In recent years we have witnessed an explosion of knowledge concerning the various ways human brains work and how this affects our behavior. There is still much to be learned, of course, but at this point there seems to be sufficient new information to apply some of it to practical problems in our society. However, this new knowledge can also be exploited in ways never before anticipated, using tools and media that were previously unavailable.

Another perhaps less recent trend has been the increasing polarization of political discourse. Some have theorized that social networking has promoted in-group isolation and reduced cross-ideology exposure, but other studies have suggested that there are underlying neurological traits that can explain our politic divisions. Improving communication between the two main categories of conservatives and liberals might be facilitated by better understanding the contrasting psychologies. But this understanding of how to effectively communicate to specific groups might also perhaps be used for propaganda purposes. To further explore this I would like to relate some findings from cognitive neuroscience to a current political polemic, the gun control debate, and propose artificial intelligence as an aid in communication across the barriers imposed by our differing brains. I will also cite some of the dangers connected with emerging sciences which may seriously challenge democracy as we have known it.

Understanding the politics related to gun control in the United States of America leads to explorations into the areas of history, mythology, commerce and psychology. One of the strangest things that distinguishes the United States from most other countries is our deep fascination with guns. This preoccupation can be traced well back into American history, and there are some practical factors in its inception. In recent decades, however, what was originally a place of significance in our nation’s history has been elevated by some to essentially a totem that is considered to be inseparable from the very essence of our nation’s identity and, indeed, a necessary element for our continued existence as a free society. This sense of devotion to guns as a requirement for democracy and free speech has prompted proponents to term the right to own firearms “America’s first freedom.” The National Rifle Association (NRA) even bills itself as “America’s longest-standing civil rights organization.”

When I happened across the NRA magazine entitled America’s 1st Freedom, I thought it must be about freedom of speech. I was confused to find it concerned gun rights. Gun control is usually connected with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, so how can gun ownership be termed “America’s first freedom”? This is how Donald Trump put it: “It has been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the right to keep and bear arms protects all of our rights, which is so true. We’re the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.”¹ He may very well be correct, at least concerning the uniqueness of the Second Amendment. But the uniqueness of the Second Amendment must make one wonder how other democracies survive without it. And how did we end up with it.

Professor Carl T. Bogus of Roger Williams University School of Law in Rhode Island published an article, “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” providing some insight into the genesis of this strange law. According to Dr. Bogus, the Second Amendment “was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control.”²

The contrasting narrative that gun ownership is somehow necessary to maintaining our individual liberties is an idea that some would have us believe is enshrined in our nation’s history and founding documents. Dr. Bogus has revealed, however, that a careful examination of history disproves this central tenet of those opposing gun control. Also in evidence against the guns-for-liberty argument are the freedoms found in many other nations without widespread gun ownership. The fact that politicians, industry and enthusiast groups spread this myth and apparently believe it themselves is a good reminder that so-called “fake news” is not just politically inspired lies about the present, as it also encompasses the past. There is a contemporary purpose here, either political or commercial, and sometimes both. Of particular concern for the purposes of this discussion, however, is the fact that the distortions introduced into the gun rights debate can generally be described as threat-related, magnifying the dangers of our society and proposing guns as a solution. A particularly strident example of such thinking would be the term “Second Amendment solution” attributed to Nevada U. S. Senatorial candidate Sharron Angle.³ This phrase suggests a Constitutional endorsement of gun violence. Rand Paul went even further, in 2016 tweeting a quote from Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at a government when it becomes tyrannical!" This idea was even echoed following the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise by a disturbed Bernie Sanders supporter armed with an assault-style rifle and a semi-automatic pistol. Republican representative Mo Brooks, in responding to the question of whether the shooting influenced his thinking on gun control, responded, apparently oblivious to the irony, "The Second Amendment right to bear arms is to ensure that we always have a republic."

Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA, summed up their defense of virtually unrestricted access to guns by saying, “The NRA doesn’t envision the primary threat to American’s freedoms coming from an external enemy or even domestic terrorists, but rather our own government.” In reacting to the Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1995, LaPierre said, “The semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights.”⁴

Dr. Bogus’s research, however, tells a much different story concerning the intent of the Second Amendment. Its original intent had more to do with oppression of African Americans and Native Americans than a safeguard against government oppression of majority Americans, but this story doesn’t sell guns or support opposition to sensible gun control laws. Movies about heroic Americans, which seem to be primary sources of historic information for many, have avoided depicting the violent oppression of African Americans. Retellings of American history tend to minimize the role of slavery in shaping our present society, especially when there is some contemporary political issue under discussion. The many vestiges of slavery in modern American society are inconvenient truths.

The argument that private citizens can, and even should, employ violence or the threat of violence to protect their rights would seem indefensible on its face in view of the facts of our nation’s history. Following their emancipation, African Americans were free to own guns just like any other citizens: however, this did not prevent them from being denied full citizenship and participation in American society, although gun ownership may have deterred some of the terrorism targeting them. Likewise Native Americans, despite having some of the best soldiers and small arms of their time, were ultimately unable to resist their subjugation. Despite their gun ownership, African Americans and Native Americans were the victims of oppressive governments. Organizations such as the NRA have suggested that with guns ordinary citizens can effectively confront an oppressive government, but the only threat to freedom that is consistently cited is the restriction of gun ownership. So we have a narrative in which Americans would kill other Americans to preserve a right which was originally established to facilitate the oppression of Americans by other Americans. This is the absurd scenario characterized most famously by Charlton Heston, a five-term NRA president, saying, “I have only five words for you: From my cold, dead hands.”⁵

With strong roots in our nation’s violent and oppressive history, we have a society in the United States where the ownership of guns is widely accepted and at some level even encouraged. Not everybody is on board with the enthusiasm over guns, but support for gun control falls along the same lines of political division as many other issues. The alarming facts are, and have been for decades, that we have one of the highest murder rates among Western industrialized nations, and even gun accidents claim hundreds of lives every year. Recent studies have shown that toddlers with guns have killed more people than terrorists.⁶ Given the toll that guns take, one might assume that the debate over guns would straddle normal political divisions; that given the weight of evidence that widespread gun ownership has resulted in a plague of gun violence, people who have varying opinions on other, nonrelated political issues might come together to seek a solution to the USA’s gun problem. However, that is not the case. Despite the conservative tendency to place a high premium on “law and order,” they very rarely support measures to reduce gun violence. Proponents of gun control are almost uniformly liberal.

There is evidence of a neurological reason behind this pattern linking various conservative views. Cognitive neuroscience has managed to identify a set of characteristics that have a high correlation to each other as well as to conservative political views in U.S. voters.⁷ A number of these traits could potentially influence a person’s perception of gun control laws. Some of the studies exploring the differences between conservatives and liberals have focused upon differences in brain structures. One study published in 2013 revealed that conservatives tended to have larger right amygdalae, a portion of the brain that, among other things, processes fear-related inputs.⁸ The amygdala is more sensitive to negative inputs, and has been associated with negativity bias, in which the brain puts more emphasis on negative information than positive. Predicting political identification as conservative or liberal based upon the structure of the amygdala is reported to be 71% accurate. People who are more fearful and who have a heightened attention to threats might be more inclined to seek the perceived security provided by gun possession despite the fact that in reality they are no more threatened than other citizens, and that guns sometimes end up killing the owners or a family member. Many statements by gun control opponents clearly appeal to fear such as this statement by NRA president Wayne LaPierre: “We live in a dangerous world. The enemies of freedom are real and we need to be ready.”⁹

The original needs for guns to defend against attacks by Native Americans or slaves, as well as to hunt game, were relegated to unimportance in the 20th century. The country became less rural and city dwellers did not have many practical uses for firearms or the facilities or open spaces in which to use them for sport. On the other hand, the role of firearms as a means of personal security became relatively more common. Manufacturers appealed to this market with an emphasis on handguns that could be used for personal defense. Considering the nature of the product, it was very much in the gun industry’s interest to emphasize the sorts of threats that a gun might defend against, namely assaults by other people, or common crime. According to the neurological data, the people to whom these threat warnings are most impactful will more often be conservatives.

Of course, gun industry products can be broken down into different segments, and these product segments might each be served by marketing messages tailored to each product. Aside from handguns, a huge segment of the gun industry that was very small several decades ago are so-called assault rifles, which cannot be easily carried or concealed, but have much greater firepower than handguns. These are guns that are derived from military weapons. They are generally not considered ideal hunting weapons, since they are not optimized for accuracy or stopping power. They are also not the weapon of choice for home defense or personal protection. They are, however, well suited for combat with similarly armed persons as might happen during a war or insurrection. Generating fear of such a possibility would aid sales, and to some extent this is what the NRA does by promoting anti-government sentiments.

The idea of citizens arming themselves for protection against the government didn’t originate with the NRA. Some historians trace the modern popularization of that concept back to the Black Panthers who, on May 2, 1967, claimed their Second Amendment rights by appearing at the California State capitol with guns. It wasn’t long, however, before gun owners began to see themselves as potential victims of oppression, aided by statements such as the one issued by Senator Ted Cruz: “The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t for just protecting hunting rights, and it’s not only to safeguard your right to target practice. It is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny.”¹⁰ Statements such as this are, as well as political, in essence advertising for people selling military style weapons and all the associated accoutrement such as extra-large magazines, thousand round cases of ammunition, and even items such as body armor, night vision equipment and armor piercing bullets. In protecting your access to these powerful weapons, Ted Cruz in effect claims to be protecting American freedoms as well as Americans themselves.

Linking gun ownership with distrust and even fear of government was a late 20th Century innovation that contributed, with other factors, to not only soaring assault weapon sales but also a more conservative Republican party. In fact, one might say that during the middle of the century the Republican Party captured the allegiance of several groups with specific fears. These included racists who feared integration and reduction of political power, rabid anti-Communists and anti-socialists and Christian anti-secularists of different sorts who came to form what has been termed the Religious Right. Fear among conservative whites had reached such a level by 2011 that a survey revealed many whites perceived themselves – rather than African Americans – as the primary victims of racial discrimination.¹¹ Fear-inducing political speech, including that propagated by the NRA and other gun rights groups, were quite likely responsible for this change. The term “Free, white and 21” had largely been devalued in the perception of conservative white America.

This is not intended to convey the impression that politicians and the firearms industry are the only source of fear-inducing messages in our society. The news media, for instance, has been shown to emphasize ethnic minorities as criminals and whites as victims, a strategy that is perhaps good for circulation and ratings, but has the effect of increasing racial fears and no doubt further polarizing citizens by widening the gap between those who are more influenced by such messages and the rest of the citizenry.¹²

According to psychiatrist and psychologist Dr. Gail Saltz the fear response of conservatives, along with their additional needs of stability and structure, have even affected research into gun violence as a public health concern, leading to funding being denied the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for that purpose. Conservative thinkers will tend to avoid or neutralize threats to cherished values, and science can be frequently viewed as one of those threats. This, of course, only compounds the problem of communication between conservatives and those who value science and rely upon it, or scientific authorities, to evaluate information.

The differing conservative and liberal world views are difficult to reconcile. Dr. Saltz proposes that each group tailor their communication to appeal to the concerns of the other.¹³ For example, regarding the gay marriage debate Dr. Saltz suggests that a liberal addressing a conservative might find ways to incorporate concepts such as loyalty, stability, and religious belief, which are highly valued in the conservative mindset. However, this creates a difficult task for the person who feels that the issue is rooted in a question of basic, secular human rights and needs no further justification.

Gun-loving Trump supporter Debbie Dooley addressed the topic of communicating the idea of climate change to conservatives in a recent video posted on the Vox website. First of all, she says you can’t use the term “climate change.” “My dad is a retired Baptist minister,” she advises, “He told me that in order to get people to hear your message, you have to get them in the church.” Apparently she means this metaphorically, going on to say, “That is a mistake a lot of environmentalists make when talking to Republicans and conservatives about solar, about clean energy. They lead off with climate change. If you deliver the message of energy freedom, energy choice, competition, national security, innovation, all of a sudden you will have a receptive audience. If you lead off with climate change, they’re not going to pay a bit of attention to anything else you say. They have been brainwashed for decades into believing we’re not damaging the environment.”¹⁴

Stanford sociologist Robb Willer and Matthew Feinberg of the University of Toronto advocate what they termed "reframed moral appeals" to effectively communicate to those with a differing set of values. In their paper _From Gulf to Bridge - When Do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence?, the authors present evidence derived from six studies concerning attitudes on political issues that usually divide liberals and conservatives. According to the abstract, their study suggests "that (a) political advocates spontaneously make arguments grounded in their own moral values, not the values of those targeted for persuasion, and (b) political arguments reframed to appeal to the moral values of those holding the opposing political position are typically more effective."¹⁵ The moral values evaluated by Willer and Feinberg were the five identified in Moral Foundations Theory: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation.¹⁶ Liberals tend to emphasize the first two, while conservatives are more focused on the other values. In their six studies they reported significant success crafting arguments that appealed to the target's moral values rather than those of the presenter.

Theory of mind posits an ability to apprehend to some degree the thoughts of others, including their intents and beliefs, and is not necessarily limited to humans. This ability is normally based upon a projection of ourselves, and enables us to communicate much more effectively, at least when it works. Many liberals are flummoxed by conservatives who are not swayed by the preponderance of scientific evidence and their frequent resistance to scientific authority. These liberals will also have a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that the thing really standing in the way of agreement on what they may consider basic facts, to actually be a matter of differing moral standards. Conservatives will encounter a similar, symmetric challenge in expressing themselves to liberals, or even really understanding them. Moral cognition has been linked with activity in the amygdala, so perhaps the very structural differences of the two brains will affect not only our responses to threats, but also our formation of moral values.¹⁷ The ability to construct messages that will avoid the triggers and traps of a brain which functions by a different set of principles must be a daunting task, even given data regarding how other brains think and what values they hold.

A solution of sorts may be found in Artificial Intelligence (AI). Computers are already capable of rudimentary language translation, but bridging the conservative/liberal gap will require a much more sophisticated level of computing than is currently in place. In addition, it is possible that our understanding of brain function and psychology is not yet sufficiently sophisticated to design strategies to overcome our biases. However the ability to potentially develop a thinking machine that would be capable of processing information independently of human biases is something that might enhance our abilities to come to compromises and understanding in a manner never before achieved. In addition, qualities such as emotional intelligence will need to be incorporated into the AI, but this skill would be important in any AI designed to be flexible and adaptable in its interactions with humans. So we may anticipate that these challenges will eventually be met.

Artificial Intelligence has already been employed to write speeches. Valentin Kassarnig of the University of Massachusetts Amherst has created a system to generate political speeches.¹⁸ Kassarnig fed his computer Congressional speeches from 2005 and set the machine to the task of analyzing them to find patterns of words, then used those patterns to create new speeches. The machine knows the political affiliations influencing its source material, and can therefore produce speeches in Republican or Democratic styles. The results are passably coherent and grammatically correct. Unfortunately, they do not yet break any new ground in political discourse, but such a system might be a good starting point from which to develop an AI that would leverage cognitive neuroscience to reformulate ideas into renditions that people with diverse brain structures are more likely to accept. If we do reach the point where AI is generating speeches which will actually be delivered by politicians, we may reasonably ask who the real leader is, man or machine?

Developments in this area may well be driven by more immediately monetizable activities such as marketing, where psychological profiles could be employed by AI to develop products and advertising for customers that human marketing professionals may have difficulty understanding. AI may be anticipated to move beyond its limited role in customer service to handle more sophisticated customer interactions such as sales, which require some of the same sorts of psychological and “emotional” skills as effective political discourse. Perhaps at some future time robocalls before elections will not only ascertain your preference and urge supporters to vote, they may also engage in attempts to persuade non-supporters. From the strictly technical perspective, in the absence of any regulatory measures, the collection and exploitation of “big data” will make it increasingly difficult for individuals to conceal their political views and avoid being targeted by AI-created messaging specific to each person.

Another issue that might arise out of the use of AI to promote political ideas among voters is the potential superiority of the machine as a political debater. Just as humans have become hopelessly outmatched by computer chess opponents, might a citizen be somewhat at the mercy of a skillful AI, armed with strategies based upon neuroscience and psychology, in a discussion of politics or philosophy? In such a case might the skill of the cybernetic proponent become more important than the inherent merit of the idea? The nefarious application of AI could potentially undermine the “marketplace of ideas” and put democracy in the hands of those controlling the AI.

There might be certain means of regulating the application to AI to political campaigns, but in recent years the trend has been to reduce controls over political influence by individuals and institutions. And in the discussion of such controls, AI could be brought to bear to influence public opinion. The ideal of a level playing field for political discourse could be rendered obsolete. Even beyond that, there is yet another possibility which is potentially much more disturbing than having political arguments with genius robots. Just as an AI may perhaps be skilled in the art of persuasion and debate, might it also be programmed to become an expert liar and manipulator? The AI could, calculating the neurological characteristics of known voters, determine the optimal balance of truth and lies to entice support for an unscrupulous candidate. It would design statements and actions by the candidate that would maximize the chances of a political victory without the constraints of truthfulness or the welfare of the nation. We seem to have that already in some candidates, but a sufficiently astute AI could manage such a candidate even more skillfully, perhaps almost irresistibly to some voters.

There is evidence that some of these technologies have already been put to practical use. The political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica and its British affiliate, SCL Group, were said to play major roles in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign as well as the campaign to withdraw the UK from the European Union. According to the Leave ("Brexit") campaign's communications director Andy Wigmore, "Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert."¹⁹ Earlier, in 2006, SCL and Cambridge Analytica worked for Latvian oligarchs Andris Skele, and Ainars Slesers. The main theme of that SCL campaign was to divide Latvians and ethnic Russians by blaming the latter for the country’s economic problems. This strategy of scapegoating minority ethnic groups echoed through both the Trump campaign and Brexit. Fear-inducing messaging was at the heart of this effort, so it is not surprising that Cambridge Analytica has found its customer base among some of the most reactionary political forces on the planet, including the Trump campaign. In fact, Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon holds a seat on the board of Cambridge Analytica.²⁰ According to The Guardian, SCL has utilized methods of predicting political affiliations and other traits through analysis of Facebook behavior first demonstrated at the University of Cambridge’s Psychometrics Center. Many Facebook users provide the needed information when they take online quizzes.²¹ Now, with Steve Bannon ensconced within the White House itself, the opportunity for Cambridge Analytica to gain access to invaluable government data to further influence elections and public opinion both in the USA and abroad has produced alarm in some circles. This concern has been further heightened as the committee investigating Trump's allegations of widespread voter fraud has attempted to compile the most comprehensive database of nationwide voter data ever assembled in this country.

Even in the post-election atmosphere automated propaganda systems are being put to use, with their general strategy apparently to bolster a beleaguered Trump administration. When news emerged of Jared Kushner's clandestine meetings with Russian officials and bankers after the election, hundreds of automated Twitter accounts, called "bots," tweeted out links to a December 31, 2014 story about the Obama administration's efforts to resolve conflicts with the Russians. This activity led the right-wing news site The Drudge Report to feature the old story on May 29, 2017, with the implication that Kushner's contacts were similar to diplomatic efforts in the Obama administration. In March, Intelligence expert Clint Watts testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that Russian or Russian-backed entities tweet at Trump during times he is known to be using Twitter, and cited examples of Trump repeating false information that originated in fake news planted by the Russians.²²

AI is also being employed to generate YouTube videos with political content. Researcher Jonathan Albright found almost 7,000 videos that were machine-produced. They typically combine still photos in “slide show” fashion with an automated voice reading text from news stories.²³ Another weapon in online propaganda wars are the previously mentioned bots, producing messaging in social media attacking the targeted candidate and his or her supporters, sometimes with vulgar insults and at other times by spreading fake news. As in traditional politics, carefully tailored, negative, fear-inducing messaging proved effective. Bots were used heavily in both the Brexit and Trump campaigns, although by now they are employed by both sides in major contests. The funding for these bot campaigns, often conducted by Russian operators, has been hidden from election regulators.²⁴

The application of science and technology frequently includes some inherent dangers. Deeper knowledge of how the mind works, and of the varying cognitive patterns associated with political beliefs, may have the result of improving our understanding of each other, or it may facilitate the automation of demagoguery. This could have an effect just as devastating to society as any threat posed by technology. The time to start thinking about these issues is already upon us.

---

1. Donald Trump rally speech in Franklin, Tennessee 10/3/2015 ↩︎

2. Carl T. Bogus, “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment” University of California at Davis Law Review, Vol. 31 (1998) ↩︎

3. Anjeanette Damon, David McGrath Schwartz, Armed revolt part of Sharron Angle’s rhetoric, The Las Vegas Sun, June 17, 2010 ↩︎

4. NRA . . . WE MEANT THE OTHER “JACK-BOOTED THUGS”, Time Magazine, May 18, 1995, http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,3876,00.html ↩︎

5. Charlton Heston acceptance speech to NRA, May 19, 2001, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw ↩︎

6. Peter Holley ‘Guns don’t kill people, toddlers do’: The shocking new gun-control PSA focused on children, The Washington Post, October 17, 2016 ↩︎

7. Darren Schreiber et al., Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans, PLOS ONE, February 13, 2013, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052970 ↩︎

8. Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3092984/ ↩︎

9. Wayne LaPierre address to NRA, https://youtu.be/cWdrSYa8X4E ↩︎

10. Ted Cruz: 2nd Amendment Is ‘Ultimate Check Against Government Tyranny’ Talking Points Memo, April 16, 2016, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/ted-cruz-second-amendment-government-tyranny ↩︎

11. Michael I. Norton1 and Samuel R. Sommers, Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing. Perspectives on Psychological Science 2011 6: 215, http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1745691611406922 ↩︎

12. Mastro, Dana et al. (December 2009). “The Influence of Exposure to Depictions of Race and Crime in TV News on Viewer’s Social Judgments”. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. ↩︎

13. Liberal Brains Are Different from Conservative Brains, but Dialogue Is Still Possible, http://bigthink.com/videos/gail-saltz-the-brain-differences-of-liberals-versus-conservatives ↩︎

14. I’m a Tea Party conservative. Here’s how to win over Republicans on renewable energy http://www.vox.com/videos/2017/4/18/15339266/debbie-dooley-tea-party-conservative-republicans-renewable-energy ↩︎

15. From Gulf to Bridge - When Do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence? http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167215607842 ↩︎

16. http://www.moralfoundations.org/ ↩︎

17. Where in the brain is morality? Everywhere and maybe Nowhere https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/32bb/6eef40f2c0ddc360e74595860c2ee1e0d7f5.pdf ↩︎

18. How an AI Algorithm Learned to Write Political Speeches, MIT Technology Review, January 19, 2016, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/545606/how-an-ai-algorithm-learned-to-write-political-speeches/ ↩︎

19. Leave.EU used 'creepy' Facebook profiling technology to win Brexit campaign — and now the data watchdog is investigating http://www.businessinsider.com/leave-eu-brexit-creepy-facebook-cambridge-analytica-2017-2 ↩︎

20. Trump Data Gurus Leave Long Trail of Subterfuge, Dubious Dealing https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-23/trump-data-gurus-leave-long-trail-of-subterfuge-dubious-dealing ↩︎

21. The Secret Agenda of a Facebook Quiz https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/20/opinion/the-secret-agenda-of-a-facebook-quiz.html ↩︎

22. CSPAN Clint Watts 3/30/2017 On Russian active measures https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4664397/clint-watts-3302017 ↩︎

23. FakeTube: AI-Generated News on YouTube https://medium.com/@d1gi/faketube-ai-generated-news-on-youtube-233ad46849f9 ↩︎

24. Social media bots endanger democracy, warns Oxford’s internet research chief http://www.oxfordtoday.ox.ac.uk/features/social-media-bots-endanger-democracy-warns-oxford%E2%80%99s-internet-research-chief ↩︎