Mark Robinson’s response to CNN’s report about old posts on a pornography website has turned a North Carolina governor race controversy into a broader test of trust in digital evidence.
Robinson, the Republican nominee for governor of North Carolina and the state’s current lieutenant governor, denied that the comments were his. Instead, he argued that the allegations were part of an AI-driven attack.
What CNN reported
On Thursday, CNN reported that inflammatory comments had been made by Robinson on the message board of a pornography website more than a decade ago. The site was called “Nude Africa,” and CNN said the user account involved carried the username “minisoldr.”
According to the report, the account was active between 2008 and 2012. CNN identified Robinson as the user by matching biographical details, a shared email address, and profile photos.
The comments CNN described included Robinson referring to himself as a “black NAZI!” and expressing support for reinstating slavery, among other controversial statements.
Those details matter because the evidence described by CNN was not presented as a single image, clip, or isolated screenshot. The report described a trail linking an online identity to Robinson through multiple points of comparison.
Robinson’s AI defense
After the allegations surfaced, Robinson rejected the report and framed the controversy as an artificial intelligence fabrication.
“Look, I’m not going to get into the minutia about how somebody manufactured these salacious tabloid lies, but I can tell you this: There’s been over one million dollars spent on me through AI by a billionaire’s son who’s bound and determined to destroy me,”
Robinson made that statement to CNN reporter Andrew Kaczynski in a televised interview. He was referring to an AI-generated political commercial set to air next week.
“The things that people can do with the Internet now is incredible. But what I can tell you is this: Again, these are not my words. This is simply tabloid trash being used as a distraction from the substantive issues that the people of this state are facing.”
The source article argues that Robinson’s claim is very unlikely to be true, citing the evidence CNN assembled and the fact that the reported comments were posted long before the current AI boom.
That distinction is central to the dispute. AI can create convincing material, but the claim here asks voters to accept that old internet history, connected through multiple identifiers, should be treated as suspect because modern tools can now fabricate media.
The “deep doubt” problem
The Robinson episode fits into what the source calls the “deep doubt” era. The idea is that generative AI does more than create fake images, audio, or text. It also gives public figures a ready-made explanation for evidence they want to deny.
Ars Technica connects the case to a concept researchers Danielle K. Citron and Robert Chesney formalized in a 2019 research paper: the “liar’s dividend.” In that paper, they wrote that “deepfakes make it easier for liars to avoid accountability for things that are in fact true.”
The concern is not that every AI-related denial will work. It is that the existence of realistic synthetic media can make people more willing to question authentic material, especially when the evidence is politically damaging.
Mike Nellis, a former senior adviser to Kamala Harris, pointed to Robinson’s CNN appearance in a post on X. He wrote, “It’s already hard enough for people to figure out the truth, without MAGA politicians and conspiracy theorists blaming AI for anything that makes them look bad. I’m not sure what the solution is yet, but this is a huge problem for the future of democracy.”
Why the claim still matters
The deep doubt era does not make every denial persuasive. In Robinson’s case, the source article notes that a few members of his own party think he should resign his candidacy. It also says the NC GOP has so far defended him, and that Robinson had no plans to drop out as of this morning.
The political effect may not depend on proving the AI claim. A denial can still create uncertainty for supporters, give allies a way to avoid a direct judgment, and shift the conversation from the reported evidence to the possibility of manipulation.
That shift is already visible. Another CNN report quoted North Carolina Republican Rep. Greg Murphy raising doubt about the authenticity of the forum comments.
“What I read was very concerning, but given the degree of electronic manipulation that can happen these days with AI, with everything else, who the hell knows what’s true and what’s not,”
That response captures the practical risk. Once AI becomes a universal explanation, the public argument can move away from what evidence shows and toward whether any digital record can be trusted.
What comes next for digital trust
The source article warns that more capable AI systems could intensify the problem. It points to the possibility of “context attacks,” where generative AI models could produce supportive fiction that helps manufacture a broader story around a false claim.
For voters, journalists, and campaigns, the Robinson controversy is a preview of a harder information environment. The central question is no longer only whether fake media exists. It is whether real evidence can survive a political culture in which AI is invoked as an all-purpose escape route.
That does not mean every accusation should be accepted at face value. It means the standard for evaluating claims has to remain tied to evidence, chronology, and corroboration, rather than the mere possibility that AI could create something fake.