Using AI in your campaigning

Twenty minutes with a free account buys you a hostile interviewer who never tires. It also buys a translator, and somebody who will attack your argument harder than your opponents do. Start this week, without asking anybody.

What it never buys is a supporter who does not exist.

A campaign for Israel caught manufacturing those hands its opponents a permanent line of attack.

Before you paste anything in. What you type may be stored, read by staff or used for training, depending on a setting you have never looked at. Keep out other people’s names and anything about your own security.

The line, and it is the same line as buying followers

This site already refuses bought followers, follow-for-follow and boosting rings. All three manufacture the appearance of support.

Same rule here.

These tools are for helping a real person say what they actually think, faster and better. They are for nothing else.

No second account agreeing with your first. No automated posting at volume, no generated photograph or voice put out as real, no comment thread filled by a machine.

That is the principle. The practical reason is the one that will cost you.

In August 2026 a Russian operation was caught running a fake think tank dressed as Israeli. Its comments were generated and its research was lifted, thirty-four of thirty-six sampled articles copied.

Readers of that story will not separate it from the rest of us, and it gets quoted at us for years.

Make it argue against you properly

The highest-value use available, and hardly anybody tries it. Paste your draft in and type this:

You think this argument is wrong. You are well briefed, you have read the sources, and you are talking to an audience that has not. Give me your three strongest objections, in the order you would really raise them. Do not be fair to me.

Write your own answer to each before you ask for anything else. An objection you cannot answer in two sentences is either tonight’s research or the line to cut.

Then push once: “Which of my answers would you go after, and what next?”

The interview you are dreading

Here is my one page. You are a hostile interviewer with four minutes and no interest in my case. Ask me twelve questions, hardest first, including the two you think I would least like to be asked. One at a time, and wait for me.

Answer out loud, standing up, on a timer. Hearing the question a second time is what you are buying.

Its own answers are worth far less. Borrowing them is how people end up holding a position they cannot defend on the follow-up.

A long document into a quote sheet

A motion with eleven clauses. A transcript. A report you have three hours to read before a meeting.

Here is the full text. List every passage where the speaker refers to Jewish students. Quote each one exactly as written, give me the page or the timestamp, and add nothing that is not in the text. If there are none, say so.

Then search the original for each quotation, one at a time. A quotation you have not found in the source document with your own eyes is not yet a quotation. Being late is exactly when people skip this.

Plain English, alt text, and other languages

Rewrite this at a reading age of twelve, in British English, keeping every number, name and date exactly as it stands. Then write alt text for the attached image, under 125 characters, saying what is in it and why it is here.

Read it aloud before it goes anywhere. Automatic alt text says what sits in a picture and misses what the picture is doing on the page. The second is what a blind reader came for.

Subtitles return names spelled four ways, so fix names first.

Translate into the language your campaign needs, then have a fluent speaker read it first.

A mistranslated sentence about Jews travels further than a correct one.

It will lie to you fluently, so check like this

Invented case names, invented statutes, invented page numbers, invented quotations, all in the voice it uses for things that are true. A public tracker had logged 1,598 court decisions by 9 June 2026 where somebody filed fabricated citations. Its maintainer calls that a floor.

This site states a legal claim only with a titled, dated source attached, because there is no solicitor here. Hold yourself to the same standard.

1. Ask for the source of every factual claim you mean to use, by title and date.
2. Search for that title yourself. Where it does not exist, everything hanging off it goes.
3. Open it and find the sentence. Not a summary of the sentence.
4. Write down what you found and the date. That note is what you produce when challenged.

Where it tells you what the law is where you live, that is a lead and nothing more. Know the law where you are has the questions to ask instead.

What it costs, checked on 27 August 2026

Nothing, for everything above. Free tiers that day covered drafting, redrafting, summarising, transcription and translation. One major assistant went to unlimited free text chats on 6 August 2026, keeping caps on images and file uploads. Another lists its free plan at half the weekly allowance, features intact.

Those figures will be wrong within months. The shape holds: text is free, and volume, images and long files are what you pay for.

Where this makes your work worse

Even smoothness. Three examples where two would do. A closing paragraph saying the opening paragraph again. Nothing in eight hundred words that only you could have written.

For most writers that is a matter of taste. Here it is the whole business.

Our standing comes from being real people, in our own words, about things that happened to us. A letter to a councillor that reads as generated is worth less than the clumsier one you would have written alone.

Use it on the draft and keep it off the final voice. Where a paragraph carries your own particular detail, keep your sentence, awkward or not.

Detectors, and what you owe people

Never accuse anybody of using AI on a detector score, and never rely on one to clear you. They are wrong in both directions.

Seven of them were run on essays by people writing English as a second language. They wrongly flagged 61 per cent as machine-written, while classifying American schoolchildren correctly.

Read that again before you run one on an opponent or a student.

Disclosure is short.

Where the words are yours and a tool helped you find them, you owe nobody a note. Where it wrote something you are presenting as your own testimony, say so or write it again yourself.

Where you publish a generated image, voice or video, label it on the item itself, every time, jokes included.

Fabricated images and audio, in both directions

Two things run at once here, and the second catches careful people.

Invented footage circulates constantly, and real photographs and recordings get dismissed as invented by people who would rather not look. Our own research bodies have recorded both.

Post nothing you cannot trace to a named original. When somebody calls a real recording generated, ask to see their analysis rather than arguing about pixels, because the unevidenced accusation is the whole trick.

The sentences

“I used it to tidy up my drafting. The argument’s mine and I’ll defend every line of it.”

“I’m not putting my name to anything I haven’t found in the original document.”

“If we’re inventing supporters, we’ve stopped having an argument. Count me out of that.”

“That’s a detector score, not evidence, and I’m not accusing anyone on the back of it.”

“Show me where that video came from before either of us shares it.”

Forty minutes, and something you already wrote

Fill in the blanks146 words

Two questions from memory. What do you do with a fact before you use it? And what is the one thing you never use these tools to make?

Set up now. Open the last thing you wrote and did not send, and run the objection instruction on it.

If I have a draft I am nervous about, then I will make it argue against me before showing it to anybody friendly.

If a fact comes back that I want to use, then I will find that sentence in the original source before it goes anywhere public.

If I am short of time and checking is what I would cut, then I will cut the fact instead and send the shorter piece.

If somebody accuses me of generating what I wrote, then I will say in one sentence what I did and refuse to argue about scores.