Image 01 Image 03

Report: ‘Erica Marsh’ Twitter Account Is a ‘Liberal Dystopian Bot,’ Has Been Suspended

Report: ‘Erica Marsh’ Twitter Account Is a ‘Liberal Dystopian Bot,’ Has Been Suspended

“This person does not exist. I repeat. Does NOT exist. This is election interference starting early. I will not even link to their page because it is dangerous to continue to follow and engage. This is an account bot linked to Belgium.”,

Last week in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling in a 6-3 decision to strike down the use of race-based criteria in college admissions, the Very Online Left went nuts, with a provocative tweet from one account in particular getting a lot of attention and going viral.

A Twitter account with the name “Erica Marsh” and a bio that read “Proud Democrat: Former Field Organizer to elect President Biden. Volunteer for the Obama Foundation. (She/Her) 💙,” tweeted, “Today’s Supreme Court decision is a direct attack on Black people. No Black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system which is exactly why affirmative-action based programs were needed. Today’s decision is a TRAVESTY!!!”,

As Legal Insurrection documented at the time in a post titled “‘Proud’ Dem’s Racist Reaction to SCOTUS Affirmative Action Ruling Has Folks Wondering Progressive or Parody?,” the racist tweet provoked strong reactions, particularly among black conservatives like Candace Owens, Bo Snerdley, Leo Terrell and others who were quick to point out that the account was in so many words saying the “quiet part out loud” about what Democrats really thought about the black community.

As we also noted in our report, because the tweet was not that far off from something a woke Democrat would actually write it had people wondering if it was a parody or bot, especially leftists who perhaps were embarrassed that it hit a little too close to the mark as to their true colors.

In an update to this story, the account has been suspended, presumably due to research done that allegedly shows that the account is a “bot” account.

Podcaster Greg Boulden detailed his findings in a Twitter thread purporting to identify someone allegedly connected:

In an update to his original Twitter postings on the subject, Boulden wrote this:

A follow up to clarify before bed.

This image is what mines back to rhinestone. The website linked to – this is “Erica Marsh” which leads to his name being linked behind the liberal tweeting bot that based off who she followed and mapping linked to likely being funded as a manufactured outrage account.

I have no evidence that @michaelzachrau is or was Erica, nor did I claim that anywhere. (I also didn’t tag him originally because I don’t even know what his real Twitter account is – he commented, so tagging him here) i did state – “Michael Zachrau is behind the liberal dystopian bot triggering conservatives”. Meaning – that website has the “image” being used of Erica. I simply want to know why his company is linked to this – the website is his name?

Before Twitter loses their conspiracy theory minds, let’s stick to the facts and hear directly from him. I’ve asked him for a comment. People claiming this is him, missed the entire point of what I posted.

It doesn’t matter ultimately what his role is (perhaps his company bought AI images and just happened to have hers) – although he deserves accuracy, fairness, and truth. What matters is she was a fake, and the image and idea came from somewhere – and it manipulated millions.


It appears the “Michael Zachrau” in question does have a Twitter account, and not only did he post some bizarre responses to critics in demanding they prove the accusation that he is in some way tied to the Marsh account but he has also threatened to sue Boulden for “defamation”:

It was an interesting choice of words to say the list, considering that in the midst of being accused of being a parody, the Marsh account at one point put out a request for legal representation on defamation grounds:,

An especially interesting thing about all of this is that even though it sounded like a bot or parody, there were tweets that came from it that were pretty standard fare for leftists influencer accounts that are run by real people like Occupy Democrats, which notoriously always asks for RTs:

Whatever the case may be as to who was behind the fake Erica Marsh account, it’s a troubling yet timely reminder that in 2024, just like it was in the 2016 and 2020 presidential election years, the fake accounts are making their presence known in large numbers while also making it increasingly harder to detect what’s real and what’s not, and it’s only going to get worse the closer we get to Election Day.

— Stacey Matthews has also written under the pseudonym “Sister Toldjah” and can be reached via Twitter. —


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


ThePrimordialOrderedPair | July 3, 2023 at 8:06 pm

I will not even link to their page because it is dangerous to continue to follow and engage.


“dangerous”!!! … so dangerous …

If it’s a girl – Erica – then it’s “her page” and if it’s a bot then it’s “its page”.

Bot or not, “Marsh” perfectly captured the essence of Dumb-o-crats’ brazen and paternalistic racism and bigotry of low expectations. There are plenty of living and breathing Dumb-o-crats who have voiced and who continue to voice the same racist attitudes denying that black Americans have agency and control over their life choices and ambitions.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | July 3, 2023 at 8:14 pm

To call this tweet “election interference” is more than a bit over the top. It’s a friggin tweet that just happens to be typical of things leftists say all the time and is exactly what many leftists think.

This is not “election interference”. One would need to have the most fragile, brittle, unstable society in history for this tweet to be “election interference”, whether it’s a real lefty or parody account.

    Do you have trouble reading for content?

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to maxmillion. | July 3, 2023 at 10:44 pm

      What are you talking about. One of the Boulden tweets, which is used for the sub-headline paragraph, states:

      This is election interference starting early.

      which is what I am addressing.

      I have no idea what you are commenting about. Maybe you posted on the wrong thread? 🙂

Yes, it is “election interference.” Or, a prototype of it in its future form.

Some unmitigated bastards are running tests, to figure out how to manipulate voters.

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Valerie. | July 3, 2023 at 8:40 pm

    Oh, puh-leeeeease …

    This reminds me of the breathless claims by our “intelligence agencies” that the Russkies had flipped the 2016 race with $150,000 in FarceBook ads. I mean … come on.

    CommoChief in reply to Valerie. | July 3, 2023 at 9:59 pm

    Many voters are easily manipulated already. We don’t have to rely upon bots to blame. See Bill Clinton and his promise of a middle class tax cut which turned into a tax increase after he was safely elected. See the folks who support economically illiterate ideas like ‘rent control’. See the kool aid drinking climate cult. See the swooning over Obama.

    If particular voters are open to being easily swayed by a smooth salesman with a slick presentation instead of doing their their own research and analysis before making a truly educated and rational choice a bot isn’t the issue just another means. The real issue is that lazy ass, ill informed, mentally weak voter.

    Getting riled up over propaganda campaigns or attempts to influence or nudge opinions in a manipulative way during an election seems like a lost cause. That horse left the barn some time ago and we DO NOT want to create another excuse to hand more power to govt to ‘protect us from ourselves’.

    henrybowman in reply to Valerie. | July 4, 2023 at 12:39 am

    But we already thought this about Democrats. It seems a waste of effort.

    MajorWood in reply to Valerie. | July 4, 2023 at 2:40 pm

    By definition, everyone in marketing is therefore an unmitigated bastard. BTW, Bill Hicks (RIP) came to that conclusion years ago.

thad_the_man | July 3, 2023 at 8:24 pm

What proof do rthey have other then the picture. The real Erica marsh might look like Rosie O’Donnell

I’ve seen pictures of all kinds that are not the actual people: movie stars, pets etc.

Even the timing of the defamation suits are not dispositive. Marsh asks for a lawyer on a contingency basis and I doubrt the a company need to hire a lawyer on contingency.

She seems too pretty to be a progressive…..

    thad_the_man in reply to slagothar. | July 3, 2023 at 8:32 pm

    Hey they send out the good looking ones to learn conservatives to their side by the balls.

      thad_the_man in reply to thad_the_man. | July 3, 2023 at 8:33 pm

      I meant turn not learn.

      LI edit button!

      CommoChief in reply to thad_the_man. | July 4, 2023 at 10:36 am

      Meh I give her a 6.5/10. Kinda higher end of average white girl. Nothing wrong with being average, that’s where most people reside on a standard distribution.

        healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | July 4, 2023 at 7:14 pm

        Ze is a solid 8 unless your scale is celebrities. Don’t let politics cloud your aesthetic judgment of looks. Besides, it’s probably a low-grade model that posed for the picture not knowing what was going on.

        healthguyfsu in reply to CommoChief. | July 4, 2023 at 7:18 pm

        My point in arguing which I forgot to make…

        If you take our ratings together, she is somewhere above 7 and below 8. That’s about where you want to be for a low-key social media influencer npc. It’s not so high that she raises suspicion about who she really is or makes her too successful to warrant public appearances, but it’s high enough to influence most straight males into at least giving her a look and being “influenced” (i.e. amused or curious).

          CommoChief in reply to healthguyfsu. | July 4, 2023 at 8:24 pm

          Of course you include celebrities on the scale. That’s the much smaller number of folks at the top end of the distribution. If not then suddenly everyone jumps up the scale. Everyone wants to be 7 or higher but that’s not how standard distribution works.

          The best general explanation on what constitutes the top end of the scale I ever heard goes like this:
          10 gets a modeling contract
          9 gets on TV or in Movies
          8 is the prettiest girl in her small hometown at some point; Prom Queen her SR year or whatever, something tangible and quantifiable

          Average isn’t an insult that’s where most people fall on the distribution. I stand by ranking of a 6.5. She’s nothing special, she is IMO, upper end of average. She’s not ugly far from it but she ain’t a 7 on her face alone. I grant your point about basic threshold of attractiveness to men and would also point out she’s not so very attractive as to be threatening to females.

    henrybowman in reply to slagothar. | July 4, 2023 at 12:40 am

    Valley cheerleader vibes? Not unlikely.

JohnSmith100 | July 3, 2023 at 8:42 pm

I have heard from numerous people that Democrats are swarming conservative twitter users and that is followed with permanent suspensions. This is especially true with the trans group. Is this intentional, coming from Musk’s level, or are there still rogues in the ranks?

    MarkSmith in reply to JohnSmith100. | July 3, 2023 at 8:54 pm

    Ha, who cares. Don’t do twitter, instagram or facebook. Substack is looking more promising that most newpapers.

In the 80s, on the corporate netnews system, amidst the annual war against Christmas decorations, accusations of not being a real person flew around a lot. I never saw why it mattered. What’s written is what’s written.

Great work, Ms. Matthews.

My bet is that “Erica Marsh” and her bot-buddies are registered and active voters too.

Even liberal bots hate “people of color”!

    MajorWood in reply to natdj. | July 4, 2023 at 2:44 pm

    They don’t hate them. They just hurt them under the guise of helping. AA (the bad one) is just one of the many flavors of enabling.

Left to the reader is the answer to the question …

These Erica Marsh tweets sound an awful lot like what comes out of MSNBC, so .. is this Erica Marsh tweeting MSNBC, or is MSNBC using Erica Marsh tweets to guide their programming.

Is she really a bot? Or did she simply say the quiet part out loud to too large an audience?

E Howard Hunt | July 4, 2023 at 10:18 am


A lot of commenters here were also fooled by the bot.

On the internet, everyone is a psuedonym until we meet in R/T; parodies included. Simply peruse the denizens of this site for ‘not my real name’ posters.

So, what twitter-pas did ‘Erica Marsh’ commit? More importantly (and perhaps all that matters), is what she said TRUE?

“…the account has been suspended, presumably due to research done that allegedly shows that the account is a “bot” account.”

‘Research.’ It was my understanding, pre-Musk, over half of twitter were ‘bots.’ But hey, stolen elections gots lots of moving parts. Just ask the FIB.

It sounds so dramatic to say that something is a bot account.

From all appearances, this is a glorified sock puppet account with an AI-Generated profile. The word “bot” immediately creates the impression that this is one of an automated army of similar accounts or an account automatically generating content from a random phrase generator. Based on Greg Boulden’s twitter posts and some of the responses, the content doesn’t seem to be AI-generated, absent some claims that other Twitter users’ posts have been copied wholesale.

In execution, this looks more like a real person hiding behind a fake identity. If I’m right, then the sentiments were surely real (or a troll,) it was just the stated author that was fake.

This is a standard lefty account. There is no ‘dystopian liberal satire’ about it.

Probably a female sock for some lefty soyboy. bleating what his lefty masters pour into the yawning abyss where his brain should be.

ChrisPeters | July 5, 2023 at 3:15 pm

This is discrimination!

If dead people are able to vote, why can’t bots tweet???