Difference between revisions of "Astroturfing (Global)"

Etymologically, the term derives from AstroTurf, a brand of artificial turf which, when spelt in lower case, is commonly used to refer to artificial grass in general. The metaphorical adaption of the term is commonly attributed to US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who in 1985 complained about the large volume of letters he received, ostensibly from members of the public, which he viewed as part of a hidden organised campaign by insurance companies to protect their interests. ‘A fellow from Texas can tell the difference between grassroots and astroturf,’ Bentsen stated (Sager 2009<ref>Sager, R. 2009. ‘Keep off the astroturf’, New York Times, 18 August, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/opinion/19sager.html?_r=0</ref>). The concept of ‘astroturfing’ is thus intrinsically bound up with the concepts of ‘grassroots support’ and ‘grassroots activity’. ‘Grassroots activity’ refers to coordinated political or social activity spontaneously generated and organised from the ‘bottom up’ by ordinary citizens. The use of the term ‘grassroots’ in this sense can be traced back to the US Senator Albert Jeremiah Beverege, who in 1912 referred to the Progressive Party as the party that ‘has come from the grass roots. It has grown from the soil of people’s hard necessities’ (Samoilenko 2014: 189<ref>Samoilenko, S. 2014. ‘Campaigns, grassroots’, in K. Harvey (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social media and politics, Vol. 3, pp. 189-194. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</ref>). In the case of astroturfing, the connotation is that genuine grassroots support does not exist but has been artificially replicated, just as astroturf replicates real grass.

Etymologically, the term derives from AstroTurf, a brand of artificial turf which, when spelt in lower case, is commonly used to refer to artificial grass in general. The metaphorical adaption of the term is commonly attributed to US Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who in 1985 complained about the large volume of letters he received, ostensibly from members of the public, which he viewed as part of a hidden organised campaign by insurance companies to protect their interests. ‘A fellow from Texas can tell the difference between grassroots and astroturf,’ Bentsen stated (Sager 2009<ref>Sager, R. 2009. ‘Keep off the astroturf’, New York Times, 18 August, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/19/opinion/19sager.html?_r=0</ref>). The concept of ‘astroturfing’ is thus intrinsically bound up with the concepts of ‘grassroots support’ and ‘grassroots activity’. ‘Grassroots activity’ refers to coordinated political or social activity spontaneously generated and organised from the ‘bottom up’ by ordinary citizens. The use of the term ‘grassroots’ in this sense can be traced back to the US Senator Albert Jeremiah Beverege, who in 1912 referred to the Progressive Party as the party that ‘has come from the grass roots. It has grown from the soil of people’s hard necessities’ (Samoilenko 2014: 189<ref>Samoilenko, S. 2014. ‘Campaigns, grassroots’, in K. Harvey (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social media and politics, Vol. 3, pp. 189-194. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</ref>). In the case of astroturfing, the connotation is that genuine grassroots support does not exist but has been artificially replicated, just as astroturf replicates real grass.

A typical pre-internet form of astroturfing was paid-for letter writing campaigns, such as that referred to by Bentsen when he coined the term. Such campaigns were used by corporate clients as a lobbying tool, with the aim of convincing political representatives that their cause enjoyed greater public support than was in fact the case (Lyon and Maxwell 2004: 563-4<ref>Lyon, T. P. and Maxwell, J. W. 2004. ‘Astroturf: Interest group lobbying and corporate strategy’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 13(4): 561-97.</ref>). However, the growth of internet use, in particular social media and crowdsourcing platforms, has dramatically increased the range and scope of astroturfing behaviours. The cloak of anonymity makes the internet a highly effective platform for astroturfing, while the growing importance of online and crowdsourced information provides a powerful incentive for engaging in it.

A typical pre-internet form of astroturfing was paid-for letter writing campaigns, such as that referred to by Bentsen when he coined the term. Such campaigns were used by corporate clients as a lobbying tool, with the aim of convincing political representatives that their cause enjoyed greater public support than was in fact the case (Lyon and Maxwell 2004: 563-4<ref>Lyon, T. P. and Maxwell, J. W. 2004. ‘Astroturf: Interest group lobbying and corporate strategy’, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 13(4): 561-97.</ref>). However, the growth of internet use, in particular social media and crowdsourcing platforms, has dramatically increased the range and scope of astroturfing behaviours. The cloak of anonymity makes the internet a highly effective platform for astroturfing, while the growing importance of online and crowdsourced information provides a powerful incentive for engaging in it.

Political campaigns in the future will be progressively threatened by online astroturfing in the form of social bots and other imposters posing as autonomous individuals on the internet, with the intent of promoting a specific agenda. As astroturfing technology develops it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish fake personas from real individuals (Bienkov 2012<ref>Bienkov, A. 2012. ‘Astroturfing: What is it and why does it matter?’, Theguardian.com, 8 February, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/what-is-astroturfing</ref>), which poses a threat to open democratic debate as well as the utility of crowdsourcing platforms such as consumer review websites. There is a very real danger, in both politics and business, that participants will be forced to spend money on astroturfing just to remain competitive with their rivals. In game theory terminology astroturfing is thus a form of non-optimal behaviour known as a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, since money is sunk on rival disinformation which effectively cancels out both sides. It also represents a ‘social loss’ (Simmons 2011: 187-8<ref>Simmons, R. T. 2011. Beyond Politics. The Roots of Government Failure (Oakland, California: The Independent Institute)</ref>), as resources are spent on ‘non-productive’ uses rather than those which generate wealth or add value.

Political campaigns in the future will be progressively threatened by online astroturfing in the form of social bots and other imposters posing as autonomous individuals on the internet, with the intent of promoting a specific agenda. As astroturfing technology develops it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish fake personas from real individuals (Bienkov 2012<ref>Bienkov, A. 2012. ‘Astroturfing: What is it and why does it matter?’, Theguardian.com, 8 February, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/08/what-is-astroturfing</ref>), which poses a threat to open democratic debate as well as the utility of crowdsourcing platforms such as consumer review websites. There is a very real danger, in both politics and business, that participants will be forced to spend money on astroturfing just to remain competitive with their rivals. In game theory terminology astroturfing is thus a form of non-optimal behaviour known as a ‘prisoner’s dilemma’, since money is sunk on rival disinformation which effectively cancels out both sides. It also represents a ‘social loss’ (Simmons 2011: 187-8<ref>Simmons, R. T. 2011. Beyond Politics. The Roots of Government Failure (Oakland, California: The Independent Institute)</ref>), as resources are spent on ‘non-productive’ uses rather than those which generate wealth or add value.

==References and Bibliography==

==References and Bibliography==

# Snowdon, C. 2014. The Sock Doctrine. What can be done about state-funded political activism?, IEA Discussion Paper No. 53. London: Institute of Economic Affairs

# Snowdon, C. 2014. The Sock Doctrine. What can be done about state-funded political activism?, IEA Discussion Paper No. 53. London: Institute of Economic Affairs