Is the AI backlash actually a Chinese psy-op? | The Global Story

The BBC's Global Story podcast, hosted by Tristan Redmond, features social media investigations correspondent Mariana Spring discussing accusations of foreign intervention in three recent incidents. The overarching theme is the increasing prevalence of these accusations and the difficulty in discerning genuine foreign influence from misinformation or existing societal divisions. The first story concerns Elon Musk's company X accusing China of orchestrating an online misinformation campaign against data centers in the US. Spring explains that while concerns about data centers' environmental impact and resource consumption are legitimate, X alleges that Chinese-connected accounts have been deliberately posting negative, AI-generated content (termed "sloppaganda") in English to undermine American AI development. X claims to have identified a bot farm of approximately 200,000 accounts, with 200 specifically identified as manipulating the debate on AI and energy policy. Spring notes that while 200 accounts might seem small, a limited number of inauthentic accounts can have a disproportionate impact, as seen with health misinformation during the pandemic. She highlights that distinguishing inauthentic accounts is harder now, and they often co-opt existing conversations. X provided examples of posts, but the reach and original posts were difficult to verify, and some profiles appeared to have been removed. Spring points out that these tactics have evolved; previously, bots aimed to sow division directly, but now they often latch onto pre-existing, legitimate concerns, making it harder to prove foreign interference. She questions X's transparency regarding the reach of these posts and whether they are as quick to call out similar activities by other states. The second story delves into the migrant crisis in Ceuta, a Spanish enclave bordering Morocco. Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez accused Israel and Russia of spreading misinformation to exacerbate the influx of migrants. Spring investigated and found that while there has been content about Ceuta for a while, the recent surge was linked to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of a change in Spanish processing procedures for migrants. This misinformation, spread on platforms like Facebook groups and Instagram, presented an overly simplistic and aspirational view of reaching mainland Europe via Ceuta, often encouraging people to travel. Spring's investigation into these accounts, which appeared to be primarily based in Morocco and Spain, found no evidence of Russian or Israeli state involvement. Instead, they seemed to be real individuals encouraging others to travel, sometimes for payment, offering advice on how to reach the enclave. Sanchez's accusation, Spring suggests, stems from the subsequent co-option of the situation by pro-Russia and pro-Israel accounts that inflamed the discourse after the initial influx. These accounts, some of which appeared to be bots, exploited the existing, inflammatory political conversation surrounding migration. She emphasizes that this is a common tactic of foreign influence: piggybacking on existing divisions rather than creating them from scratch. The European External Action Service, while confirming Russian attempts to exploit the situation via social media, found no conclusive evidence of a foreign state-organized disinformation campaign triggering the crisis. Spring argues that politicians like Sanchez may use accusations of foreign interference as a scapegoat, deflecting responsibility for migration policies or the misinterpretation of laws. She also criticizes the focus on foreign states, suggesting that social media companies like Meta, which allowed such content to proliferate, should also be held accountable. The third story shifts to a more physical incident: an alleged Russian drone attack on Leipzig airport in Germany. Germany accused Russia of being responsible for a drone carrying an explosive device discovered at the airport in August, with investigators suspecting a second drone also caused damage. The German interior minister characterized it as part of Russia's "hybrid operations." Russia, through Vladimir Putin, denied the accusations, suggesting they were driven by domestic political issues in Germany and questioning the evidence. Russian state media even likened it to a Nazi-style false flag attack. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, however, described it as an attack by "Russian operatives on European Union soil." Spring notes that while Russia has a history of sabotage and encouraging illegal acts, proving direct state involvement in such physical attacks can be complex due to obfuscated chains of command. However, she considers sabotage allegations more credible than social media interference because they are easier to prove with concrete evidence and inter-authority cooperation. She also points out that Russia frequently uses the "false flag" defense, a disinformation tactic that has become popular in conspiracy circles. Spring concludes that real-world incidents like the drone attack highlight the difficulty in proving the influence of online operations, whereas physical sabotage's impact is more readily demonstrated. She suggests that in such cases, the options are often binary: either the accused state is responsible, or another actor is, rather than a complex web of contributing factors as is often seen with bot networks. Finally, Spring discusses which type of foreign intervention – hybrid warfare like drone attacks or online operations – yields a better return for Russian operators. She posits that social media interference is likely more effective due to its low cost, ease of algorithmic manipulation, and the fact that polarized online movements often exist independently. It's also harder to trace and prove state involvement, allowing for plausible deniability. This tactic benefits states by obscuring their role, causing division, and undermining the perceived competence of targeted politicians. She concludes that social media platforms are advantageous for those seeking to cause disruption and division.