Internet Bots: How They Work and Influence Us
Author: Domeny.ForSale editorial team Published
In brief: An internet bot is a program that automatically performs tasks online, such as publishing posts or replying to messages. On social media, bots can be used to spread opinions, propaganda and false information on a large scale, and to create the appearance of widespread support. However, not every suspicious account is a bot, and detecting automation does not prove who controls it—particularly whether a foreign intelligence service is behind it.
How a bot works and when it becomes a tool for manipulation
A bot performs tasks according to predefined rules or uses AI models to generate responses. It can post at set times, respond to particular words or share content from selected accounts. It does not have to operate independently: a person may choose topics and approve messages while the program handles their distribution.
Automation itself is not abuse. Bots can report outages, handle simple customer questions or crawl pages for search engines. Problems arise when they conceal their automated nature, impersonate independent users or artificially boost the visibility of a message.
It helps to distinguish three concepts:
- Bot refers to automated activity; it says nothing about its creator’s intentions.
- Troll is a user who deliberately provokes others or disrupts a conversation. A troll may be human, and their actions need not be automated.
- Fake account uses an invented identity or someone else’s identity. It may be operated manually or run by a program.
These elements can work together in a single campaign. People prepare the message, fake profiles lend it an air of authenticity, and bots help spread it quickly.
How bots can influence public opinion
The simplest mechanism is repetition. When many accounts post similar opinions, readers may assume those opinions are widely held, even if the posts come from a single coordinated network. This appearance of grassroots support is sometimes called astroturfing—organising messaging to make it look like a spontaneous initiative by ordinary people.
The goal is not always to persuade readers to accept a particular claim. A campaign may try to set the agenda, divert attention from another event, discourage people from joining a discussion or deepen conflict between groups. Large volumes of comments can also make substantive contributions harder to find.
Imagine an announcement about a planned change to local transport. Similar comments quickly appear beneath the local authority’s post, claiming that the decision is part of a secret plan. Other accounts quote these comments as evidence of “residents’ outrage”. Even without any new evidence, this creates the impression that the theory is popular and deserves attention.
Propaganda—messaging designed to shape attitudes in the sender’s interests—does not have to consist entirely of lies. It may use true information taken out of context, selectively chosen examples or emotionally charged interpretations. That is why checking the facts alone is not always enough: how they are presented matters too.
Bots in influence operations: what a profile cannot tell you
An influence operation is an organised effort to change the attitudes or behaviour of a particular audience. Bots can be one of its tools, including in activities involving competition between states and intelligence services. However, political groups, companies, scammers and independent activists can use similar methods.
The fact that a message aligns with a country’s interests does not prove that the country controls it. Neither do the language of the posts, their publication times or a flag in the profile description. These observations may warrant further analysis, but they do not reliably identify who commissioned the activity.
Attributing a campaign to a particular organisation or actor requires additional evidence, such as infrastructure links, account management data or investigative findings. When reading reports about “foreign intelligence bots”, check whether the author is describing confirmed automation, coordinated activity or an organiser whose identity has actually been established. These are three different claims.
How to assess suspicious accounts without hasty accusations
A single sign rarely settles the question. A large number of posts may simply reflect a very active human user, while identical slogans may come from participation in an openly organised public campaign. Recurring patterns of behaviour across multiple accounts are more informative.
Look for nearly identical comments posted at similar times, repeated sharing of the same material and replies that do not fit the conversation. Also check whether the profiles have a history of varied interactions or are used almost exclusively to amplify one message. These are reasons for caution, not a definitive test for bots.
Automated account assessment tools can also be wrong. Treat their results as clues that need verification, not as grounds for publicly accusing a particular person.
What to do before replying to or sharing a post
You do not need to identify the author to assess whether a message is credible. Start with the content:
- Find the original source of the claim rather than relying on a screenshot or the number of shares.
- Check the date and context—old material may be presented as a new event.
- Look for independent confirmation. Several accounts repeating the same message do not count as several sources.
- If you see spam, impersonation or coordinated abuse, save the links and report it using the platform’s tools.
Before sharing a sensational post, ask yourself one question: “What evidence do I have beyond the fact that many accounts are repeating it?” If the answer is “none”, hold off on sharing and check the source.
See also: What is 2FA?
Read also
