General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Was in that area of Nairobi last month.
Finland got a grooming scandal going on. Not as bound by PC in Finland as the UK though, so hopefully they will sort it out before it escalates even more.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ooming-gangs-child-sex-scandal-escalates.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ooming-gangs-child-sex-scandal-escalates.html
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
capitalism...
One in 20 Britons Does Not Believe The Holocaust Happened
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/one-in-20-britons-does-not-believe-holocaust-happened
This country is so shite.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/one-in-20-britons-does-not-believe-holocaust-happened
This country is so shite.
This is quite easily a bot account.
I wonder if the Russians will pit the left against each other as a tactic this time, instead of focusing on trump
Wtf
New account created in Nov last year, no normal interaction, exclusively retweet/tweet attack Cory Booker/Kamala Harris and promoting Sanders, called Warren a corporate stooge.
I think she got the right of this one.
The account is 4 months old, no personal media or any personal tweets or personal engagement
The bio reads; "Southern black who knows his rightful place" who talks like that?
Looking at the followers, the majority are other bots with stock photos and other obviously fake bios or no photos at all
Every single tweet is from the twitter website, not a single from a phone or mobile app - which is how the majority interact with twitter.
Twitter is ridden with fake accounts that push political agendas.
I don't think that's necessarily the case and it's very deceptive of you to cut off the important part of his bio.
"Southern Black who knows his place: owning the means of production"
Moreover, if Kamala Harris can be exposed by a bot it doesn't say much for her candidacy.
I just googled "is this account a bot" and put that account into the first two sites. The results were 0.5/5 and "propoganda bot like patterns not found". Not everyone who disagrees with you is a bot.
I don't really care what agenda it pushes, and I don't care for Harris either.
I'm simply saying that exposing the presence of such accounts will be important especially if that is going to be the tactic used to help the repubs win.
Comrade Arsenalski, your maskirovka has been blown.Based on this analysis, I am actually a Russian bot on twitter. Well done ?
Who the fcuk would?
Anyone holding up Trump as the worst of America, that then holds up Harris as a saviour.... wow.
The Democratic Party is a joke.
Anyone that gets behind a game plan of “Just beat the Republicans” deserves another 4 years of Trump.
What in God’s name is the point of trying to win a popularity contest if it comes at the detriment of trying to actually improve society?
I questioned the possibility of it being a fake account, I agree with most of the account is tweeting but if it is fake it should be highlighted as such, shouldn't it?Based on this shallow analysis, I am actually a Russian bot on twitter. Well done ?
If it was a fake MAGA account that would be scrutinised too.
Of course a lot of people keep their personal details away from twitter but this account literally only tweets about politics, no other interests or opinions and there's nothing personable about it at all.
That's questionable to me, if it's not questionable to you - that's fine there's no harm in disagreeing
backtracking from "quite easily a bot" pretty quick;y
I haven’t changed my opinion.
congrats on being wrong twice over then
No because you have no evidence.I questioned the possibility of it being a fake account, I agree with most of the account is tweeting but if it is fake it should be highlighted as such, shouldn't it?
If it was a fake MAGA account that would be scrutinised too.
Of course a lot of people keep their personal details away from twitter but this account literally only tweets about politics, no other interests or opinions and there's nothing personable about it at all.
That's questionable to me, if it's not questionable to you - that's fine there's no harm in disagreeing
You literally just described how I use twitter so I think you are far too quick to try to "call something out" you really don't know enough about.
Twitter is not Facebook. Millions of people never put personal info on twitter
Which is why I said it’s my opinion. I also already said a lot of people keep their personal information off twitter but we’re still people, meaning you’ll still like tweets you find funny, or follow sports teams you support, or talk about your favourite songs or movies or whatever - you still have a personality because you have other interests outside of just politics.
If you had the choice between getting shot in the face or punched in the arm, would you choose getting punched in the arm or would you ask for a belly rub instead, knowing you’ll probably get shot in the face but at least next time they will know you want a belly rub.
Not on Twitter we don't. I'm not crazy. Tens of thousands (probably even millions) keep anonymous accounts on Twitter to comment on politics.
There is no way in hell I would ever like things I really like on Twitter. That's a sure fire way to get doxxed by the thousands of psycho alt-right on Twitter. Twitter isn't Facebook or Instagram. Those are the social media for people sharing and liking real info. Most people I know that don't work in social media only use Twitter anonymously (especially everyone I know in tech or internet industry that have never trusted Twitter to keep their data safe).
I really think you need to re-evaluate your heuristics for determining what is and is not a bot.
What does BDS mean? I've gathered it relates to Israel but no clue how.
But even then the aftermath of 2016 election exposed an extortionately large amount of fake accounts that were also tweeting various political agendas, right?
Accounts that use stock pictures, accounts pretending to be left/right/whatever, accounts that have no semblance of personality associated to them - so much so that twitter introduced a function to allow normal people to help identify them, also it regularly purges fake accounts and jack admitted that there are likely to be hundreds of thousands more still out there.
If you use twitter completely anonymously, that's fine it doesn't take away the presence of fake accounts however - two things can be true at once.
So again - we can agree to disagree on whether that particular account is fake, that's fine. My main point is that there are still fake accounts used to push political agendas, and since it was used as a tactic in the past, it's likely that it will be used again.
Every single one of the bot accounts I saw used much worse English in a specific way (more basic, choppy, typical of non-fluent new speakers) that is very different than the account you said was a bot. Eboue linked one of those analyzers that, while not perfect, certainly gives a better baseline because it has a database of those actual bot accounts to compare it to in a systematic manner. It only scored 10% chance of being a bot.
I've definitely seen a pattern where people are massively overweighing the probability that accounts are bots because they have been primed with all this barrage of news stories saying bots exist. This makes many people very susceptible to confirmation bias and another very common cognitive bias where people overweigh the likelihood of low probability events.
As I said I find your heuristics problematic. Under your exact logic, a lot of safe twitter accounts of people I know would be instantly concluded as a bot. I think so many people rushing to conclude 'bots' all the time now is very prone to error and is just increasing the noise to signal ratio. I think you are probably concluding many real people are bots solely because they don't mean your arbitrary criteria.
https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
"Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) is a Palestinian-led movement for freedom, justice and equality. BDS upholds the simple principle that Palestinians are entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity."
Your anecdotal experience of bots isn't the only experience of them - I've seen bots which are very sophisticated and remained undetected for years, doesn't mean they are all that way, but it shows that there is a variation in them in order to avoid detection and producing an element of predictability.
I gave a brief example of my criteria based on that account alone, it doesn't make it conclusive and it's certainly not set out in stone - but again it's my opinion and i'm entitled to have one, it doesn't mean i'll just dismiss the account altogether but I can have an element of scepticism about it's legitimacy.
You seem to be under the impression that bots don't exist or they are rare - that's simply not the case. That's also not to say that there isn't a lot of people just throwing out the allegation of accounts being bots for no reason at all - again, that's not the case here for me either.
Any account which is reported as being fake has a chance to prove that they aren't, so nobody who is real is in any danger of being removed without merit - if anything twitter is failing to identify the presence of bots, and like 2016 we probably won't understand how deep the problem goes until the aftermath, and the damage is done.
So if you disagree with me about that particular account being a bot we can agree to disagree, but surely you're not suggesting that there aren't bots on twitter that push political agendas?
I am not talking about only my anecdotal experience; I referenced Eboue's more objective account analyzer which only gave it a 10% chance.
I also supplement that with two known cognitive biases that are at play here.
What I am suggesting is that since these news stories break I see people constantly calling other people bots simply because they post something that doesn't meet someone's personal subjective criteria for what is now not a bot.
In other words, I think people rushing to call other people bots is now a much bigger problem than the actual bots.
Its a known tactic btw - all you need is one traitor to get 150 people all mistrusting each other.
Calling people bots at worst hurts feelings and may upset/irritate some people, the presence of bots however has the ability to influence people's perception of politics - so there's a clear difference between the effects that each one has.
I've also said that I agree that there is too many people calling account bots for no reason, that wasn't why I called the account in question one, and that shouldn't mean that normal people shouldn't be vigilant about the presence of bots either, considering the creator of the platform has spent the last 2 years openly admitting there's a huge problem and they're struggling to combat it.
If you think accusations of accounts being bots are a bigger problem than actual bots, we can agree to disagree.
The actual substance of the tweet (the video) is pretty damning and real even if its a bot or not. I can see why @villain would be inclined to think it is a bot but i dont think that affects the information in the tweet itself. I think @villain is trying to get at the broader problem of russian troll farms sowing discord amongst the dems in a bid to keep trump in power than complainng about whats actually in the tweet (i could be wrong but thats what im seeing). Dont think if it is a bot or not should take away from the fact that Kamala is babylon herself. I can see why someone would think its a bot and why someone would think it isnt. Dont think it matters too much
That is it, I agree with the content of the video - Harris shouldn't get anywhere near Presidency.
However I do think bots will be used tactically to cause disruption amongst the Dems, which will make it easier for the Repubs who are more aligned.
You're kind of missing the point. You don't need many bots to sow the distrust that is happening (many wantonly dismissing views they don't like as 'Russian bots'). In fact the Russian bots are probably not even that active right now because they don't need to be. So many people are just using 'Russian bot' to dismiss and distrust the goal of the bot farms is already being served.
I'm a bit surprised you really don't see the bigger picture and just think its all about millions of bots being deployed when in fact the strategy of disruption is much more subtle and less labor intensive than that.
You only need a small peddle to cause big ripples.
Why wouldn't they need to be active now? Candidates on both sides are announcing their intention to run for presidency - it's the perfect time to sow seeds of discontent early on. Accounts which suddenly appear a few months before the election will be far too obvious - however in 18 months time, accounts could remain undetected for (at that time) 2 years with thousands of tweets and 10s of thousands of followers and will be far more believable.
Again, you seem to be fixated on the idea that the bots aren't harmful when 2016 has shown that not to be true.
Also, i'm not just talking about bots, I said it could be a tactic, not the only tactic, so how am I not seeing the bigger picture?
Because they already are creating plenty of disruption with so many already calling everyone else bots. They don't need a million bots to achieve this effect. They only need a small amount. Its very diminishing returns and Twitter itself is at least trying on a minimal level to limit it so there is going to be an optimal amount of bots to achieve the desired effect. Its not a "the more bots in circulation the better it is for us" equation.
If every account was actually a bot that people claim are bots when arguing then 80% of Twitter would be bots and you might as well ignore every account that doesn't have a blue check mark.
No, that's why I say you keep missing the point. I never said "bots aren't harmful" or anything like that.
I said they don't need nearly as many bots to achieve the disruption they are trying to achieve because so many are so quick to knee-jerk to conclude others are bots the disruption is already achieved.
I think what you did (leap to conclude an account was a "bot" far too fast while ignoring the more objective analyzer which only gave 10%) is exactly what the bots farms want people to do. They want people to be so suspicious of any other account they conclude other accounts are bots based on whatever arbitrary reasons.
When so many people are doing exactly what you did they've already achieved their goal. They don't need to keep spamming millions more bots as that runs more risk.
Anyone who isn't a bot can easily dispel the accusation whilst remaining anonymous though, it's not like the accusation is going to be held against them forever with no way for you to shake off the tag. That's exactly what happens when your account is reported for being fake - twitter gives you a chance to anonymously prove that you are a real person. Even without that, there's plenty of things anyone can do to prove they're a real person behind the account without revealing their real identity.
Also I didn't 'leap' to a conclusion - I looked that the accounts media, I looked at over half of it's tweets & tweets with replies, I looked at who he followed, who followed him and their profiles, I also looked at the source of his tweets to see if he ever tweeted off a phone - and he didn't. (according to twitter 80% of active twitter users access the site via mobile; https://www.statista.com/chart/1520/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/ is it not weird that in 3 months he hasn't tweeted from his phone at any given time?)
I didn't just pluck the accusation out of nowhere or for no reason.
how is being one of 20% weird
Ah. Thanks