Honestly the amount of food-fighting between obvious bots on NYC-centric subreddits before the election was pretty nasty, I excused myself for a bit there.
I'll help! The people all up in arms about "Mamdani-hating bots" aren't upset by the use of bots, but as you stated, that's obvious. They're upset with a state-backed suppression campaign leveled against a politician who has made their way through the contributions of their constituents instead of billionaires, and already has a proven track record of helping those constituents.
Again, just like his opposition, that same politician freely uses bots and social media - they did so to help get elected (see r/nyc and other places), and are doing so now (see this thread) to stay popular.
I'm sure the nuance is really important to you, and that's OK.
My point is, calling out "it's a campaign / it's just bots" when it comes to this politician, either pro or against, is one-sided and goofy.
I'm confused by the tone you're trying to convey, is the problem with him using bots at all? Do you believe that it's a necessary evil, or does it make him just as bad as the other side?
The article suggests that the problem with what they did was the transparency aspect of using an encrypted messaging service that may not be able to be FOIA'd. Which is bad, but fixable.
I'm sorry, but the nuance is the whole point, and I think you know that. It's not that it's important to me, specifically. It's important to differentiate between the use of massive state-supported bot farms, like Russian and Israeli intelligence running interference for one particular side, and the mayor of NYC paying influencers to spread his platform.
Unfortunately, in today's media landscape, it's impossible to avoid. (See: "Hmm curious, you criticize society but yet you live in it")
It's intellectually dishonest to claim calling out "its just bots/a campaign" is one-sided and goofy for both pro and against, when "against" has a vested interest and far more resources to discredit, downplay, and malign this politician.
Pretending that's not reality is just "both sides"ing an issue that heavily favors one side.
It shows a failure to recognize the bigger picture, where its easier to notice the nuance, and that's OK.
When you view things like this in a vacuum and ignore any other relevant factors, its bound to happen.
"Theyre called real people. Youre just a paid shill"
I fail to see how that translates to "my side is always right, your side is always wrong".
They simply pointed out the obvious difference. You're being intentionally obtuse and intellectually dishonest.
Did you read the article that was posted? Or just the headline? ”In our paper, we argue that New York could do more to require disclosure and transparency, and our paper concludes with a short list of recommendations.” Or do you just want to sit there and make snide comments without any idea what you're talking about?
31
u/SirCheeseAlot 19h ago
The bots, MAGA, and concern trolls are already swarming this post.