How A Twitter Fight Over Bernie Sanders Revealed A Network Of Fake Accounts

[poboy2]

How A Twitter Fight Over Bernie Sanders Revealed A Network Of Fake Accounts
HuffPost
Paul Blumenthal
03/14/2018 05:45 am ET

When Russians at the Internet Research Agency interfered in U.S. politics, they created false online personas and fake political groups to amplify divisive messages that already had a homegrown American audience. It’s not too far from what some U.S. political consultants are doing themselves.

Take Sally Albright, a Democratic Party communications consultant who backed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016. Unsurprisingly, Albright is vocally opposed to President Donald Trump and a big supporter of the resistance to his administration. She is also one of the loudest, most divisive voices attacking Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Clinton’s onetime Democratic primary opponent, and his left-wing supporters.

Well after the primary, Albright continues to claim that Sanders is a fraud, a liar, racist and corrupt, among many other things. In one instance she declared that the policy idea of free college, as promoted by Sanders, was racist. This provoked Sanders supporters to argue back. Trevor, a Sanders supporter who declined to provide his last name for fear of being doxxed, but goes by @likingonline on Twitter, noticed a strange pattern of behavior when Albright responded to him. Her tweets addressing him were rapidly retweeted by the same series of accounts. This created a barrage of notifications making it look as though there was an avalanche of opposition to everything he said.

But as Trevor discovered, after an extensive amount of research that he posted online, these were not normal accounts. They appeared to be bots ― automated accounts masked as real people being used to amplify a particular political message. Who is really pulling the strings, however, remains a mystery.
-

Much more:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democratic-bot-network-sally-albright_us_5aa2f548e4b07047bec68023?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000618

[NurseJackie]

1. I'm not sure what to make of all this... but it certainly is interesting.

[bigbrother05]

2. So bots took every opportunity to hurt Hillary and divide Dems

But the GOP thinks that nobody was trying to help Trump?

[el_bryanto]

8. That's not really what the article said I don't think.

I think it said that when an attack on Sanders went out - the Bots were there to promote it?

That said I don't know for sure that this is necessarily Russian nastiness - other people know how to use computers.

Bryant

[KPN]

80. Hmmm, sounds familiar. "Could be some

400 pound fat guy sitting in bed with a laptop."

[unc70]

3. Coordinated attacks on Bernie

Read the full article and looked at related items. Stirring up attacks on Bernie and intra-party fighting seems the pattern. Reminds me of things here during the primaries and continuing until today. I think a little research is in order.

[poboy2]

4. Yes, we need to be careful and judicious.

Every which way, the operation wants to foster division and infighting as well as party on party.
Its all about sewing division to weaken.

Exploiting emotions and circumstances.

[Demsrule86]

13. I don't believe it for a minute...I have no idea they would want to cause trouble but

Mueller's latest offering clearly said they wanted Sanders to win. This sounds like nonsense.

[KTM]

16. You are thinking of the wrong "they"

This article isnt suggesting that these were Russian bots... this article indicates that a vocal pro-Hillary Democratic Party communications consultant, who continued to voice some very familiar criticisms of Senator Sanders well after the primaries ended, was in control of many fake Twitter accounts.

Those accounts were controlled via a program called Buffer (used to automate retweets and social media posts) that were found to be using false personas with stolen photographs.

This isn't alleging Russian anti-Sanders astroturf... it is good-ole made-in-the-USA astroturf. Really, you should read the article.

[Demsrule86]

33. They were Russian bots sent out to cause trouble...if she colluded, she needs to be indicted.

I mean the woman in the article who's name escapes me.

[KTM]

41. Clearly you didnt read this article

This is NOT a discussion about Russian Bots... lol.. this is about an army of fake Twitter and social media accounts under the control of AMERICAN political operatives, who sought to do harm to Senator Sanders THIS YEAR.

[Demsrule86]

60. And couldn't they be Russia accounts?

I think it is possible.

[lagomorph777]

50. There is no actual woman in the article; "she" is a cutout.

[Demsrule86]

59. That makes sense...just sowing discord I suppose.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Yes they did. But they also want to do lasting damage to our Democracy

Turning an election into an out of control dumpster fire of rival passions and accusations is a good way to peruse that agenda, and that agenda continues beyond one election cycle. Putin gains when Americans, especially younger ones who are in the process now of cementing their political philosophy, get disgusted by electoral politics and literally turned off by each other in the process. American division is its own reward for Putin, and that can be pursued from several directions simultaneously.

[Demsrule86]

34. Very good point...just cause chaos...yeah the wanted Trump but they wanted chaos more...

you are correct.

[Blue_Tires]

67. You dig deep enough you might not like what you find....

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. I'm not surprised in the slightest

We all get played to the extent possible by those who sow division for whatever their true motives. Divide and conquer is not exactly a new strategy in war or politics, just the means now available to pursue it.

[KTM]

6. Wow - people should read this!!

Both the HuffPo article linked and the analysis this guy did (http://shareblueastroturf.netlify.com/)... people might recognize some of what they see there from DU.

The writers at Shareblue, a pro-Democratic Party news site that supported Clinton in the primary and general elections, were also frequently retweeted by the network of fake accounts, particularly when the Shareblue folks had something negative to say about Sanders.

Buffer, a social media management application with more than 2 million users, allows an individual to schedule tweets, retweets and likes; to schedule posts on other social media sites; and to control multiple accounts at once.

An army of Sanders-trashing bots and sockpuppets sowing division on social media ? Who would have thunk ?

#HiSally!!

[poboy2]

7. yes. they are working ALL angles of the mind fuckery. -nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. AKA The Rapid (rabid) Bernie Response Team

When you see them pushing Prject Veritas as if they have no idea who Project Veritas is, I have to wonder if they are that dumb, that full of hate, or from overseas and have no idea what Project Veritas is.

Same goes for the ratfucker republican family of De Genova/Toensing.

[CentralMass]

27. This post is about different ratfuckers.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. No doubt multiple posts condemning these bots trashing a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate

will appear here shortly. I look forward to reading those comments.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Whoops. I guess I got that wrong. Sorry 'bout that n/t

[KTM]

12. Yes, it is suprising...

How odd that a thread mentioning Bernie Sanders AND Fake Accounts is getting so little attention here... hmmm.

I mean, most threads that mention ole Bernie attract some attention... you'd think a few folks would have something to say.

I wonder why they have no comment ?

[Demsrule86]

14. I am completely sick of it...anyway...I did reply that I don't really buy this completely

I think Hillary was the number one target...but I just don't give a damn anymore...all those who were involved in 16 should just let it go...we need new candidates. I know Hillary won't run and I hope like hell Sanders doesn't.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. I am sure that Hillary was the number one target

And it was viscous onerous. She was the expected nominee and next President. Both those who seek to divide will use any tool available to pursue that aim. It is illogical to think it would have been otherwise then or is otherwise now.

I would prefer good new candidates also.We need a younger generation ready to step forward even though I do not completely rule out those who are older and/or have run before - until I know what our choices are.

Thanks for commenting Demsrule86

[poboy2]

20. I don't think you fully understand.

This is continuing. It is happening and continues to happen all over.
Next presidential go it will be different candidates, same strategy.

[Demsrule86]

36. You are correct... so what do we do?

[R B Garr]

45. You are wise not to buy it. Look at the so-called articles

about her and it is just umbrage that someone voices objections to Bernie. They do these kind of oppo attacks it looks like. I remember when bravenak’s Twitter was attacked.

[KTM]

55. Funny you should mention her...

In the analysis of the fake accounts, linked in the article, it is shown that Bravenak's tweets/blog were frequently boosted by retweets from these fake users. According to this, her messages were amplified by 4x as many fake accounts as real ones.

[R B Garr]

56. That so-called analysis is also flimsy. These are the same attacks

on anyone questioning Him that were used before. BTW, didn’t your PM to me say you have no interest in talking to me? Yet here you are...no surprise.

[Autumn]

51. That explains it all.

[mythology]

17. Makes perfect sense

If you wanted to create division and distance between the Clinton and Sanders camps, you wouldn't just be instigating on the side of Sanders supporters, you'd also instigate on the side of Clinton supporters to make the two groups more divisive and dug in. There really wasn't a lot of distance between the two of them policy wise, especially compared to the distance between Republicans and Democrats.

[boston bean]

18. This occurred after the primary??

Looks like bernie supporters were targets of propaganda to alienate them from viotng for Clinton.

Obviously not to help Clinton.

[KTM]

19. This occurred THIS YEAR

Not just after the primaries, and not just after the election. This is familiar divisve astro-turf against Senator Sanders that continues today.

It has nothing to do with Sanders supporters' feelings about Clinton... it has to do with Clinton supporters' feelings about Sanders.

[boston bean]

21. Really? How so?

[KTM]

22. Just read the article maybe ?

This is somewhat current news... this consultant, Sally Albright, posted in January '18 someting to the effect that Sander's college proposals were racist. When Bernie supporters pushed back, this one guy noticed that he was swamped with retweets, and through analysis was able to demonstrate that those retweets were from sockpuppet accounts controlled by Albright.

The article indicates this tactic - flooding discussions with posts by sockpuppet accounts to amplify criticism and drown out dissenting opinon - has also been used by Mexican and Chinese governments to shut down debates, something a UNC scholar has labeled a new form of censorship.

The article indicates that this tactic is/was being used to denigrate Sanders and his supporters.

[Demsrule86]

37. Clinton supporters are over the election...Honestly I just want Sen Sanders to go back to the

Senate. He doesn't help us in the coming elections with some of his statements...but I certainly have no desire to harm him politically or in anyway.

[melman]

39. "Clinton supporters are over the election"

[img][/img]

[TheBlackAdder]

73. Hahaha! There are anti-Sanders OPs every day with the same 10-15 characters posting.

Every time I see them, I notice who comments, and it's like an echo chamber where they all just comment to feed their hatred--prolonging the animus that Putin and Russia helped to stoke. I'm actually surprised when I don't see certain members post replies to the posts. It's comical to one extent, if it wasn't getting to the point of being pathetic. Harboring that much hatred, to make something an obsession verges on clinical.

[KTM]

24. Wow, this just fell right off page one...

Its almost as if a whole lot of people want to ignore it... I wonder why ?

[stranger81]

25. Doesn't fit the approved narrative on this board.

[Demsrule86]

38. Because we are too smart to fall for Russian bullshit yet again.

[KTM]

40. Lol

What part of this article that you didnt read talks about Russians ?!?

[RandySF]

26. Doesnt matter whom one supports during the primaries

We have to be more vigilant in the future.

[CentralMass]

28. K&R

[ms liberty]

29. Funny how little attention this is getting. Let's give it a kick and a rec, eh? n/t

[Arazi]

46. So weird...definitely needs another kick

[CentralMass]

30. Here is a link to another article about Sally Albright

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/01/why-wont-liberals-like-sally-albright-stop-lying-a.html

[QC]

31. She used to work for Newt Gingrich.

Yeah, that sort of person.

[CentralMass]

32. Another article on Sally Albright.

Last edited Thu Mar 15, 2018, 12:59 PM - Edit history (2)

https://medium.com/@therealtmcg/sally-albright-and-the-sanders-strategy-13490a829f7c

[Tom Rinaldo]

52. For some reason that link is not fully live (at least on my screen)

I searched for it and found it by cut and pasting sally-albright-and-the-sanders-strategy into a search window. Hopefully no one else is having that problem.

[countryjake]

61. Here's the link to that article...

Sally Albright and the Sanders Strategy
https://medium.com/search?q=Sally%20Albright%20and%20the%20Sanders%20strategy

~snip~

If one was to take Albright’s verbose series of tweets at face value, they might consider it an attack on Sanders, a figure whose significant media presence has built up some clout among young Democratic voters. However, it is important to see Albright’s rambling tweetstorm as what it is: an attempt to discredit the left through their association with Sanders.

Albright rarely attacks the actual principles of the far-left, except to criticize their feasibility; in fact, she repeatedly insists that the Sanders’ campaign was a sort of cult of personality, rather than a movement of policies and ideals. Her only substantial comments on policy are to rightly note the importance of voter suppression in the outcome of the 2016 national election (a notion which most leftists would hardly dispute). She does this in an effort to argue that Bernie and the leftists are making a flawed and perhaps racist “choice” in deciding to ignore African-American voters and instead make appeals to the dreaded “white working class.” Of course, the left has made no such choice — racist voter suppression has been vehemently opposed by even the snarkiest of Twitter socialists. But Albright cares little for this distinction, as her goal is to discredit the left, and she adamantly insists that Sanders, and by proxy the socialist movement, have chosen the working class over loyal African-American Democrats, while in reality, rational leftists have been eager to highlight the fact that African-Americans constitute a significant portion of the diverse working class that they wish to aid.

(bolding mine)

[summer_in_TX]

35. Wow, fascinating!

I wonder if that's why we see most threads about Bernie that get down into the weeds never see the reasonable side, never give others the benefit of the doubt and just endlessly criticize and accuse anyone who offers the mildest contradiction.

It's so tiresome, and harms our ability to feel safe and free to express our opinions and feel like we are in a supportive community.

I've been disappointed that these same debates keep flaring up. It doesn't seem quite as prevalent as when I rejoined after the site was rebuilt after the hack, but still way more than I'd have thought. But I guess the bots and sock puppet accounts are keeping some folks really stirred up.

[KTM]

42. Ya think ??

Look at the people who respond to EVERY Sanders thread on this board who dont show their faces in this one.

Ask yourself, "Why not ?"

[sarcasmo]

43. How many of the Bernie Bros here in 2016 were Russian bots?

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. No doubt some were

When disinformation campaigns like that are well orchestrated they play on hot buttons well enough so that some otherwise sincere people get sucked in to the vortex. That can make it hard to be certain which posters are bots and which have just been influenced by bots. But it is foolish to think that if an overarching goal is to destabilize our Democracy that players like the Russians would not do what they can to make sure that we all end up at each others throats. And if the malevolent players instead come from the domestic Right, they have a similar motive to sow disunion among Democrats. And similar means given how much money is concentrated in a small group of far right hands in this country.

[CentralMass]

44. I wonder who paid her ?

[McCamy Taylor]

47. There have been pretend nasty Hillary supporters for years.

Whose job is to spread the impression that Hillary is an evil witch (just like her pretend supporters). They are a joke. Never have anything positive to say about Clinton. Just put down everyone and piss everyone off.

[CentralMass]

48. Albright worked for the 2008 Clinton campaign..

I won't quote large section of the article however regarding the Twitter accounts that Albright was contracted to automate:


"Albright told HuffPost that the accounts were voluntarily handed over by their original users to an unnamed client of hers to be automated in “an analytics program.” She said she was bound by a non-disclosure agreement and could not disclose who was collecting and automating these accounts or for what purpose.

But like her, these accounts were all pro-Clinton, anti-Trump and anti-Sanders"

Which campaign stood to gain from Twitter bots attacking Sanders and Trump ?

[poboy2]

53. From the comments section there:

Mike Toppe ·
Edina, Minnesota
My head is still spinning after reading this
Like · Reply · 27 · 1d

Tom Lynch
Time for Twitter to delete this capability. It is making Twitter retweeting meaningless. It will destroy the platform.
Like · Reply · 29 · 23h

Susan Levesque ·
Works at Retired
Message to myself during the next election - Ignore Twitter.
Like · Reply · 6 · 22h

Kevin Sherman ·
Works at Firehurts studios
Gee, Sally Notsobright has to manufacure support... shocking...
Like · Reply · 4 · 20h

David Savignano
So Corporate Sally helping to make her wing of the Dems extinct as the Dodo bird can’t come fast enough!
Like · Reply · 3 · 22h

Jane Carroll
Sally Albright, eh?
Consultant for the Democratic Party?

I'm a Democrat and I don't like what she is doing. I suppose fighting fire with fire makes things seem fair, but the fair thing to do is to get Twitter to stop this practice. It is time to call the Twitter advertisers.

And give Sally Albright a warning now, or just fire her.
Like · Reply · 2 · 19h

Hedorah Himitsu ·
Loyola University Chicago
Free Speech. Brought to you by...Nabisco, Budweiser, and Nike.

===

I simply wished everyone would realize this is bad from WHEREVER it comes from, and that extending this implication is bad news in other applications as well. Media/medium manipulation as a force multiplier in service of deception should always be considered and rebuffed, imo.

[countryjake]

64. It's still going on today. Right-wingers are the only ones who gain...

from a strategy such as Albright's and other Twitter accounts just like hers, with thousands of fake followers spreading discordant messages like "We don't need your fucking votes" simply to disparage and divide the Left.

[ehrnst]

54. There are Caitlin Johnstone clones in more places than we realize. (tn)

[Adrahil]

57. Could be a commercial service.....

... or a troll farm.

But I've hear of this woman, and she strikes me as a bit an attention seeker. I do not doubt she bought some followers to retweet her stuff and build her profile. Probably looking for a higher profile job.

[R B Garr]

58. It could also be people stalking her because she dares

to criticize or question Bernie. Bravenak’s account was stalked the same way. They send out the call to discredit people. Very predictable.

[CentralMass]

63. She (Albright) was contracted to do the work.

[R B Garr]

69. She is just being attacked in a similar fashion

as anyone who dares question Sanders. I notice lots of other info about her is omitted — apparently doesn’t fit the hatchet job on her.

[CentralMass]

71. What ? That is nuts. She setup a twitter-bot operation to slime Sanders.

[R B Garr]

72. I believe bravenaks first-hand accounts of how her Twitter was

swarmed because she dared to question Sanders.

This thread is just another tactic to discredit anyone who dares to question Sanders. I’ve seen one participant spamming this on other threads like it’s some big gotcha, but it’s just more of the same attacks on non-believers. She can post whatever she wants on Twitter.

This thread is not worth kicking anymore. I see that’s the goal......

[CentralMass]

75. That has zero to do with this thread, This is a paid political operative ..

operative that has admitted she was paid to setup the operation. She won't disclose the client because of an NDA,

If you feel that the Sanders campaign, or any other campaign was involved in activity like this, please bring it forward.

You are pulling some kind of slight of hand.

[R B Garr]

76. I believe Bravenak over some people stalking Twitter

accounts of someone who dares to question Sanders. I figured you would turn to personal attacks..,.this is all predictable and lame.

I read through the so-called articles and the stalkers theories. The words he used show all speculation on his part. You are still omitting things that don’t fit the hatchet job. Do I get to insult you now?

edit-and notice how you only think she’s credible if she supposedly says something that agrees with the hatchet job, but she’s not credible otherwise, of course.

[CentralMass]

78. Your comments have nothing to to with this post. Or any of my commentd.

I've made no comments about Bravenek, have no clue what you are talking about , but please, carry on.

[CentralMass]

62. If you rerad the article, she worked for the 2008 Clinton campaign and she was contracted to do this

to do this work by a client. The name of that client was not revealed due to a nondisclosure agreement.

[KTM]

65. Youre asking too much I think...

Its obvious from some of the comments that many posters didnt read the article and WONT read the article... too fragile I guess.

[Blue_Tires]

68. So when do we get to have a discussion about fake trolling accounts

here on DU?

I've been itching for that ever since the Trayvon Martin case...

[tonedevil]

70. What is stopping you? /nt

[TheBlackAdder]

74. Scoping the daily OPs, Putin's Clinton-Sanders animosity campaign still seems to be paying dividends

[LSFL]

77. Dont really care.

Sanders is not a democrat. His schtick bored me 30 years ago and in my opinion it has not improved with age. I am sorry if my take hurts any DU members, but Sanders is not impressive to everyone.

[David__77]

79. Interesting. Bots for Hillary Clinton.

The thing is: forces supporting or opposing a candidate may use various methods. A question is: what is the responsibility of the candidates with this?