Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

Post by nl » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 5:59 AM UTC

d0mine wrote: post #163

sigmar wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These bots (and human run trolling accounts) have been widely reported on[1], but by many different organizations in different languages. Which seems to have made it not as widely known as it should be. I still see people arguing on twitter with what is clearly a bot. I would like to see someone write the story of the overarching result of what a world will look like in an increasing internet-focused world, when disi…

Try to remember the last time you heard anything positive about Russia. Consider how it is compatible with the existence of Putin's troll army. At the very least try to imagine the relative scale of money/power involved in the propaganda in the West compared to the rest of the world. (for reference, check military spendings)

Post by pluma » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 6:27 AM UTC

fsttx wrote: post #172

jashkenas wrote: post #28

I would imagine that it's possible that some of the people reading these comments might already know a lot more detail about Twitter/Facebook bots than this story goes into. Although you fine folks might remember me from a few other projects, I'm currently a Graphics Editor at The New York Times. We're actively curious and interested in pursuing lines of inquiry about this sort of behavior, and if any HN'ers have any…

There's an angle that hasn't been explored that ought to be: a lot of news and political commentary websites used to run their own comment systems for articles or use pseudonymous services like Disqus, but these were overrun by "trolls" and spammers. Many then switched to Facebook, presumably hoping that the "Real Name" policy would improve things. The interesting thing is that clicking on many of the Facebook profil…

Post by pluma » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 6:46 AM UTC

Post by SiVal » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

pluma wrote: post #203

fsttx wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an angle that hasn't been explored that ought to be: a lot of news and political commentary websites used to run their own comment systems for articles or use pseudonymous services like Disqus, but these were overrun by "trolls" and spammers. Many then switched to Facebook, presumably hoping that the "Real Name" policy would improve things. The interesting thing is that clicking on many of the Facebook profil…

While I wouldn't dismiss the chance that some of these people are fakes I would like to point out that despite being a techie (if not because of it?) I barely use Facebook anymore and if I hadn't been registered for a long time my Facebook profile would also be pretty barren. I also always had a policy of only "friending" people I know personally and privately. The only purpose of Facebook for me is keeping up with t…

Post by austinjp » Sat, Jan 28, 2017, 7:02 AM UTC

econner wrote: post #125

nostrademons wrote: post #70

No kidding. I remember when I first moved to the Bay Area in 2009, I met a smart guy at a startup meetup, a serial entrepreneur with a previous exit. I asked him what he was working on, and he said "Oh, I've been writing a Twitter bot that will follow people of your choosing, engage them in simple conversation, and retweet their tweets. It's building a network of followers - I don't know yet what I'd do with that, bu…

I'd believe it. For what it's worth, something like 80% - 90% of all email is spam. It's usually better to leave it there and cordon it off so that real users don't notice it. Spammers don't get feedback that their spam isn't being shown to real users. Also 350,000 accounts is hardly "massive" as the clickbait title suggests. No way that can account for more than a small percentage of traffic.