If You're Going To Put Up Fake Grassroots Videos On YouTube, Shouldn't You At Least Pretend To Be Real People?
from the just-a-thought dept
A political reporter for the Star Telegram in Texas noticed something rather interesting after a Republican National Committee spokesperson sent over some YouTube videos, combining some news clips with snippets of comments from presidential candidates: none of the videos said who they were made by and all of them were put up under odd usernames that looked like someone had just typed randomly on a keyboard -- and all of which only had a single video uploaded. Usernames like skdjhfjhse, asdlkfjasdlk and skfhsdfsd don't exactly look like real people posting user-generated content -- and they're not. When asked about it, the RNC admitted that it had made the videos itself and posted them online. Why not post them under the RNC's official YouTube channel? Well, the RNC claims that it's because these weren't television ads, which is also the excuse it gives for not including a "the RNC is responsible for this ad" disclaimer in the videos. However, it seems pretty clear that the idea was to get these videos up for more viral purposes, suggesting something of a "grassroots" support to the production. However, if you're going to do some astroturfing, you might as well at least have the fake "grassroots" supporters look real. Merely typing in a bunch of characters from the central row of your keyboard is a pretty immediate tipoff that these aren't real people.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
well duh
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
people named skdjhrjhse, etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Lawsuit!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
NO POLITICAL STUFF
I'm speaking as a Geek.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: viral schmiral
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'm speaking as a Geek."
Almost exactly what I was going to post, the only difference is I am going to "pull this" (click the delete button)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NO POLITICAL STUFF
Speaking as a fellow geek, I prefer to be informed of times where politicians attempt to subvert technology to meet their own ends.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: people named skdjhrjhse, etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Seen that name before!!!!!!
Maybe they do that to finance their campaigns...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NO POLITICAL STUFF
Sorry. I don't think of this as even remotely "political." It's technology: it's about how campaigns are using YouTube. I would have written the same post if the Democrats were doing it. It had nothing to do with *who* and everything to do with *what*. Seeing as it's about YouTube, it certainly seemed reasonable for the site.
I'm sorry you feel otherwise.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuit!
You could register a trade mark on it, giving you the right to identify something of value with "skdjhrjhse", stopping competitors from identifying their competing product as "skdjhrjhse".
You could copyright it, saying that "skdjhrjhse" is your original work assuming no one else has used that before. Of course to actually defend that copyright you would probably have to prove that it was more then a random set of letters.
But as "skdjhrjhse" is not a description of a process or idea it is not patentable.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuit!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Here's an interesting question:
At what point will election laws require the parties to actually claim responsibility for their advertising that isn't on TV? Because we're right at the leading edge of a paradigm shift where traditional TV is losing ground to more interactive entertainment, and is also shifting to a more "on-demand" focus. Why aren't the political parties (or candidates) required to stamp their name on ALL of the advertising that they're doing?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NO POLITICAL STUFF
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re-interare
This is not a technology motivated article. There are some interesting points in this article.If the title had been something like
"NRC poorly attempts Viral marketing with spam like user names"
And the content focus had been re-written this would be an awesome "Tech" article. Or even the legal issues discussed above.
I could be wrong but this article and a few others i have seen reeks of bias.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NO POLITICAL STUFF
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: people named skdjhrjhse, etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
astroturf
I think the term asstard is appropriate here.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: people named skdjhrjhse, etc.
And you must think that cutting taxes (cutting revenue) while maintaining our presence in Iraq (increased spending) is a great way to balance the budget. I bet you also think that Michael Brown really did do "a hell of a job."
Two can play this game, d-bag.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: NO POLITICAL STUFF
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Pull the plug?
So if this was about a telecommunications company trying to influence public opinion, that is somehow not political. It's not an article about politics, but as how technology is being used by politicians and current policymakers.
I am a bit perplexed how a headline in an Igoogle feed would move someone to kill off an information source otherwise seen as valuable. The best thing to do is not click on the [+] or the link and you never have to see anything. Sheeh!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re-interare
Huh? Yes, it was entirely a technology motivated article. As I said, I've taken on Democrats as much as Republicans (I'm neither), and if it had been the Dems doing this, I would have written the article the same way.
I mentioned that it was the Republicans, because that's who was doing it. It had nothing to do with political bias. If it was the Dems, it would have been the same. There was no bias here.
I dislike both parties equally.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
adksfhaldghl adslhglkwej asdlkgowek.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: people named skdjhrjhse, etc.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment