A recent exposé alleges that the campaign staff of US Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have engaged in “astroturfing” activities on Reddit and attempted to manipulate the Community Notes feature on X, formerly known as Twitter. This controversy, brought to light by an American researcher using the handle “Reddit Lies” and Sean Davis, the founder of conservative outlet The Federalist, suggests that prominent Democratic campaign figures may have organized efforts to artificially boost support for Harris and Walz while suppressing critical voices on social media.
“Astroturfing” is a strategy that involves orchestrated online support designed to mimic authentic grassroots movements, but without the genuine public backing typically associated with grassroots campaigns. Named after the synthetic turf used in American sports stadiums, the term implies a lack of organic support, with campaign staff or organized operatives flooding platforms like Reddit and X to foster an illusion of widespread public endorsement.
In this case, Davis and “Reddit Lies” claim to have uncovered substantial evidence of coordinated online activities tied to the Harris-Walz campaign. According to Davis’s October 30 post, the campaign “fraudulently games Community Notes with sock puppet accounts and astroturf tactics.” To bolster his claims, Davis shared that he has screenshots, spreadsheets, and campaign communications proving these manipulative efforts. Screenshots shared by “Reddit Lies” allegedly show campaign staff collaborating on a Discord server, guiding volunteers on how to suppress content critical of their campaign.
One of the key areas of contention is the alleged interference in X’s Community Notes feature. This feature, launched after Elon Musk’s acquisition of the platform in 2022, enables users to flag and annotate inaccurate or misleading posts, allowing other users to view notes that provide context. Community Notes is intended to act as a decentralized fact-checking mechanism, preventing misinformation without relying on direct censorship.
Davis and “Reddit Lies” claim that Harris-Walz campaign operatives attempted to “game” this system, using sock puppet accounts to vote down Community Notes that highlighted inaccuracies in posts by the campaign’s official account, @KamalaHQ, or by affiliated figures. One example shared by The Federalist involves Democratic National Committee employee Timothy Durigan, who allegedly instructed volunteers to vote against a Community Note that identified a post by @KamalaHQ as misleading.
The alleged “Community Notes Training” module on the campaign’s Discord channel purportedly contains specific guidelines on how to increase the credibility of a user’s Community Notes score. This score allows users to influence which notes are promoted or suppressed, making it a crucial tool in controlling narratives on the platform. Screenshots from the “training” suggest that volunteers were instructed to downvote notes that challenged posts from Harris-Walz campaign accounts while promoting notes that cast doubt on their opponents, including former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance.
According to “Reddit Lies,” Harris and Walz’s campaign team allegedly engaged in a widespread smear campaign against their Republican rivals on X. This effort included regular misrepresentations of Trump and Vance, with misleading information being shared under the Harris-Walz banner. In one particularly significant revelation, “Reddit Lies” claims that even mainstream news outlet CNN called out the Harris-Walz campaign for its portrayals of Trump and Vance, although few of these instances were flagged by Community Notes, likely due to downvoting by the campaign’s volunteers.
The researcher also revealed that the campaign utilized a content amplification tool known as Reach, enabling its operatives to broadcast messages across various platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, and X. The use of this tool to propagate messages appears to violate bans against “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” a rule meant to prevent operations like the alleged “Russian bot” interference that the Democrats themselves have condemned. These claims of inauthentic engagement would be particularly problematic, as Reach enables a small number of users to artificially inflate the reach of specific posts, simulating public interest or approval.
If these allegations are proven accurate, they would raise significant ethical questions for the Harris-Walz campaign and the Democratic Party. Astroturfing and the manipulation of Community Notes undermine the credibility of public discourse and taint genuine political engagement on social media. The situation is complicated by the fact that Community Notes, which was intended as a non-partisan fact-checking tool, has become the subject of partisanship and manipulation, undermining its credibility and mission.
The integrity of Community Notes is crucial for public trust in social media platforms, especially considering that it represents one of the few methods left for decentralized moderation after Musk’s overhaul of X’s policies. For Harris and Walz, these allegations could pose a major reputational threat, potentially reinforcing criticisms from those who view the pair as emblematic of an increasingly divisive and manipulative political landscape.
Moreover, this situation has added significance given the recent scrutiny around online interference in US elections. Allegations of online manipulation in campaigns can carry legal and electoral consequences, especially if they are seen as undermining the principles of democratic competition. While previous accusations of “Russian bot” interference have focused on foreign actors, the Harris-Walz controversy, if verified, could cast a shadow on domestic campaign practices within the US itself, questioning whether such tactics are more prevalent than initially understood.
The Harris-Walz campaign’s alleged tactics, including its use of the Reach tool, are part of a larger trend where social media platforms are increasingly weaponized by political campaigns. Campaigns on both sides of the political spectrum have adopted sophisticated strategies to shape narratives and influence voter sentiment, yet the methods alleged here reveal a deeper issue of authenticity and trust.
If campaigns can easily manipulate decentralized moderation systems like Community Notes, it raises questions about the ability of platforms to offer a fair and level playing field. The original promise of Community Notes was that a decentralized system would better resist manipulation; however, if enough organized volunteers are mobilized to target the system, the project may fall short of its goal. This situation suggests that even decentralized platforms require further safeguards against inauthentic influence campaigns.
In the coming weeks, it will be important to see how X responds to these allegations. Elon Musk’s platform has already experienced a tumultuous transformation, with the former Twitter head and his policies facing criticism and scrutiny from all sides of the political spectrum. Should evidence surface validating these allegations, X may have to revisit Community Notes’ moderation policies and consider additional protections to prevent similar abuse in the future.
As public concern grows over the influence of social media in political processes, these accusations remind us of the challenges that remain in ensuring fair, transparent, and authentic political discourse online. Social media platforms have transformed modern campaigning, making it easier than ever for parties to engage directly with voters. However, as the Harris-Walz case illustrates, this increased access can sometimes come at a cost to authenticity, leading to concerns over how much of what we see online genuinely reflects public opinion.
Leave a Reply