>Do you have proof that Twitter bots influence opinion?
Demanding proof of effect is an oddly defensive response that seems aimed at exonerating bad behavior. The GP didn't even assert anything about influence; just stated a fact.
But what difference does it make? Are you saying we should just accept it if we can't definitively prove it had a certain influence?
Sounds an awful lot like a certain U.S. president.
>If Russian bots influenced elections, what about the millions of real live humans
False equivalence. A concerted effort by one person to use technology in amplifying a specific narrative against an adversary is not the same as actual human beings rendering their frequently diverse opinions. Surely you see the difference.
Demanding proof of effect is an oddly defensive response that seems aimed at exonerating bad behavior. The GP didn't even assert anything about influence; just stated a fact.
But what difference does it make? Are you saying we should just accept it if we can't definitively prove it had a certain influence?
Sounds an awful lot like a certain U.S. president.
>If Russian bots influenced elections, what about the millions of real live humans
False equivalence. A concerted effort by one person to use technology in amplifying a specific narrative against an adversary is not the same as actual human beings rendering their frequently diverse opinions. Surely you see the difference.