and malign the strongest advocates of the 97-98%

• And soon, over time, with money, reach, tactics, that 3% becomes 10%, and through the power of exponentials, 12%, 15%, all the way up to…. Spoiler: America

Note:

1. These cells of course just aren’t on Reddit or Facebook. That’s just one avenue. They’re also media commentators, shop front organisations called think tanks, paid politicians, and even some media companies.

2. And their messages aren’t always straight lies. Remember: the most effective deception is that woven within plausibility. E.g.

   1. Trickle down economics works - once the rich get richer, they will inevitably grace you with work and salaries and other fruits of their labour. Or,

   2. Landlords need to be protected to help renters. They provide the housing. If we help them, they will help you by lowering your rents and gift you a house you could never afford. Or,

   3. Most of your problems and the reason you can’t succeed is because of certain racial groups. This last one is especially nefarious and has far ranging and very corrosive implications for the country.

      

In biology, bad cell copies can lead to cancer.

And in society, at a societal level, bad cell copies can fundamentally disintegrate existing social structures, liberal values and progress.

This is why some people might feel we are going ‘backwards' when we see certain developments.

In the US, we could even see a potential collapse of its systems as most of us have known it over our lifetime. Project 2025 will see to it if Trump is elected.

I’m not a biologist and I’m merely sharing metaphorical imagery that came to mind when I was reflecting on how misinformation was around me on Reddit.

---

How can you really tell?

One of the key tells was described by Assoc Professor Kate Starbird above.

Misinformation and disinformation is really a heady combo of lies mixed in with plausible theories and preconceived biases.

And that’s your clue as to how easy it is to do it.

Seeing through it undoubtedly requires subject matter expertise to decipher fact from fiction.

In the same way that I can use biology for my analogy, to be honest, I have no idea of its accuracy. A real expert would come in and school me to Sunday. (And I’d welcome it)

It’s the same reason why academics, scientists and experts of any stripe are often demonized by bad faith actors. Even a smart, no-nonsense, see-through-the-bull individual like Greta Thunberg has been targetted because her strength, articulateness, and incisive insight is a threat to their anti-climate ethos. Fossil fuel companies didn’t spend billions every year to cultivate climate change skepticism to be ruined by some girl from Sweden.

They need you to see these people as “out of touch elites,” or “hypocritical simpletons,” because only then can they separate you from people who might otherwise advise you wisely.

Their shtick is to un-educate you.

---

So, what are some of the more specific tactics to watch out for - especially on Reddit?

Tactics:

• Plausible deniability - “Did they actually see him in bed with her? Or were the slippers just outside the door? You’re wrong. They were discussing matters of national security. Also, there must be at least a thousand look alike shoes in New Plymouth alone. There is no affair.”

• The redirect ploy (extra points for weaving at least 3 unequivocal lies in) - “So they borrowed an extra $12bn for tax cuts? It’s nothing. Did you see what Labour did? They screwed the porch on debt big time for Covid. That’s the only reason National had to borrow and put us into the biggest pre-Covid defict in recent years. It wasn’t their choice.”

• Weaving intentional deceit, cloaked with an air of credibility - “I’m a lifelong Greens voter. Also a commercial lawyer with expertise in marine contracts. Kiwirail’s Board was arrogant to sign the fixed price contract. Fortunately, the penalty for breaking it will be minimal. In my decades of experience, companies aren’t keen to pursue those charges. Also, they weren’t the right ferries for the Cook Strait. The Harbour Master had already told Kiwrail. I don’t suport NACT1 but this time Willis definitely made the right call.”

• Lie of equivalence when the matter can’t be dressed up - "Allowing companies to kill as many sea-lions as desired isn’t great. But, what can we do? All of the parties suck and none of them really care about our endangered sea-lions. The other party were the same, they still allowed fisheries to kill them.”

• Whataboutism - “So what if they are abusing urgency with 14 repeals under urgency within 100 days? Labour abused some too at the end of their term. It doesn’t matter it wasn’t even close.”

• Significant and sustained personal attacks to bring down credibility and affect perceptions of their work and efforts -

  • Greta Thunberg is a young, inexperienced immature idiot with delusions of grandeur.

  • Chloe Swarbrick is (insert negative comment.)

  • Jacinda Adern is a demoness who divided New Zealand and killed people with the Covid hoax

  • This strategy can also be used against posters e.g. They are biased and clearly a paid commentator - you shouldn’t listen to a word they say.

• Not addressing the point and attacking the person - all while misrepresenting their content - In debate terms, this is called an ad-hominem and a red herring, and not allowed for a reason. This tactic tries to immediately undermine the information shared, and because there is no actual defence against the content, the users must resort to character assassination to undermine the data. If they add in lies, it’s because they know they can fool some and that’s enough for the mimic cells.

• Character attacks against an environment or set of persons with the words “echo chamber” or “bias” to discredit, but also importantly, manipulate the target to change their behaviour. Example, influence them to be more lenient againt the “opposing side,” even if they are intentionally spreading disinformation. i.e.“This is how you prove you’re not biased” - on MY terms. Because these operators are unable to address the content and logic of what is shared, they must adopt alternative measures. Words such as “annoying,” “repetitive,” “biased,” “lefties,” “shills,” “echo chambers” etc are used rotundly and repetitively for maximum impact as well to discredit those they see as a threat.

• Subconscious influence - By repeating lies - including character assassinations enough - a part of the human brain adapts and adopts the messaging unfortunately. So even if you know consciously, for example, a certain person or group aren’t “bad actors,” real bad actors’ messaging will subtly influence your perception. The only counter to this is if you have clarity within yourself.

• Dropping clear misinformation within what appears to be a well researched piece. If the actor is unfortunate enough to meet someone with expertise or awareness, and is unmasked, they will leave the conversation ie. not even engage when called out. Remember - the bad actor doesn’t even believe what they are saying. Their only role is to spread misinformation over multiple accounts.

Other power tactics that seem to be effective on Reddit

• Incite rage

• Label someone a shill and not address the points

• The report function to Moderators and Administrators

• Joining a Moderator or Admin team role

  ---

Bad faith’s a nebulous concerpt. How can I tell the difference?

I have found a good tell to differentiate a mimic cell versus a 97% converted cell is their openness to learning and adopting from proven evidence.

Yes, we get into murky territory here. Some converted cells - to stretch this bad analogy I started - become true believers. And actors have usually character assassinated those who provide the expertise and evidence.

Example, during Covid, bad faith players had to denigrate scientists and doctors as being in the pocket of pharmaceutical companies. David Seymour has to denigrate judges and academics to try to get his Treaty Bills Principle mission done for his overlords. Winston Peters, and whoever he is linked to after cavorting with pro-Brexiteers, had to start attacking our media as “biased.”

On Reddit, people have to tell you informed people are “shills” and “biased” if they can’t address the content.

All these ploys need you to break from experts or well meaning advisors, and they take advantage of peoples’ inexperience to assume the worst.

Examples: Academics are dunces with no real life experience or maybe ivory tower elites, doctors are corrupt beings influenced by pharmaceutical bribes, government employees are lazy, good-for-nothings who are taking your money, informed opinions are ‘paid left wing shills.’

For now though - let’s assume some normalcy e.g. examining the benefits of mining, or reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of military style youth boot camps.

Mimic cells will never yield, they will often try to obfuscate, and if caught flat out lying, they will resort to further lies (because again their target is others, not the person who knows) and/or character assassinations and/or leaving the conversation without addressing the rebuttal.

The actors frequently swarm particular topics:

• Maori. The scope of this includes affiliated experts e.g. the Waitangi Tribunal, academics, lawyers, judges.

• ACT matters and policies

• Israel - often there appears to be an overlap between pro ACT accounts and a pro-Israel stance.

  ---

Who’s doing it on Reddit?

There is no doubt to me that ACT and Taxpayers Union at the very least continue to astrosurf social media channels.

I suspect they operate multiples of accounts to do so and they are skilled with long standing experience of astrosurfing.

This 2021 article on astrosurfing offers a refresher for those who aren’t familiar with it, courtesy RNZ -

Former ACT Party researcher and electoral agent, Grant McLachlan, said as a small party, ACT struggled to get much attention on the big issues like economic policy.

"So they started to look for other issues - or create new issues - where they weren't going head-to-head with the National Party.

"They would create these astroturfs that would break new ground and they [ACT] would appeal to the ground that was broken."

Astroturfs differ from ordinary lobby groups in that they purport to be something they are not.

For instance, they may masquerade as groups of concerned citizens for instance, while actually pushing the interests of large corporates.

McLachlan said ACT "weaponised" astroturfs.

He claimed the New Zealand Taxpayers' Union did a lot of the groundwork for the party in the 2020 election with their Campaign for Affordable Housing to fight the Green Party's proposal for an asset tax.

"So when they were saying 'This is a problem', it was actually a contrived problem that the ACT Party told them to create.

"That's the problem."

The campaign involved letters to thousands of householders, a website and media work.

Investigative journalist Nicky Hager, whose 2014 book Dirty Politics lifted the lid on Whale Oil's web of connections with lobbyists and politicians, said it was a textbook example of astroturfing.

"It seemed like someone cared about affordable housing - but they were only concerned there were going to be more taxes on it...

"We still don't know whose money was behind it, whose interests, who pushed it along, what they were trying to achieve.

"So that's a classic example of something that looks like a reasonable contribution to democratic debate, but is murky and probably making things worse.

"And as a country, we shouldn't be tolerating it."

---

What else?

The New Zealand Taxpayers Union (and by inference, Free Speech Union, Groundswell, and all the other masked outfits that Farrah and Jordan Williams put on) craft messages for personal gain.

Nothing else.

This month, Jordan William’s fake union, Free Speech Union, blasted out a press release:

Thousands Sign Public Letter In 24 Hours, Calling On Government To Restore Academic Freedom!!!!!

As they pretend to champion academics.

And using his other fake union group, the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, Jordan Williams simultaneously attacks academics as out of touch, “Ivory tower” elites:

BREAKING: Ivory tower academics call for tax on Netflix !!!!

Talk about talking out of two sides of your mouth.

Except it’s all in line with the strategy.

These higher level actors don’t believe in the majority of whatever it is they are championing at the time.

It’s all about building followers, influence and power to sway politics. It’s all about gaining enough of a following and hanging out with media chums who give these paid mouthpieces time and space in their columns and screens.

And when the time comes, they will exercise their power.

All while admitting to receiving foreign money from tobacco companies like British American Tobacco.

Their books had nearly $3mn in cash a few years ago. Must have grown by now.

Not bad for a couple of boys from Kiwi-land.

---

Conclusion

Covid-19 was a significant opportunity for bad faith actors. It provided the perfect fertile ground of fear, uncertainty, and anger.

New Zealand wasn’t exempt.

And to their credit, the operatives capitalised on a proven template.

But, yielding to these tactics is allowing them to define who sits on the leaderboard, how we position the chess board, the rules of engagement, allowances and future potentials.

You are now playing on their terms.

In Reddit, as a moderator, my co-moderators and I spent many hours discussing how to facilitate a comfortable, mutual, respectful political discussion space that would facilitate reaching across the aisle and understanding each other.

At the same time, as an avid advocate of facts, research, contextual information, and avoiding misinformation, I found it hard to reconcile.

My desire was for a harmonious New Zealand. A beautiful country with many wonderful people. I don’t think I’ve met more than a handful of folks I didn’t like in real life, regardless of political persuasion.

In the US, Michelle Obama said “When they go low, you go high.”

That didn’t work.

Over time, my standard became misinformation and intention.

It’s folly to retreat, in the face of defeat. A defeat of truth. And it’s a large oversight to not know what is at stake.

Pull the board back and stand tall.