It was always clear that at least some of Nick Funetes’ traffic has been the result of bots. The only question is how much. Lately I have become more and more suspicious that the answer is “an enormous amount.” But it’s not as though I had any way to tell.
Now, this article on the subject has come out, and it seems pretty persuasive. The author, Colin Wright, cites this report from something called the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI).
Wright states:
The report’s most shocking finding is just how wildly Fuentes’s engagement numbers differ from those of other political influencers. NCRI compared the first 30 minutes of engagement on 20 of his recent posts with those from four major online figures—Elon Musk, Hasan Piker, Steven “Destiny” Bonnell, and Ian Carroll. Incredibly, Fuentes outperformed all of them in early retweets, including Musk, whose follower count is over 200 times higher.
None of this makes sense if the engagement is organic. According to NCRI’s report, this is explained by the fact that 61 percent of Fuentes’s early retweets come from accounts that repeatedly retweeted several of his posts within the same 30-minute window. This is not what you’d expect if these were random users scrolling their feeds. Rather, these accounts appear to be waiting for Fuentes to post so they could amplify his content almost instantly.
When NCRI dug into who these accounts actually were, 92 percent were completely anonymous. … Many openly identified as “Groypers,” members of Fuentes’s online fan base, and their feeds consisted almost entirely of retweets or replies to him. Some even labeled themselves as Fuentes “signal boosters.” These accounts appear to be part of a coordinated network built to push his content as widely and quickly as possible.
NCRI uncovered another major red flag. When they examined Fuentes’s most viral posts—three from before the assassination of Charlie Kirk and three after—it found that nearly half of all retweets came from foreign accounts, heavily concentrated in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Malaysia, and Indonesia. These regions are known hubs for low-cost engagement farms.
Crucially, Fuentes is not merely a passive beneficiary of this manipulation—he actively coordinates it. NCRI shows that he routinely gives his viewers direct instructions during live broadcasts to retweet his content, often just seconds after posting a link. This is meant to trigger the early spike in engagement that algorithms reward, a tactic that may violate X’s own rules against coordinated inauthentic activity.
And the effects of this manufactured engagement didn’t stay online. They spilled into mainstream news coverage. …
The media believed it was responding to a real political shift. It wasn’t. It was responding to a manipulated signal created by anonymous amplification networks and foreign engagement farms. Even TPUSA’s own social-media replies showed growing Groyper infiltration as Fuentes tried to capitalize on the vacuum left by Kirk’s death.
This is very much in line with recent revelations about the foreign origins of many social media accounts from supposed American patriots and America-firsters who are posting from places like Pakistan. That’s not to say that there are no real Fuentes supporters (“groypers”), but they are almost certainly far less numerous than one might originally have thought.
One result of all of this is to demoralize the right and also make it appear every bit as bigoted and moronic as the left says it is. As for Fuentes himself, aside from fame and money, what are his goals and who is backing him?
The are other related internet phenomena on the so-called “woke right” (often rabidly anti-Semitic and heavily conspiracy-theory oriented) such as Candace Owens. Are they the beneficiaries of a similar process as that which has made Fuentes famous? I think so, but probably to a lesser extent because prior to Owens’ going off into her current fringe/cringe content, she did seem to have a more conventional following on more conventional platforms.
The same is true of Tucker Carlson to an even greater extent; during his Fox News years he was a popular and at least somewhat mainstream figure on the right. A fair amount of his current traffic is almost certainly a carryover from that. But how much?
Almost since its beginning, the internet has been a place where deception is easier than in the non-virtual world. We’ve had trolling, bot farms, catfishing, phishing, sock puppets, and more recently the spread of AI, and now fake internet phenoms such as Fuentes. No wonder he’s smirking.