Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)G
Posts
2
Comments
100
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Social Media and Political Influence

    Whistleblower Alleges AI-Driven Election Interference

    • A former X (formerly Twitter) employee anonymously shared allegations on Substack claiming the platform was intentionally manipulated during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
    • According to the whistleblower, X’s algorithms were adjusted under Elon Musk’s leadership to prioritize pro-Trump and right-wing content. Some left-wing posts critical of Democrats were also boosted, but allegedly only to create a façade of balance.
      • Backed Up by Research: These claims align with findings from a recent study that audited X’s algorithm. Key findings include:
        • Right-leaning users experienced the most significant exposure bias, with the algorithm amplifying content aligned with their views.
        • Both left- and right-leaning users saw reduced exposure to opposing viewpoints, reinforcing echo chambers.
        • New accounts were reportedly subject to a distinct right-wing bias in their default timelines.

      • While the whistleblower’s claims remain speculative, these independent findings suggest that X’s algorithm did, in fact, favor certain political narratives.

    • AI-Generated Propaganda: The whistleblower alleges that thousands of fake accounts were created using advanced AI systems, Grok and Eliza, to disseminate political messaging. These accounts were designed to imitate real users and reportedly pushed targeted propaganda related to Trump’s economic claims, border policies, and cryptocurrency initiatives.
    • To support these claims, the whistleblower pointed to a breadcrumb in the Eliza documentation, which describes how AI profiles could be pre-configured with specific narratives and responses. One example, allegedly labeled “Trump,” was programmed to amplify campaign messaging.

    Marc Andreessen’s Connection to Eliza AI

    • Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), is closely connected to Eliza AI. His firm has backed Eliza Labs, the company behind the AI framework, which is also reportedly used internally at a16z (source).
    • While it’s possible that the example in the Eliza public documentation in this context was coincidental or even intended as satire, the fact that Andreessen is backing technology capable of such manipulation raises serious concerns. It demonstrates how tools designed for decision-making and automation can easily be repurposed for political influence.

    Andreessen’s Political Views

    • Andreessen is an open supporter of MAGA politics and an advocate of Curtis Yarvin’s “Dark Enlightenment” philosophy, which proposes replacing democracy with a CEO-led “monarchy.”
      • Yarvin recently wrote an article suggesting that “American democracy should be replaced by what he calls a ‘monarchy’ run by a ‘C.E.O.’”

    • As The Verge summarized:
      • “We are looking at a simple trade against personal liberty — abortion, the rights of gay and trans people, and possibly democracy itself — in favor of crypto, AI, and a tax policy they like better.”

    Elon Musk’s Role

    • The whistleblower also alleges that Musk was directly involved in these manipulations, reportedly overseeing algorithm changes and content moderation. Musk allegedly joked about being “Black Hat MAGA” while making these decisions.
    • The claims further suggest that X allowed foreign influence campaigns from countries like Israel, Iran, and Russia to operate on the platform, as long as their goals aligned with the platform’s manipulated narrative.

    Impact and Speculation

    • The whistleblower describes the damage caused by these actions as catastrophic:
      • “The damage we’ve done is immeasurable, and I don’t know if it can ever be fixed. People don’t know what’s real anymore, and that’s exactly what we wanted.”

    • While the full extent of these claims has yet to be proven, the whistleblower’s account is bolstered by independent research and the connections of influential figures like Andreessen and Musk. Together, they paint a troubling picture of how powerful technology may have been used to undermine democratic processes.

    Voting System Interference

    Evidence of Election Hacking

    • Stephen Spoonamore, a cybersecurity expert, issued a “Duty to Warn” letter to Vice President Kamala Harris, outlining evidence of vote manipulation in key swing states during the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
    • Working with Smart Elections, Spoonamore revealed that voting tabulators were allegedly programmed to alter results after processing 400 ballots (up from 600 in 2020), a tactic designed to evade detection during recounts.
    • This tampering reportedly influenced outcomes in critical states, supported by findings in an analysis of Clark County’s election results.
    • Additional irregularities included the use of “bullet ballots,” where votes were cast only for the presidential race. These disproportionately favored Trump and deviated significantly from historical norms, suggesting deliberate interference.

    Trump’s Statements on Manipulation

    • Donald Trump’s public remarks have fueled speculation that he was aware of these activities:
      • “We don’t need the votes,” he said, implying confidence in securing victory through means outside traditional voter turnout.
      • At a rally, he remarked, “Elon was very effective. He knows those computers better than anybody. Those vote counting computers. And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide,” suggesting possible technological manipulation in vote counting.
      • His statement, “You won’t have to vote anymore,” further hinted at confidence in a pre-arranged outcome.
  • I mean, the hat is black.

    BlackHat doesn't mean 'bad guy' inherently, it means using bad means to achieve your goals. Like astroturfing to convince the people of something that is totally correct anyway and they're too dumb to understand. Or in this case, "we are looking at a simple trade against personal liberty — abortion, the rights of gay and trans people, and possibly democracy itself — in favor of crypto, AI, and a tax policy they like better."

    The guy who owns the company that makes Eliza is directly working with Musk, on the board of Meta, and has written a has written a techno-optimist manifesto for effective accelerationism.

    It's their MO. Effective accelerationists like Andreessen are ushering on the Dark Enlightenment envisioned by Curtis

    "American democracy should be replaced by what he calls a “monarchy” run by what he has called a “C.E.O.”

    And plenty of people seem to be onboard.

    Tokenized, Inc: BlackRock's Plan To Own The Fractionalized World: “Markets don’t like uncertainty. Markets like, actually, totalitarian governments… Democracies are very messy.”

  • He literally has a black maga hat and calls himself DarkMAGA publicly

  • You can know that bit is true. Marc Andreessen is behind that company. He is on the board of META. He is currently hiring for DOGE for Elon. He wants to accelerate us into a monarchy run by a CEO so we can achieve ASI quicker and follows Curtis Yarvis' dark enlightenment. And he's backing a twitter disinfo bot? lol come on.

    Studies on the twitter algorithm show its been manipulated, elon silencing his critics, aligning with autocrats, etc is all public. There is very little unconfirmed in this article it just ties it together.

  • Is a bit odd the json example is of a Trump troll.

    We know most of these things are true anyway, we seen him do it in real time. Push himself to the top of the feed, align with autocrats, censor his critics, etc. There’s nothing too surprising in here.

  • I mean, don’t friend, or put high trust on people you don’t know is pretty strong. Due to the “six degrees of separation” phenomenon, it scales pretty easily as well. If you have stupid friends that friend bots you can cut them off all, or just lower your trust in them.

    Know IRL? Seems it would inherently limit discoverability and openness. New users or those outside the immediate social graph would face significant barriers to entry and still vulnerable to manipulation, such as bots infiltrating through unsuspecting friends or malicious actors leveraging connections to gain credibility.

    “Post-turing” is pretty strong. People who’ve spent much time interacting with LLMs can easily spot them. For whatever reason, they all seem to have similar styles of writing.

    Not the good ones, many conversations online are fleeting. Those tell-tale signs can be removed with the right prompt and context. We're post turing in the sense that in most interactions online people wouldn't be able to tell they were speaking to a bot, especially if they weren't looking - which most aren't.

  • It has adjustable block size and computational cost limits through miner voting, NiPoPoWs enable efficient light clients. Storage Rent cleans up old boxes every four years. Pruned (full) node using a UTXO Set Snapshot is already possible.

    Plus you don't need to bloat the L1, can be done off-chain and authenticated on-chain using highly efficient authenticated data structures.

  • I dont see how that stops bots really. We're post-Turing test. In fact they could even scan previous reputation points allocation there and divise a winning strategy pretty easily.

  • They block cookies comrad.

  • Space is much more developed. Would need ever improving dynamic proof of personhood tests

  • Communities should be self moderated. Once we have that we can really push things forward.

  • Reputation systems. There is tech that solves this but Lemmy won’t like it (blockchain)

  • Also they’re now censoring anything anti Trump.

  • No they didn't, only the low level rubes

  • I'd maybe start with some Tolstoy or Mutualism to ease yourself in ;)

    The lack of fully scaled examples doesn’t negate the validity of cooperative production, it underscores the need for innovation and persistence. The systems you critique are still maturing, but their potential reflects a historic shift, much like the early failures of capitalism eventually gave way to dominant industrial systems. To dismiss these efforts outright is to overlook humanity's capacity for ingenuity and reinvention.

    Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.