The AI Slop War

Reality and fantasy blend together on social media during the Iran war

The first Gulf War is famously touted as the first conflict broadcast live on television. New technology and 24/7 cable news made that possible. Americans could turn on CNN to watch bombing raids, learn about casualties, and find out about the latest military progress almost as soon as it happened.

Social media once offered the promise of even more on-the-ground information, all without the filter of the mainstream media and the US government. But the third Gulf War conveys a very different picture. Instead of real-time news updates, social media users are deluged with AI videos and unbelievable claims about sunken carriers, imaginary strikes, and mass American deaths. In contrast to the opening stages of the Ukraine War, you get far less accurate information from social media than you do from traditional media.

If the first Gulf War was the conflict for the age of cable news, this is the one for the age of AI slop. It proves greater access to more information and sources doesn’t necessarily lead to enlightenment. It can just as easily lead to a warped sense of reality.

Both sides of the conflict have accused each other of pushing false claims and AI videos. Megyn Kelly and Marjorie Taylor Greene accused X of being “completely saturated in NeoCons, the pro-Israel crowd.” They claim to be in the minority of criticizing the war. I’m not sure which part of X Kelly and MTG inhabit, but it’s mostly saturated with anti-war opinions. It’s rare to find a pro-war take go viral. What is likely to go viral are claims that America nuked Iran and the IRGC captured an entire Delta Force squadron.

There is also slop coming from the other side. The Trump administration has pushed bizarre meme montages to promote the war. They haven’t gone over well with the internet.

I’m a skeptic of the Iran strikes and don’t think they’re going as great as the administration claims. The blocking of the Strait of Hormuz is a major problem and could wreck the global economy. But I’m also honest enough to recognize bullshit when I see it. Rather than focus on the verifiable claims about the war’s disruption to the world’s oil supply and America’s unclear objectives, many critics decide to become cheerleaders for Iran and promote the most egregious lies imaginable.

Take the claim that a thousand American soldiers have died. It’s common belief on social media to believe that America has suffered far more deaths than the seven officially confirmed. A viral TikTok alleged a guy heard from a friend in Paris who heard it from someone else that 1000 soldiers have died. That has been taken as unimpeachable testimony that 1000 have in fact died. The sources for this figure do not come from on-the-ground reporters or knowledgeable security experts. It comes from both American and Iranian propaganda. CENTCOM claimed Iran has killed 1000 Americans–over the last 47 years. Iran has also claimed to have killed nearly 1000 Americans, likely in imitation of that figure. It then became interpreted through social media to agree with the Iranian take.

The most obviously fake element of the war is the dissemination of AI videos. From my own experience, the majority of videos I have seen from the conflict are AI-generated, old, or from other conflicts. Gaza’s destruction is frequently repurposed to show the destruction of Tel Aviv. Crowds chanting in favor of the ayatollah are almost always old videos. Arguably, most strike videos on X are AI. This stuff isn’t kept in check, as they’ve amassed tens of millions of views. Clearly AI-made images (including a Gemini watermark) of Delta Force operators captured by Iranian soldiers were shared by prominent western figures as legit evidence of America losing the war.

Pretty much every conflict in history has witnessed its fair share of fake news and misinformation. Just take the Ukraine War. In its first days, we were treated to outrageous lies, such as the “Ghost of Kyiv,” and both sides claiming the other was on the verge of defeat. The difference is that the content overwhelmingly favored the U.S. government’s preferred narrative. Social media still experienced strict censorship in early 2022 and Russian-affiliated outlets and figures were banned from most platforms. Most of the fake news and disinformation were spread to support the Ukrainian side.

Today, most of the viral BS is in support of Iran. This is a propaganda victory for the Islamic Republic. It would be misleading to blame Iranian (and Chinese and Russian) sources for the information war. It’s likely a number of the claims originate with these foreign actors. But most of social media wants to believe this stuff anyway and much of the dubious content originates from content farmers operating on their own. War with Iran is not popular, especially on the internet. The internet also increasingly hates Trump. Anti-war content does far better on social media than content in favor of Trump’s efforts. The market rewards those who post hyperbole about the U.S. government falling, Iran destroying Tel Aviv, thousands of Americans being killed, and Iran winning a huge victory. Content creators respond to these incentives. Thus, we get the AI slop war.

Offline, it would be very unpopular to look like you’re supporting Iran. But on X, it becomes more common as accounts compete to deliver the most bombastic claims about the war and serve a global audience that is anti-Trump and anti-American. Most political content creators care more about appealing to the algorithm rather than what makes sense for real-world politics. You’re going to get greater engagement being a Jane Fonda urging Iran to strike Washington than a patriot calmly explaining how the strikes will impact the American economy.

If this war broke out in 2022 and it was carried out by Joe Biden, social media would be filled with claims over how great it is and anything construed as Iranian propaganda would be suppressed. Now social media acts as a volunteer propaganda service for the Islamic Republic.

Which side is more supported on social media isn’t the issue here. The issue is one can’t find out any legitimate information from social media about the war. The only reliable information is rising gas prices. Nearly everything else is wishcasting masquerading as analysis, AI videos, and poorly-supported hysteria.

The internet allows people to construct their own reality. Not even wars need to conform to what’s going on in the real world. If you want Iran, Israel, or the U.S. to have a total victory, you can easily warp your social media feed to meet that wish. Politics and world affairs become a “choose your own adventure.” It’s part of the appeal of internet politics.

Elon Musk buying X was a major victory for the Right and free speech. It elevated right-wing ideas to the political mainstream, kneecapped cancel culture, helped Trump overcome numerous obstacles to win the 2024 election, and encouraged the rest of the tech industry to move away from censorship. But it’s also come with a cost of social media being far more retarded than it was in the late 2010s. AI slop has taken over many platforms. Twitter was once the best place to keep up with the news. Now it’s easier to find a schizophrenic’s perspective on current events than actual news. The degradation of the online media environment is very real. On balance, it still is better for the Right than when social media was controlled by HuffPost readers. But it’s far from ideal.

The third Gulf War vindicates the mainstream media as a primary source for information. When the “everything app” is filled with AI videos, unverified bullshit, schizo ramblings, and delusional fantasies, it becomes unusable. You’re better off switching to CNN.

You can now preorder Scott Greer’s new book, “Whitepill: The Online Right and the Making of Trump’s America,” from this link.