The term astroturfing is used to describe deceptive PR methods that give the impression that a cause has more public support than it actually does. This sometimes takes the form of fake ‘grassroots’ movements that make it look like ordinary citizens are leading the charge when they are not.
Astroturfing is used by state actors, large corporations, and wealthy individuals that seek to alter the political and economic landscape to their own advantage.
In this quick lesson, you’ll learn about common astroturfing methods so you can spot fake accounts and manipulation online.
How does astroturfing work?
Astroturfing exploits the tendency we have to trust our peers and follow the pack. When the public seems to move in one direction, joining them is easier than going in the opposite direction.
Deceptive actors use several astroturfing methods to fake broad public support.
These are some of them:
Using fake accounts on social media to like, share, and comment on posts that support a political cause or candidate.
This is something that you have seen plenty of on social media, and maybe you even realised that something was not quite right. Fake profiles in the comment section can be pretty obvious. Lack of variation and complexity in the comments is the first sign.
Astroturfing comments in support of a politician for example, are always positive, free from criticism, and don’t pose difficult questions that the candidate is unable to answer.
The majority of these comments are posted by spambots via fake profiles and hacked accounts. Some may also be from real users who get paid to comment.
Paid product reviews
When we shop online, we often read product reviews before we buy. Marketers can exploit this trend to their client’s advantage. Either by creating fake accounts that they use to write positive reviews, or by paying others to write them.
When the masses start praising a new skin care product online, people are more likely to think it has merit.
Paid articles in newspapers and blogs, which directly or indirectly champion a specific cause.
Direct: “We’ve got to raise the retirement age. Here’s why.”
Indirect: “How the government could save $126 billion every year – easily.“
The direct article may go on to list the reasons why the retirement age has to go up: People live longer, healthier lives and stay retired for longer, which means the government has to spend more money on pensions for older generations of taxpayers.
The indirect approach might discuss different savings measures, like lowering pensions, reducing the Medicare budget, increasing the price of public health insurance for people aged 50+, and other less desirable alternatives. In the end, the writer will suggest increasing the retirement age as the most sensible option.
These submissions will then be shared frequently on social media by fake accounts and paid agents to give the impression that the cause has broad support in the general public.
The problem with articles like these, is that they read exactly like passionate and intelligent commentary that you would expect to see from opinionated people. They don’t advertise the fact that they’ve been paid to write the piece, so all you can do is keep in mind that paid opinions do exist.
Misleading polls and statistics
We like to think that the numbers speak for themselves, but unfortunately that is not always the case. As we will see, how you pose the question may influence the outcome.
If you want to show that the Prime Minister is doing a terrible job running the country, you can tweak the questions to generate a more negative rating. Let’s compare a slanted question to a neutral one:
Neutral: “Rate your satisfaction with the Prime Ministers’ handling of the economy on a scale from 1-5. One being the least satisfied, five being most satisfied.”
Slanted: “How badly do you think the PM has handled the economy? Give a rating from 1-10, ten being the absolute worst.”
Next, you invite a select group to answer the poll (the ones most likely to see things your way), and use the results to show that the Prime Minister is failing and needs to be replaced.
Misleading petitions
It’s not always about the facts, but rather how a case is presented. If you are cunning enough, you can even convince people to sign a petition to a ban water (see video below). These signatures can later be handed over to a politician that you want to influence.
Organising protests with paid participants.
Dishonest players with deep pockets can pay thousands of people to march and protest. These happenings usually attract attention from the media, which may later be used to achieve political aims. Politicians hoping to get elected will rarely go against public opinion, and are more likely to be persuaded if they believe a cause has broad public support.
Creating fake interest groups and organisations, and paying people to front them.
This could be done via a PR firm or a shell company to hide who the real creators are. These fake groups may be used for fundraising campaigns, organising public meetings or public protests, and lobbying activities directed at politicians.
To expose an astroturf organisation, examine the roots. Check who started the whole thing and who is funding them. If the origin of the initiative is unclear or hidden, it could be a sign that someone is not being entirely honest.
Fake grassroots movement: One well-known example
When the authorities in Australia decided to introduce plain packaging of cigarettes, The Alliance of Australian Retailers started appearing in the news.
They presented themselves as a grassroots movement consisting of retailers and sellers of tobacco products, and fought for the authorities to change their minds on the subject. It was later revealed that the movement was created by Philip Morris; one of the world’s largest tobacco companies.
Could astroturfing be harmful?
Depends on how astroturfing is being used.
You could end up being fooled by an investment scam because the spambots on Facebook told you it was the greatest investment they ever made. Losing all your savings to a scam is certainly not great for your finances or mental health.
The greatest long-term harm from astroturfing is the same as for fake news; the negative effect that it has on democracy.
Democracy is built on trust and openness. When we don’t know who’s behind a political message, it is difficult to judge whether we should trust it or not. Are we seeing real people talking about causes that they’re passionate about, or are we just seeing spambots and paid agents doing their master’s bidding?
During an election, astroturfing on social media can be used to push undecided voters in a certain direction. When the margins are small, this could affect the results.
In the US presidential election in 2016, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were neck and neck in the polls. Although Clinton received the most votes nationally, the state elections secured Trump the victory. In Michigan, Trump won with fewer than 11,000 votes, which is about 0.3% of the counted votes.
Brad Parscale, the head of social media under Trump’s 2016 election campaign, stated that the election was won on Facebook. If this is just self-praise or an actual fact, is not entirely clear.
What we do know, is that certain groups of voters dismiss traditional news media as ‘mouthpieces of the elites’. Social media, on the other hand, is seen as the people’s platform. Among these voters, posts on Facebook and Twotter, or videos on YouTube, may have greater credibility than the news from CNN or BBC.
Take our quick quiz to see if you remember the basics
Results
Well done!
Not quite there yet. You might want to read the lesson again.
