Grassroots does not mean disorganized.
Real people coordinate.
They form committees, share sample letters, choose hashtags, raise money, build mailing lists, hire staff, schedule demonstrations, distribute graphics, call journalists, train volunteers, and remind everyone what time to show up.
None of that turns a movement into astroturf.
The important question is whether the visible public support represents what it claims to represent.
Coordination and deception are different variables
A useful everyday definition of astroturfing is communication that appears to come from ordinary independent members of the public but actually comes from an organization or interested sponsor in a way designed to make support look broader or more spontaneous than it is. Cambridge’s current definition captures that emphasis on disguised origin. See Cambridge Dictionary’s definition of astroturfing.
Meta uses a similar behavior-first distinction in its coordinated-inauthentic-behavior work. Its enforcement reports focus on networks that coordinate while using fake accounts or deceptive identities to mislead people about who is behind the activity. Meta explicitly says it evaluates the deceptive behavior rather than whether it agrees with the content. See Meta’s explanation of coordinated inauthentic behavior.
That is a useful research discipline.
Do not begin with whether you like the message.
Begin with who is actually speaking.
A real campaign can use identical scripts
Suppose an environmental organization publicly asks 10,000 members to email lawmakers using the same template.
Suppose an industry association does the same thing.
Both are organized.
If the senders are real people who knowingly chose to participate, the repeated language by itself does not make either campaign fake.
Now consider the New York Attorney General’s investigation into comments submitted during the FCC’s 2017 net-neutrality proceeding. The office reported that millions of comments were fabricated, including comments submitted using identities of people who had not agreed to participate. The investigation relied on lead-generator records and other evidence connecting the submissions to paid campaigns. See the New York Attorney General’s 2021 investigation summary.
That is qualitatively different from supporters choosing to send a form letter.
The constituency itself was misrepresented.
A fair classification needs several kinds of evidence
Useful evidence includes:
- disclosed and undisclosed funding,
- who created campaign infrastructure,
- whether participants are real,
- whether they knowingly joined,
- whether identities were forged or impersonated,
- whether accounts share hidden control,
- whether organizers instructed participants to conceal sponsorship,
- whether public claims about independence match internal records.
Shared language, synchronized timing, and sudden popularity can support an investigation.
They are weak foundations for a conclusion on their own.
The standard should work in both directions
This matters because “astroturf” is an attractive insult.
It can be used to dismiss genuine public organizing simply because participants are coordinated, professionally supported, or politically inconvenient.
The opposite error is just as bad: treating manufactured identities as authentic public sentiment because real organizations or real humans appear somewhere in the chain.
A rigorous Dead Internet Theory study needs to survive both temptations.
The web contains grassroots movements.
It contains professional advocacy.
It contains paid campaigns.
It contains fake people pretending to be real movements.
The job is not to decide which crowd deserves to exist.
The job is to determine whether the crowd is the crowd it claims to be.