Not long after I published a recent op-ed about how the astroturfing site Neighbors for Strong Communities (NSC) replaced my statement opposing the Paramount–Warner Bros. merger with an AI-generated letter supporting the merger, I received a personal email from Tanner Kelly, a spokesperson for NSC. He maintained that “thousands of real Californians have participated in the campaign.” The press conference they held only turned out a small handful of people. Kelly did admit that my experience “uncovered something that should not have happened,” but assured me that they have since “reviewed and strengthened their safeguards…to prevent the system from inventing or inferring personal details about a participant” going forward.
Rather than rewriting the program, however, NSC appears to have taken down the AI tool altogether. At the time of this writing, attempts to submit a survey response prompted a message saying: “This survey is now closed. Thank you for your interest”.
I appreciated Kelly’s swift response. And I’m writing this partly to add context to the original article, as he requested. I hope this update will suffice — and perhaps will encourage his organization to answer some of our questions as well.
It’s possible the fake user stories were a coding error that Kelly and NSC genuinely want to correct. But now that they’re aware of the problem, it’s critical that they audit the prior answers to see if the AI program improperly twisted other people’s messages, and that they send emails to those who participated, suggesting they double-check the response generated for them. As yet, they have not posted anything on their website suggesting that the AI program erroneously changed my answer, that it may have changed others, or even that participants should review their responses to assure accuracy. That step is the bare minimum they could do.
Kelly writes, “Neighbors is an advocacy organization. We take clear positions…” I agree with this. The positions taken are clear. The issue that I and others are raising is who the “we” is — who initiated the campaign, and who is bankrolling the effort. Kelly goes on to assert that I knowingly entered an advocacy campaign and submitted a contrary response to see how the system would react. Indeed, I was not confused as to the nature of the campaign, but I believe many people who go to the site will be, because of the lack of transparency surrounding the origins of and participants in the organization — as well as the source of its funding.
It’s important to note that this is not NSC’s first rodeo with AI campaigns that undermine grassroots efforts. When I originally discovered Neighbors for Strong Communities, their website listed two campaigns in addition to their work on Paramount. The one that caught my eye was a previous campaign to stop a popular, bipartisan ordinance in the city of Knoxville, TN, which would remove Flock surveillance cameras installed in their community. Two days later, when I returned to the site, I was surprised to see that they had removed any evidence of their work supporting Flock. I was curious to know what had happened in the meantime. Sure enough, it appears they had used the same playbook to undermine that grassroots movement against these cameras that they used against the grassroots movement opposing the Paramount-WBD merger. They started by sending spam texts to residents ostensibly from a group calling itself Knox County Neighbors for Strong Communities — a local-sounding name for an astroturf group.
Real Knoxville residents did their own research and discovered the organization was tied to a Washington D.C. address and a California phone number. These texts directed people to their website, which asked them questions about their views on being surveilled. According to one community member, if answers supported the cameras, the website generated “a fake message” and sent it straight to Knox County Commission with the participant’s name on it. If the answers suggested opposition to the cameras or were undecided, they apparently would not get that option.
It is hard not to wonder whether there are deeper connections between these two campaigns. We know that the Ellison-owned Free Press is also running what appear to be commercials for Flock disguised as news segments, and we know that Larry Ellison has advocated for AI-powered mass surveillance. But NSC’s lack of transparency makes it difficult to know whether such a connection indeed exists.
The Neighbors for Strong Community’s website lists its values, including:
“Truth Matters: Good decisions require facts, evidence, expertise, and lived experience.”
The truth definitely matters to the people who get these texts or use the website, and the truth about NSC is what we are seeking.
Yet despite multiple attempts by members of the press and the Block the Merger Campaign, they have refused to address these concerns. Among the unanswered questions: why did they remove the Flock campaign from their site? Who is paying for their campaign to distort statements of opposition to the Paramount-WBD merger? And what is the nature of their connections to the Ellisons and Paramount?
An estimated 10,000 actual neighbors could lose their jobs if the merger goes through, while countless other moviegoers and media consumers would see higher prices for fewer options, among other things.
Neighbors for Strong Communities calls the rewritten email an error, and perhaps it was. But a tool that converts opposition into support is only the most visible symptom of a larger opacity. NSC has not said who pays its bills, who sits on its board, or who decided that a merger review before the attorney general required a wave of automated enthusiasm. AG Bonta’s office will weigh the Paramount deal on its merits. The public deserves the same clarity about the people lobbying him. Until NSC opens its books, every message it sends (or has sent) in Californians’ names warrants a second look.
