Tea Party activists attending a rally on the grounds of the Capitol in Washington.

On February 19, 2009, CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli delivered a fiery on-air critique of the government's mortgage relief plan from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.^[1] He proposed holding a "Chicago Tea Party" in July, to protest government intervention in the economy. The call sparked a surge of grassroots outrage that seemed to sweep the nation. Angry citizens gathered at town halls, voicing their opposition. The movement, which came to be known as the Tea Party, quickly gained traction, presenting itself as a spontaneous uprising of everyday Americans.^[2]

But beneath the surface of this seemingly organic movement lay a carefully orchestrated campaign funded and coordinated by powerful interest groups. These groups provided financial resources, strategic guidance, and logistical support to help shape the Tea Party into a potent political force.^[2] What appeared to be a grassroots movement was, in reality, a sophisticated campaign of a mass persuasion called astroturfing.

Named after the synthetic grass substitute, astroturfing is designed to fabricate the illusion of grassroots consensus. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to appear organic, leveraging the psychological principle of social proof. When people see high levels of engagement—likes, shares, or comments—they often equate the content's popularity with its credibility or validity.^[3] By manufacturing these signals, astroturfing creates a compelling illusion of consensus. Once this illusion takes hold, another psychological mechanism: the bandwagon effect - the tendency for individuals to adopt certain beliefs, behaviors, or actions because they perceive others are doing the same.
can be exploited to pressure individuals to adopt opinions or behaviors that align with the perceived majority, reinforcing the fabricated narrative and amplifying its influence.

In an age dominated by digital media, this perception—or misperception—of consensus can be more easily amplified through social media. On these platforms, astroturfers build credibility with their target audience by tapping into shared cultural experiences.^[4] Astroturfers create Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter posts designed to appear as though they organically emerged from real individuals dedicated to a cause only to later exploit them by injecting polarizing messages and disinformation into their followers’ timelines.^[5]

In 2016, the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) exploited this tactic to sow discord through #BlackLivesMatter astroturfing accounts, tweeting hateful anti-police messages. Simultaneously, Russian-controlled “right-wing” accounts labeled the BLM movement as communist and anti-American, further polarizing both sides of the issue.^[6] This exploitation of our receptiveness to authenticity, combined with the social media savvy of Russian troll factories, continues to shape public opinion, fueling polarization and political extremism.

Another fertile avenue for astroturfing is the comment sections of major news sites, blogs, and social media platforms. Posts appearing to come from “everyday” people are often carefully crafted by hired individuals, troll farms, or bots to mimic genuine public sentiment.^[7]

Because comment sections are seen as unfiltered reflections of public opinion, they hold significant persuasive power. Readers may assume these posts represent the views of a broad audience, lending credibility to the content and reinforcing the perception of widespread agreement. By flooding comment sections with coordinated messaging, astroturfers further manipulate public perception, steering conversations and shaping opinions under the guise of organic discourse.

Recognizing astroturfing requires vigilance and critical thinking. Be wary of content that provokes strong emotional reactions, as astroturfing often exploits outrage or fear to drive engagement. Question sudden surges in support for a cause or narrative, especially if it seems too coordinated or originates from accounts with limited history. Check the sources behind organizations or campaigns—opaque funding, vague affiliations, or a lack of transparency often signal astroturfing. Finally, do your homework by seeking out independent verification from reputable sources to distinguish between genuine grassroots efforts and fabricated narratives.

In the digital era, manufactured authenticity has become more influential, participatory, and harder to recognize. By manipulating perceptions of trust in online communities, astroturfing promotes narratives and normalizes views that might otherwise be widely rejected, making astroturfing a powerful weapon for shaping public opinion.