Live data from Hacker News

Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

bbc.com

241–250 of 267 posts

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's possible that the majority of spam is not meant to be seen by humans, but is instead designed to train spam filters and keep them busy, so some payload still penetrates the shield.

I enjoy stories about this, they dont show up here often because its assumed to be a solved problem. But the spam wars continue!

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#242

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…

It's like the battle that newspapers have against ad blockers in people's browsers. Twitter has to balance usability here. People make fake accounts for everything everywhere for all sorts of reasons. Seems as though you stumbled on some fakes that may all be related (all posting starwars quotes) but maybe not. Could be just some off the shelf software that creates twitter accounts. Probably a non-negligible percent…

In my head I have started to call twitter shitpeoplesay. I find that it helps contextualize things when someone's tweets are reported in the news.

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unbelievable -- "Hacker News" my ass HN needs more of this type of comments, not less

That's also not an argument

They don't have to be. They're equal and opposite assertions that cancel each other out so the thread can proceed as it was.

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#245

I'm just amazed at this entire series of threads. "Gosh, who knew violating social network ToS by proxy and creating massive false consensus networks was so easy?" Everyone. Everyone should know. We're watching this terrible trend rip apart the entire social proposition of the internet after spending 2 decades trying and finally achieving buy in. And here y'all are, hopefulls for a digital economy cheerfully defraudi…

I can't parse your third paragraph. Who do you think is responsible for this? I say it is Twitter. Any public service must plan for its ToS to be broken by bad actors.

There is blame enough for both twitter and the asinine people here who engage in the deliberately misleading communication, fraud and harassment.

Capability is not a moral license to hurt others. If it were, you'd be morally responsible to kill as many people as possible.

My third paragraph is saying this: The US elections were decided by and large by social media plays. There are hints of illegal use by campaign actors, but even beyond that it was the first election we had where widespread bots on facebook and twitter were engaging the electorate. That and the repeal of the VRA are definitely factors in why the democrats lost while still keeping the popular vote.

I've been in this industry since a time when I was a teenager being laughed at for texting ("It'll never catch on."), using social networks ("Why not just call them?"), and reading online news ("WIRED doesn't put real journalism on their website, and slashdot isn't news"). Many people who are on the internet today take for granted that society has accepted this state of affairs, but it's the work of decades of amassing respectability and providing value.

And now in the public eye: dismantling the ability to associate and speak freely because the majority of even first world rich actors cannot use it responsibly.

Sure, there is blame for Twitter and Facebook for not ignoring the problem. But the people here relating in a chipper tone how they're undermining the system because, "Tragedy of the commons?" They're so stupid they're literally biting the hand that feeds them because it's a rush to commit minor fraud.

(Aside: It's very sad that Twitter fired blake so long ago, because he predicted exactly this would happen. Twitter's management didn't want to think about it, so they made him leave. Typical execs.)

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#246
post #172

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…

All that machine learning stuff is pretty much useless against human generated fake profiles, just like captcha is useless against human captcha solvers.

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#247
I agree that if you plan to stay with a cheater don't try to find any information. However, in my case I needed it in my state in order to file for a divorce and come out of the relationship. You can't just say I think courts want proof or you end up spending a lot of time and money to fight it out! Finding out was hard, but I was relieved that I wasn't crazy and it's making my divorce go a lot smoother. He would never confess; therefore, I did the best thing for me...find out, no doubt, move on!!!contact hotcyberlord@gmail.com.. or text his phone +15402277725 he's a professional and will surely help you out,tell him from Ninah

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#248
post #128
post #31

Spam was a serious and growing problem before the major providers got serious about filtering. For now I just report clickbait feeds as spam and hope for the best.

I thought, "ha, he'd need a botnet to make any noticeable impact", when I thought, has anyone thought of that? Using a network of bots to detect and report obvious bot accounts.

Possible to automate, but limiting your report/block activity to spam-accounts that follow your real account would have the most impact.

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#249

The question this sort of thing leaves me with is "Why does {Twitter/Facebook/Google} permit this? What are they getting out of it?" Its pretty clear what the bot guys get out of it, pay to promote services, pay for followers, etc. They can monetize "fame" through the robotic horde. But as this article and ones before it point out, these networks are generally quite easy to spot. So why not take them out? It probably…

They don't "permit" this. I used to work on anti-bot technology at Google and we put a lot of effort into fighting botting, in particular on Gmail. We were quite successful at the time. Bot controlled accounts went from being a problem that was threatening the viability of the service to being fairly trivial. I don't know what it's like these days. Anti-abuse teams tend to be relatively small. We aren't talking hundr…

> From a quick check it seems Twitter is getting better at it. Prices used to be more like in the low $20/k range. Now the low end accounts are $45/k and if you want PVAd/profiled it's up near $90. Compare to Gmail where the price is more like $280/k. Or Facebook EN accounts, $120. Good to see my old colleagues doing such a good job!

Perhaps there's just more demand?

> Nowadays there's suddenly a bout of anti-Russian hysteria. Suddenly bots are in focus again. There are conspiracy theories about botted accounts being used to convince people to change their political positions. Having worked in the industry for years I am deeply skeptical about this. I never once saw bots being used for political ends or anything even approaching it. There is a lot of disinformation out there about Russia right now from western sources, and a lot of paranoia that doesn't seem to be justifiable.

The fact that you've worked for Google on anti-botting and didn't see the technique you were tasked to counter used for political means might be leaving you biased. Without pointing fingers, I just want to state that there's tremendous political opportunity in spreading misinformation via internet (via any media really), it's amazing that in 2017 this isn't clear for everyone.

Re: Massive networks of fake accounts found on Twitter

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't parse your third paragraph. Who do you think is responsible for this? I say it is Twitter. Any public service must plan for its ToS to be broken by bad actors.

There is blame enough for both twitter and the asinine people here who engage in the deliberately misleading communication, fraud and harassment. Capability is not a moral license to hurt others. If it were, you'd be morally responsible to kill as many people as possible. My third paragraph is saying this: The US elections were decided by and large by social media plays. There are hints of illegal use by campaign act…

Ever since email spam, we have learned that systems have to be made resistant to abuse.

There is enough blame to go around, but it is reasonable to blame Twitter. It is not reasonable to expect bad actors to go away. Systems designed on this assumption will always fail.

Yes, we can rightly rail against the people abusing the system, but ultimately there are 7 billion people and expecting all of them to be ethical is foolish.

However, we should expect Twitter to behave ethically and hold it to account when it so clearly fails.

By all means, keep fighting the good fight, but the only thing that can realistically improve the situation is Twitter.

Post reply on HN