Agree; this could all happen, yes. What my original comment was trying to convey—and your reply adds to—is that the variables and complexities required to be maintained by X/Musk to ensure that the lie they are defending are hugely disproportionate to other operations that can field similar results. It is also an incredibly high-risk operation for X/Musk, in that a collusion operation of this magnitude risks global repercussions. The required amount of time, effort and resources against politicians or reporters wouldn’t be worth X/Musk’s investment when simpler techniques can be executed at lower risk and require far less resources.
It really just comes down to a cost/benefit/risk analysis. Do we start fake-posting official accounts and risk massive legal and public fallout? Or do we pay Putin $X million to spin up a bunch of bots and push a particular message that could sway public opinion in a similar direction, with very little traceable evidence and virtually no risk to X/Musk?
testfactor@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Sure, I agree that it’s a stupid idea from an effort vs reward perspective. It’s at best unnecessary.
But your initial position was that it couldn’t be done without being easy to prove that it was a fabrication, and I think you’re wrong about that.
I think that they are more than capable of doing it in such a way that it’s wholly word-vs-word, with no forensic evidence pointing to it being doctored. And the idea that they would do that is outlandish enough that most reasonable people would assume the post was legitimate and that the “offender” was lying about it to try and deflect blame.
It’s the classic, "No, I didn’t post that list of porn search terms to my Twitter! I was hacked!! Totally somebody hacked me and did that. Wasn’t me at all!!” But in this case it’d be something that was a pretext for the government to arrest them.