Web ads already drain accounts like water in a bathtub. Your ideal click thru rate is in the mid 2% and that’s just clicks, not conversions. If you are a politician it’s a lousy and expensive way to market yourself. Just like businesses you do it just to crowd out others that are doing the same thing.
I read once that a good thing to do was to physically mail a low denomination check to the campaign. All because the work and effort to record and deposit the funds was so labor intensive by an actual person.
You’ll need to mail thousands of them for it to matter. The labor and expense for you to do that is greater than the labor and expense for them. Plus, I feel like they’d probably just throw the checks away if they are like a penny, or something stupid low.
Postdate them lol
I always click on ads for companies I don’t like. The cost to them is trivial, but whatever. It’s a petty vengeance.
As much as the hacker in me would love to do this, I sincerely hope ideas (posts… not ideas really) like this don’t become fodder for the paranoia propaganda machine driving MAGA.
I have no problem taking flack for it. In my view they’re so far off base that a flurry of unforced errors unravel with every variable.
Let’s be honest, they’d probably already be screaming foul play regardless.
I was just wondering about a general privacy goal of having an LLM bot just flood the zone with random data to try and confound advertising models, simulating clicks and likes/engagement across the spectrum just to wreck any meaningful data correlations.
If you were aiming this concept at two specific targets, i.e., costing the Trump campaign money and screwing with their data, things could get really interesting. Like an open source bot that would coordinate bizarre trends across large cohorts of users to convince the data miners that, for example, a disproportionate number of voters in key regions are demographically or behaviorally skewed.
The major networks can determine bots from people.
I like the idea, but I’d worry about getting sued for fraud. Though it’s not likely that would be a top issue what with his trying to stay out of prison.
I’m not a lawyer but I’m not sure how liable you’d be. People run bots all the time. Plus, this is all about numbers. You can’t sue thousands of people like that.
Personally, I’d just limit it to feeding them data that a large undecided segment believes a few provably false outlandish things, so that they publicly endorse said things when they could be spending time doing something socially destructive.
Can we get the politicians to shift from illegal aliens to Sasquatch? Build a wall across Washington state and make Canada pay for it?
Holy shit… This would be amazing.
It’s a well documented issue tied directly to gambling…
I mean wouldn’t it be crazy, to get something like people are eating cats and dogs publicly said.
Take a look at this browser extension: https://adnauseam.io/
As online advertising becomes ever more ubiquitous and unsanctioned, AdNauseam works to complete the cycle by automating ad clicks universally and blindly on behalf of its users. Built atop uBlock Origin, AdNauseam quietly clicks on every blocked ad, registering a visit on ad networks’ databases. As the collected data gathered shows an omnivorous click-stream, user tracking, targeting and surveillance become futile.
Ooh, that’s nice. Now change “omnivorous” to “targeted” and things get interesting.
Thanks, friend!
AdNauseam quietly clicks on every blocked ad, registering a visit on ad networks’ databases
Do those clicks appear to be coming from me, or from some random fake identity?
False floods of data or not, there are some things I’d rather not have any identifiable contact with at all.
From my understanding, they appear to be coming from you- that’s kinda the point.
It should atleast poison any data they gather about you right? Since you’re not ever going to realistically click on any of these ads, it would now look like anything and everything interests you
That’s the point. You can’t really build an advertising profile if they literally engage with every single thing all the time.
it would now look like anything and everything interests you
That could get you on some interesting lists.
Personally, I’d rather not have any database think I was interested in certain topics, no matter how false that data is.
Anything that you can think of has already been thought of, modelled, and done by international actors who have more resources, technical capability and time than you, and have far fewer morals.
You want a specific outcome to this election? So do Russia and China. They’re a lot better at this than you are and are orders of magnitude more invested in it.
I’m spitballing for a conversation. I don’t think I’m a pivotal strategic player.
Edit: that said, I do think what you said is certainly worth mention, so I want to get ahead of my defensiveness.
So to continue, do you think that such a tactic would be valuable for a state funded interest?
Don’t stoop to their level
Unfortunately there’s no version of politics without gaming. Merit is clearly not enough to win alone, however I do believe all things being equal the participants with stronger merit are more resilient against the games.
Bruh. “They go low, we go high” gave us fucking Trump. That strategy didn’t work. We are not trying it again in a nearly identical context.
And if you start a brigading campaign against them, it’ll just be used to raise their platform.
They do this anyways
Then why prove them right?
Because then we also get the benefits of playing the game
The game is pointless imo
Your opinion doesn’t really matter when the game is materially useful in reality.
Because not showing up to a propaganda war is a serious tactical loss that can and does have strategic implications on the outcome of the election.
We are fighting the fucking fascists, dude. No quarter can or should be given. We are not polite to fascists. We do not respect fascists. We do not offer aid to fascists. We harm them whenever and wherever we reasonably can, because they’re fucking doing that to the rest of us as a matter of their ideology. We do not extend an assumption of good faith. We punch them in the face and kick them when they’re down.
The only - and I do mean ONLY - exception is when a fascist says “I want to get out, I don’t want to be a fascist any more”. Help those people. They are trying to escape. They are returning to sanity. The rest MUST be regarded as a lost cause, because that’s the ideology they’re supporting.
This is not a point I will ever compromise on.
If this comment gets me a ban for inciting violence, I’m ok with that. I’ll ride it out. But YOU: do not come here and sympathy troll for fascists. That is not going to fucking fly.
Haha. Sympathy troll? I hope you don’t get banned because you’re entertaining. I guess saying not to do the same thing shitty people do and to rise above it is me giving them sympathy? You got some wires crossed. You’re what I consider a left radical. And don’t misunderstand. I’m a left-leaning libertarian. We are one of the weirdest groups on the left. Like expecting personal freedoms in a social government. I get it’s odd, but you are saying that the only way to win is to troll the trolls. What does that accomplish besides vilifying us further down the road instead of continuing to let Trump’s GOP continue to implode.
And if people do decide that they feel their side is wrong and switch to the other side, it is fine. However (through experience), you are the only person I’ve interacted with who has said that. So with all evidence that I have seen you are minority in that belief. Everyone else has absolute condemnation in their mind
lol I’m really not a “left radical”.
My political identity, if I had to put a name to it, would probably be closest to “Scandinavian Socialist”, but there’s a fair bit of nuance that doesn’t quite match up. For instance: I’m a strong proponent of right to privacy, but I fully disagree that personal freedoms are incompatible with socialism. They’re orthogonal, most of the time, and when they do intersect, reasonable governments (see: scandanavian socialism) do try to find the least onerous balance that preserves the common good, while restricting personal rights as lightly as possible. Its government. It’s not perfect, it’s not going to ever be perfect, and there are TONS of interrelated, often contradictory goals that they must balance. But from what I’ve read and seen, it does seem like that system often gets a pretty positive result in a very broad swath of categories.
Anyways: I’m not talking about trolls, or “shitty people”, in general. I’m talking about fascist trolls - the most important component of that term being fascist. I’m perfectly happy to ignore or mess with garden-variety trolls, but the fascism flavored ones are different - particularly because they’re having a distressing amount of success all over the world these days in getting into power. If someone judges me for being shitty to a fascist, I’m going not only not care about their opinion, but also judge them for being sympathetic to a fascist. Fascism is a special and exceptional case, and different rules apply when dealing with it.
Stoop lower and fucking destroy them
Dig a pit below their levels so they’ll fall in it, then fill the pit.
Put some lava there. Knowing them, they’re probably digging straight down.
