Once we isolate key people, we look for people we know are in their upstream – people that they read posts from, but who themselves are less influential. (This uses the same social media graph built before.) We then either start flame wars with bots to derail the conversations that are influencing influential people (think nonsense reddit posts about conspiracies that sound like Markov chains of nonsense other people have said), or else send off specific tasks for sockpuppets (changing this wording of an idea here; cause an ideological split there; etc).
The goal is to keep opinions we don’t want fragmented and from coalescing in to a single voice for long enough that the memes we do want can, at which points they’ve gotten a head start on going viral and tend to capture a larger-than-otherwise share of media attention.
(All of the stuff above is basically the “standard” for online PR (usually farmed out to an LLC with a generic name working for the marketing firm contracted by the big firm; deniability is a word frequently said), once you’re above a certain size.)
Pure evil. They reference the banality of evil, but that only applies if you have no clue your part of it. That user is most definitely evil and immoral. Pretending like you just gave up and are doing it because you’re part of another group of people is just hiding behind a facade. They know what they’re doing is immoral, yet they call it amoral. They know what they’re doing is making things worse, yet they say FB is doing it and nobody thinks all those people are evil.
Pure evil.
Yeah it was a really wild read that then the other person agreed with them. It felt like reading psychopath diaries.