(Partially copied from previous reply)

The is based on my own experiences

Bots and manipulation teams

1. Narrative bots: Bots run a program that search on a topic. Sometimes with AI. And then post a standard but well written reply to it.
   You can easily find them when you post about Monsanto.
   Later versions by Correct-the-record, include some human interactions, where several standard answers are copied-pasted into the reply. Like "Muh e-mails", or "Hillary won the popular vote".

2. Popular Bots: These try to get into the top of the forum.
   Bots repost a popular item. Then if it does not work within a short time, they delete it. And then post it again.
   Sometimes with the same title, or a title similar to a comment.
   The idea is to get the topic rising quickly. They can keep doing that all day long. Sometimes it is a selection of certain topics.
   Only works on large forum.
   The idea is to combine these popular bots with click-baits or post certain narratives. Due to the popularity it can rise to the top quicker.

3. Click-bait articles/bots. These also try to get to the top of a forum.
   The idea is to get clicks on a page. Usually for add clicks. The ads can only give money when a lot of people reach the page. So they try to do anything to make it worthwhile to click on it. The "Russian influencing" idea, was about a click-bait company. But it started the Muller investigation anyway. Due to the massive propaganda, a lot of people still think that they were trying to influence elections.

4. Click-farms. To get fake clicks on adds. Or to get upvotes, there are teams in some countries specialized in clicking on certain links.
   With them you can easily get 1000s of upvotes or many add-clicks. You pay them for their "service".

5. Some posters have lots of backing. So they use a network of clickers or bots to quickly improve their place in the forums.
   This is visible by a sudden wave of upvotes.

6. Some political posts just trigger upvotes due to the title, not due to the content.
   Lately this is about Trump, but it can be any topic with a title that is popular.
   You can see a difference in how the content is not watched or read, while there is still a lot of voting.

7. Clips taken out of context. Can be anything.
   Taking Trump as example, we an see Trump say something stupid, but in the full context it wasn't.
   In this case you see replies on reddit that are downvoted to oblivion or removed by mods. Saidit has prevented this by removing downvotes and minimal moderation.

8. Professional Foreign Influence teams:
   Note: these people have to understand and discuss in English very well.!!
   And in many countries people don't speak English, and have a lot of trouble understanding it.
   Like for me English is not my native language, and it took 10 years to learn it to a decent level. Discussions are the hardest.

So the influence that they can get really depends on how well their population can speak English. Some countries have a large language barrier: Russia, China, North Korea, Iran. So they can only have small teams. And not do so much influence. Unlike what you are being told by the corrupt media.
Note: People from HK are very good in English., but they do not usually support the Chinese government.
They can be identified by the inability to understand complex language or humor. A bit what you can see going wrong on google translate.

Some countries have a small language barrier: India, Israel,. That is because they often use English in their country or have many people in English speaking countries.

And indeed we see that in India we have a huge amount of click-farms, professional scammers, etc. They can be identified by their low knowledge compared to what they try to sell.
From Israel we have a huge amount of forum influencers. They also have professional military teams. They usually focus on narrative control. They can be identified by their inability to see Palestinians as friendly people.

1. Governmental narrative control:
   There are military teams specialized in spreading propaganda.. in their own country.
   There are such teams in the UK, and US.
   They usually want to steer the narrative around a conflict into a certain direction. You can spot them by their professional answers, but clearly brain-washed ideas. Like: "war is good".

2. Governmental population control:
   China and Saudi Arabia are using specialized teams too.
   They try to locate and capture people with different/wrong ideas.
   Note: The UK and the far left is trying to do the same.

Intel Tactics

There are also tactics that I found used when studying conspiracy theories around murders and war-crimes. These are used by all parties.

1. Intel tactic: Create straw-man conspiracy theory.
   This happens with some topics that involve real corruption and real crimes.
   Instead of a discussion of the real crime, we get a discussion around a topic that is too easy to debunk. Even if it would be true.
   Like the idea of nukes being used at 9/11. Or the theory of space energy-weapons being used.

2. Intel tactic: Create a patsy or an enemy.
   Like "the Russians did it" or China whoever.
   Usually with no solid evidence, even though they can sometimes provide lists and pictures that do not really tell much.
   It is too hard to check, and it diverts from the people that were internally involved.

3. Intel tactic: Remove evidence, sometimes "by accident".
   This is often done in the name of National Security. You can see how a lot of Epstein's evidence was to be destroyed.

4. Intel tactics: Create an alternative heroic theory.
   Without solid evidence for it, an alternative story is created.
   This is done to make it seem that someone made an small error and the team helped to cover it up.
   This is to make it seem OK that you were being lied to.

5. Intel Tactic: Don't talk about money or resources. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan "to help the people".
   Check the missing $21 Trillions.

6. Intel Tactic: Refer to a fake "science" report.
   To keep people to a narrative, there is usually a scientific report that just states how good the narrative is.
   The report is usually void of any critical thinking, and has sometimes additions to make it seem stupid to think beyond the narrative.
   This is what I call: "fake science".
   And we can find such reports in many events.
   Like the murder on Epstein, which was wrongfully reported as suicide as so many others.

7. Intel Tactic: Hidden censorship.
   The idea is to complete censor and remove the information and especially videos from the internet.
   But this is not done directly to avoid the Streisand effect (people spreading the information more).
   It is done via copyright, via companies that stream the materials, or via search engines.
   Sometimes they introduce special kinds of legislation. Like: In many states in the US it is forbidden to criticize the politics of Israel. They often try to blame the person who is spreading the information.
   In the left-media it is common to hide information that can damage their political goals. In science it is common to hide information that can damage the specialized field of science, which is why we almost never hear about such problems.

8. Intel Tactic: "Fact" Checkers.
   It is also used by corporations a lot and some political groups.
   Fact-checkers are organisations that try to control the narrative by claiming that every other idea is fake.
   Wikipedia does the same thing for a part.
   They restrict critical thinking and push only the answer that is part of the narrative.
   Questions that are political relevant, are dumbed down and slightly altered to make only one answer seem possible.
   For Intel this is very important, because a lot of the dark operations and dark money needs to be covered up. The fact-checkers help them with it.