'Armies' of Twitter Bots Bolster Both The Trump And Clinton Campaigns (technewsworld.com) 214
An anonymous reader writes:
During the first U.S. presidential debate, "automated accounts were tweeting messages with hashtags associated with the candidates. For example, #makeamericagreatagain or #draintheswamp for Trump; #imwithher for Clinton," according to TechNewsWorld. They cite researchers at PoliticalBots.org, who "found that one-third of all tweets using pro-Trump hashtags were created by bots and one-fifth of all Clinton hashtags were generated by automated accounts."
In addition, "Political actors and governments worldwide have begun using bots to manipulate public opinion, choke off debate, and muddy political issues... We know for a fact that Russia, as a state, has sponsored the use of bots for attacking transnational targets... We've had cases in Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Australia. The problem is that a lot of people don't know bots exist, and that trends on social media or even online polls can be gamed by bots very easily."
After the second presidential debate, "Pro-Clinton bots 'fought back'," reported the BBC, adding that they were still outnumbered by the Trump bots.
In addition, "Political actors and governments worldwide have begun using bots to manipulate public opinion, choke off debate, and muddy political issues... We know for a fact that Russia, as a state, has sponsored the use of bots for attacking transnational targets... We've had cases in Mexico, Turkey, South Korea and Australia. The problem is that a lot of people don't know bots exist, and that trends on social media or even online polls can be gamed by bots very easily."
After the second presidential debate, "Pro-Clinton bots 'fought back'," reported the BBC, adding that they were still outnumbered by the Trump bots.
That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's OK, Twitter fights back against the Trump bots by blocking hashtags from trending. When the FBI reopened the investigation into Hillary's emails, several pro-Trump hashtags (naturally) started trending ... briefly. Then Twitter caught on and suppressed them from appearing in the Trending list.
The same does not apply to pro-Hillary hashtags, of course. Despite the fact that Trump hashtags frequently get many times more tweets than Hillary's hashtags (and if you assume those 33%/20% bot percentages are true and adjust for that, still more legitimate tweets), they're frequently blocked from trending.
And Twitter wonders why no one wants to purchase them.
Re:That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what Wikipedia has to say about totalitarianism.
Totalitarian regimes stay in political power through an all-encompassing propaganda campaign that is disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that is often marked by political repression, personality cultism, control over the economy, regulation and restriction of speech, mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror.
When Twitter, Facebook or "Project Include" embark on a mission to quiet Trump supporters, when they collude to create an anti-Trump narrative, when they support the sabotage of Trump conferences, they're not liberal heroes working for the greater good of America. They're the vanguard of an intolerant movement that threatens democracy. Those people are far more dangerous than Trump.
Um. that might be true (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because a private corporation absolutely cannot be a pawn of political power. What's the privately owned cable news channel that the left loves to bash as being a mouthpiece for the right, again?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, they can't see their own BS flowing from the MSM complex. They hate "Faux News" because it offers an alternative to the now fully exposed Left-Wing Press Corps. It is why they beat up a homeless black woman ("she deserved it") because she was defending the Trump Star in Hollywood. No, they aren't anti Homeless or AntiBlack, but if it were a Clinton Star, it would be pinned on Trump and his "radical supporters". Meanwhile the MSM doesn't cover it, or any number of crimes being committed by di
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a state-run media. We have a media-run state. The mainstream media outlets are all owned by the same 6 mega-corps that all have similar interests, and similar interests to the billionaires who control FaceBook and Twitter. These are the same companies that own the politicians. So the corporations choose the policies they want, the politicians enact them, and then their propaganda media brainwashes the populace with ridiculous moral arguments to convince them that of course, the government igno
I have been paying attention (Score:2)
And don't be fooled. They'd drop Hilary in a second if they thought it was to their advantage. They're pro-Hilary because, like a lot of the 1%, they can't get a read on Trump. If he actually did the things he's implied he's going to it'd cut off most of their cheap H1-B labor. Given that he just took $900k from the owner of an H1-B contractor firm I'm not exp
Re: (Score:2)
They'd drop Hilary in a second if they thought it was to their advantage.
Bullshit. There are two things wrong with this:
1) They are democrats and supporting any democrat above anyone and everyone else is their platform.
2) They are losing views left and right as they continue to ignore the scandals as other media outlets are covering (WikiLeaks, Project Veritas, Social Media)
The MSM is no longer covering news, it is covering up news. You know this, because people like WikiLeaks, Anonymous and people on social media are covering the scandals (too many to numerate) that the MSM pre
Re: (Score:2)
It's a hell of a positioning strategy - if you take all the positions, you can't be thumped with not following through on what you said you'd do!
Re: (Score:2)
When Twitter, Facebook or "Project Include" embark on a mission to quiet Trump supporters, when they collude to create an anti-Trump narrative, when they support the sabotage of Trump conferences, they're not liberal heroes working for the greater good of America. They're the vanguard of an intolerant movement that threatens democracy. Those people are far more dangerous than Trump.
A tip for you, Twitter and FB are not state run media. Just like Fox News and Breibart they are entitled to run whatever bullshit they like, and you equally have the choice to switch off.
Trump doesn't want you to have that choice, he even says this and retards still support him. That is more dangerous to democracy than any western leader in the last 70 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter and FB are not state run media.
No, our government is a media-run state.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when the MSM starts to spend any amount of time on the ongoing Clinton Scandal Saga.
When the MSM spends 50 minutes on Trump's "said mean things" to every minute of Clinton actually doing something illegal, immoral or unscrupulous, it is a narrative, and not actual news.
I can almost hear your rebuttal, "The MSM did cover _____ scandal of Clinton".
Re: That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:4, Insightful)
Same thing that happened in the UK with Brexit: The right propagandized for so long, and so vehemently, that they created their own reality which is separate from the rest of the world.
They have their own wikipedias, creation museums, news sites, networks, religious views, and forums- all based on the presupposition that they are telling "the other point of view". But to separate yourself out society so far results in "us versus them".
And "Republican Jesus" is at the helm...
Most Americans have no problem with conservative views on politics and economics. The problem comes from social politics, separation of church and state, and the rejection of science. These issues are deal killers for the majority of Americans.
Re: That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like the Left's claim that women make 70cents on the male dollar, white males oppress women and minorities, countries can survive with open borders, and one in 5 women are raped on College? Those Progressive Left beliefs are repeated by the left as factual, though we have had facts that counter all of those talking points? How about the leftist claim that service industries should be forced to do your bidding even if it's against your personal beliefs, unless you are in "that" group of Muslims?
The problem is the Left is more guilty than the right about denying facts, but media and politicians refuse to talk about their lies. Like why is the answer to Global Warming "pay shit loads of money to governments and private corporations which have no clear agenda on resolving the actual problems with Global Warming?" Ask that question and you are simply a denier, right? Fuck people are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
society that cares for its people.
If you think you can force people into caring, all you'll end up doing is pissing people off.
But then again, your idea of Caring might not include the use of taxes (and the requisite government guns) and the use of intimidation and force. In which case, you would sound more libertarian than "old fashion lefty"
And all the current government programs can't stop people from "falling through the cracks", even though that is exactly what their purpose is. And the left's only solution is more of the same, never r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Same way it went for the rest of the world. People got complacent and at the same time are afraid that the fat years might be over, so they do what every panicky animal does, turns off the brains and is open for wild, emotional manipulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well the Tea Party has killed the RNC. Their strategy is: Find a bunch of people that have never obtained their dreams, blame a bunch of other people for it... presto! Votes!
I forget the stats and I am to lazy to look then up atm, but listening earlier this week the number of Trump female supports who still support him yet believe he sexually assaulted those women is shocking. Not believing the allegations is one thing, but to believe them and go, "Fuck, who cares?" is something else.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tea Party of 2011 isn't anywhere remotely what the "Tea Party" of today is.
In 2011 it was a populist non-violent response to a government that wasn't listening too good. By the 2012 midterm election it was co-opted by monied interests, the religious right, and politicians desperate to remain relevant like Sarah Palin. Now, it's become a group of people that just want to stamp their feet and say "no" like a 4 year old.
The ones that bitch the most about George Soros having undue influence in politics ar
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry - 2012 wasn't a midterm - that was a Presidential. Need more coffee.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tea Party of 2011 isn't anywhere remotely what the "Tea Party" of today is.
In 2011 it was a populist non-violent response to a government that wasn't listening too good. By the 2012 midterm election it was co-opted by monied interests, the religious right, and politicians desperate to remain relevant like Sarah Palin. Now, it's become a group of people that just want to stamp their feet and say "no" like a 4 year old.
The ones that bitch the most about George Soros having undue influence in politics are doing it with donations from the Koch brothers. Isn't Citizens United wonderful?
The initial idea behind the Tea Party on the surface seemed appealing to most; I attended some initial rallies out of interest, but stopped attending when women were holding signs, "I only want what our founding fathers wanted." and called for returning to the principals and repealing any laws and changes to the constitution that were created since the founding of our country. I was verbally assaulted when I told them they would lose the right to vote if we took their requests verbatim and perhaps we can fi
Why the Tea Party came about (Score:2)
The tea party was something that was created b'cos the Congressional GOP was too busy signing on to Obama deals, thereby leaving the public w/ the impression that there are two Democrat Parties in Congress. They were always a faction within the GOP, so it made sense that they'd represent a subset of its members. In 2012, it was not co-opted by anybody - Michele Bachmann was their standard bearer, and she lost badly, and dropped out after the IA caucus.
Last year, they did initially rally behind Cruz, but
Re: (Score:2)
Find a bunch of people that have never obtained their dreams, blame a bunch of other people for it
You mean like fat stupid women who can't land a job or a man because of "TEH PATRIARCHY!!!" Or blacks who are kept down by the Man and not because they smoke dope and sell crack?
Trump female supports who still support him yet believe he sexually assaulted those women is shocking. Not believing the allegations is one thing, but to believe them and go, "Fuck, who cares?" is something else.
The billionaire playboy says "would you like to come see my collection of erotic Japanese lithographs?" The woman who agrees, and once they're alone gets kissed doesn't get to cry "sexual assault." That's not sexual assault. That's either a very naive woman or a cocktease. And if she's really a "strong independent wymynz what don't
Re: That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If I ever got a mod point, that comment might have gotten it. Seems to be a general shortage of good mod points these days, eh?
Extending your thought, I think you're giving too much credit to FAUX "news". I think most of the credit goes to Reagan's puppeteers. They gutted public education by creating a separate elite stream while converting most schools into pre-prison obedience training. At the same time, they "deregulated" news to allow for profits above public service, with the inevitable race to the bot
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It goes back to Gingrich. He's the architect of the breakdown of civility in Washington. In the 70s he set out to make party politics into the politics of demonization. There has always been some element of that, but he decided to amp it up and destroy any other approaches for negotiation and deal-making with the other party. Easier to get the base worked up if your opponent is a monster. It was his decision to go after Bill Clinton for Lewinsky. Its no surprise he's Trump's best bud.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with a lot of what you've said, except for your last paragraph - Democrats that vote for Hillary are not hoping for change at all. They are hoping for status quo. Hillary has been attempting to position herself as the successor to the Obama administration, who already disappointed on the hope / change meter 4 years ago. It's possible that some people are still looking for that check to be cashed in during the next 4 years, but the reality is that the current administration wasted all their politi
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad you've got me pegged completely wrong. I'm not a "left winger" unless you are one of these guys who thinks that actually striking a compromise with "the other side of the aisle" in order to let the government actually function and serve the people is "selling out". And you know what? If you are that guy, that's cool for you - be your own guy; I don't have a problem with it the way that you seem to.
At the end of the day, the same problem that allows Soros to have as much influence as he does, is t
Re: (Score:2)
Glad to see you got your mod, but still saddened by the rest of the "conversation". Funny? Not that I noticed. Insightful? Perhaps, but only for rather shallow values of insight.
No mention of enthusiasm, but that's the actual key. The point of Twitter as the campaigns see it is to build up enthusiasm among your supporters, and in a tight election that enthusiasm might shift the turnout by a few percent and carry the election with it.
Turns out it's really hard to build enthusiasm with a TwitterBot, but much
Re: (Score:3)
Just be careful, in the UK the anti-intellectuals were used by people who stood to gain from Brexit to win the referendum. Just look at people like Michael Gove and Boris Johnson, both intellectuals who took up the anti-intellectual cause to further their political careers.
The result is a broken, divided country that is likely to break up in the next few years as Scotland and maybe Northern Ireland and Gibraltar go for independence or at least some kind of custom devolved EU membership.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump followers are plain old anti-intellectuals, the GOP created them with Fox news. The fact their own angry mob has ripped their party apart is nothing less than poetic justice.
I disagree with this statement; while Trump has his share of mouth breathers (he falls in to this category) I know a lot of Trump supporters who are not anti-intellectuals, but are simply misguided. They feel frustrated, they see the upper crust getting ahead and feel that they are left behind. Our country is complex, and it is not unusual that many (even educated) people feel lost in the woods.
I do not have a problem with Trump reaching out to these people, I have a problem with the message that he is givi
Re: (Score:2)
Trump followers are plain old anti-intellectuals, the GOP created them with Fox news. The fact their own angry mob has ripped their party apart is nothing less than poetic justice.
Except that FNC is split down the middle b/w Trump supporters - Tucker Carlson, Judge Jeanene Pirro, Jesse Watters, Sean Hannity, Kim Gilfoyle et al and Trump haters - Megyn Kelly, George Will, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes, Megan McCain, et al
. A few are impartial - Bill O'Reilly, Greta (who's left), Harris Faulkner, Mercedes Schlapp, so overall, FNC is fair. In fact, during the primaries, FNC had support all over the place - for Rubio, Cruz, Carson, Fiorina...
Re: (Score:2)
But you keep on believing you are smart, the Dunning-Kruger effect does catch up to people in the long run.
You'd be the last person to know. (snicker)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't bring the "female supporter" angle into this unless you're ready to fully explore the role of Clinton in silencing and threatening the women who made rape accusations against her husband.
Oh I didn't bring anything up... and you can fully explore the "alleged" Clinton role in suppressing the "alleged" victims of Bill Clinton all on your own. You will also note, that I did not accuse Trump of anything, I brought up the opinions of his female supporters who believe he sexually assaulted his accusers for his "alleged" attacks on them and yet still supports him.
But hey... I'll give you a D- for trying to distract from my original statement...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I didn't bring anything up... and you can fully explore the "alleged" Clinton role in suppressing the "alleged" victims of Bill Clinton all on your own.
And you know what, with your insistance on "alleged" you remind of those fuckers who let college athletes get away with rape because the team needs them for the champinship. This is repugnant. One day I hope you get to meet a rape victim that hasn't been taken seriously, maybe then you'll stop defending that witch.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not check some of those allegations. Kissing on the cheek is now "sexual assault". Why not check who is paying the people for their "exclusive" story" and who they support politically. Yeah, you are a fucking retard.
But hey, support the lady who attacks women who were victims of sexual assault, has committed perjury, has neglected a public office leading to the deaths of numerous Americans. Those same outlets told you she was fine, and you retarded people believe them.
Good luck to you Trump supporter.
Re: (Score:2)
How did Americans go from a great nation, to being so fat and stupid, in such a short time? I really want to know what happened?
Clinton, Bush and Obama!!!!
Guess they hated #DraftOurDaughters on trending... (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Because this administration is waging a proxy war with Russia in Syria, and Hillary wants to create a no fly zone [youtube.com] (which would put us at war with them [youtube.com]), and she's the one telling everyone that the nukes launch 4 minutes after Hillary gives the order [youtube.com]. The whole reason the satirical #DraftOurDaughters campaign [twitter.com] (currently NSFW) was going on Twitter has merely served to highlight the fact that she's been very willing to go to war. I mean, it wasn't that long ago when Hillary was talking about how we would go to war with Iran [youtube.com].
Feel free to argue, though: those are mostly videos of Hillary talking. Of course, if you want to say that you don't believe the things she says, I'll be forced to agree with you.
Re:Guess they hated #DraftOurDaughters on trending (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sad thing is, I thought this was a real response for a second because that's the current standard for political discourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary has a weird advantage. She does not have to campaign at all, yet her ratings go UP. If she was dead she would be close to 100%.
Re: (Score:2)
It tells you something about the candidates when they do better by shutting the fuck up. Trump would win by a landslide if his campaign would steal his phone and duct tape him to one of those gawdy golden chairs in Trump Tower.
Re: (Score:2)
Mainly that's because Twitter understands that a vote for Trump is a vote for nuclear armageddon.
Thats Hillarious (sic) considering that Obama has brought us much closer to Nuclear war with Russia over Syria than anyone since Kennedy.
But keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it's rather silly to take any response off the table ahead of time?
But to those who think a President Trump is actually the sort who might go and say.. order a first strike on Russia for making fun of him... the National Command Authority can still/would prevent such a launch.
Yes, a Saturday Night Massacre is possible, it's inconceivable it would go on to the point that enough of a surviving chain would agree to relay the command.
While I'm not a fan of either, I will at least acknowledge that a President Trump is more check-able than a President Clinton (45)
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not a fan of either, I will at least acknowledge that a President Trump is more check-able than a President Clinton (45)
Be careful what you wish for, and also scrutinise your motives for wishing. History is littered with examples of how bad it can go, when you roll over for the silly candidate "because he will be more easily controlled". George W Bush landed the US in the Iraq war, that is now spitting terrorists out in all directions; that's how much he could be controlled. Or to take the more extreme examples: Hitler was made Chancellor of Germany based on pretty similar reasoning; Mussolini probably likewise in Italy (alt
Re: (Score:2)
Citing something that happened in President Bush's presidency, and then assuming that it is likely to happen under Trump is a gross extrapolation. After all, Bush never had a serious challenge to his authority in the party, especially after he saw off McCain's Leftist challenge. All the GOP establishment types happily lined up behind him, no matter what the pretext.
It's a completely different story w/ Trump, who's writing totally new paradigms. For instance, on trade, where he talks about the bad deals
Re: (Score:2)
Well, look it up, it isn't hard - Lou Reed did in fact use it in his song, "Perfect day". And then grow a bit of sense of humour, it often helps understanding the point of comments, and brightens the day in the process. The very fact that it originates (in Western culture at least) in the Bible is what gives his song a certain, bitter-sweet twist.
Millennial? Not sure if I should be flattered or not, seeing that I am in my sixties. If you a referring to the last millennium, perhaps it means I appear to be ve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not silly to take a response off the table that involves tens of thousands of civilian casualties and amazing environmental damage, let alone massive global outcry and what would be the worst foreign policy blunder the country ever committed.
Nuclear weapons are for posturing, and in a sane world are meant for retaliation against a similar strike. There's many reasons they were never used after 1945, even when top generals wanted to in Korea.
RIP Vile Rat (Score:2, Insightful)
The funny thing about that is that there are some indications that the USA created the whole mess to begin with, hoping to destabilize the region and swoop in and take over if you trawl through the Wikileaks emails. I haven't seen them complaining that they're fake or altered since it came out that the DKIM signatures validate the emails as authentic.
Re: (Score:2)
The weasel language I've heard is "contains inaccurate information." Which makes casual observers think "oh, they're denying the emails are real," when that's not what that means. 2 + 2 = 5. This comment is still real, but it now contains inaccurate information.
So, for all we know, the nebulous "inaccurate information" could be an email that says the Clinton campaign got $9 million in illegal donations from Elbonia, when in fact they got $10 million.
Re:That's OK, Twitter fights back... (Score:4, Funny)
How well did Obama do at preventing "civil unrest?"
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to know, because we have no baseline for comparison. If we could build a time machine, go back and install someone else as president then we could answer that question.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we've had several cities burned down with Obama at the helm and the left doesn't seem to care, so "civil unrest" can't be that big of a deal.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil Unrest by the America Hating left is acceptable, even encouraged. Civil Unrest by patriotic "Clingers" and "Deplorables" is not.
Re: (Score:2)
The left doesn't care? Have you even heard of Black Lives Matter?
Re: (Score:2)
I call them the terror wing of the state. These people are funded and controlled by the same people who fund and control the politicians, and are useful so politicians can say to the regular working folk, "give us more money and power to 'fix' these problems and the rioting will stop." The rioting never stops though.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the people doing the rioting. The left approves of their riots, do they not?
Re: (Score:2)
Which wing would you be talking about?
The fact that I have no clue should be unsettling. It doesn't matter which one you say, the other side says the exact same thing about yours ;)
Re: (Score:2)
The rioters. BLMers were bussed into Charlotte by George Soros, the riots against Trump's rally was organized by MoveOn.org, the people who shut down the Arizona freeways were on Hillary's payroll. They rile up morons, and pay some of them to go terrorize the populace and their opposition and then they and the media say "stop opposing us and the riots will stop."
Re: (Score:2)
and you missed my point ;)
why does anybody care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Because the "common man" still has the vote.
Re: (Score:3)
What does the "common man" have to do with Twitter? The kind of people who inhabit Twitter are pretty much the opposite of the "common man".
There's 15% undecided voters (Score:2)
Concision (Score:3)
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Admirably brief. Doth the lady (or gentleman) protest too much? Looks like a Twitter-trained response to me.
Returning to your Comment Subject:
Re:why does anybody care?
My response is "Concision". Yes, Twitter is a cesspool on its best days, and much worse the rest of the time, but the quest for brevity brings a clarity to the mimes. There are a few gems there. Don't bet on finding any, mostly due to the TwitterBots of this selfsame story.
As usual, I try to see things in terms of solutions, and one solution that could add significan
Re: (Score:3)
And if you have been paying attention to the news, the so-called Democratic Party has also given up on winning presidential elections by fair means.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your constructive contribution to the survival of Slashdot.
Or the opposite.
I regard the "conversational exchange" as pointless and closed, but lately that just seems to be the Slashdot way.
My memory might be playing tricks on me. After all it is getting harder and harder to remember when Slashdot wasn't a total waste of time. Should I gamble the search time on finding a "funny" or "insightful" post anywhere in this story's comments?
Re: (Score:2)
The re-tweet and star features are there to help good posts get noticed, and to help with spam filtering. A bunch of bots that always re-tweet each other are easy to spot, and a bunch of people checking an amplifying messages lets the good ones come to the fore.
It works reasonably well. Certainly no worse than any other system, apart from perhaps Slashdot on a good day.
Re: (Score:2)
It works reasonably well... for what? I have never in my life seen anything interesting on Twitter. It's mostly people expressing their outrage at various things, and occasionally coming up with a pithy remark; unfortunately, the pithy remarks are rooted in people's prejudices, biases, and bigotry.
Twitter is an intellectual wasteland.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a cesspool of corporate and political propaganda, self-righteous indignation, and minor celebrities trying to make a name for themselves. Why does anybody listen to the crap these people post?
Most people don't. If you're in that echo chamber it might seem like everyone is doing it, but Twitter only has 300 million active users/month. The developed world number at least a billion people, so at least 70% of them also think it's stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget to discount how many of those 300m users are automated bots specifically for the purpose of "following for profit", or the bullshit mentioned in this story.
I find it hard to believe that even 150m people find enough value in Twitter's service to continue using it month after month.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you are saying is that Twitter exists as a marketplace for parasites, and offers no value whatsoever. Sounds about right.
At least YouTube has some content available on it.
No problem for twitter (Score:3)
Very few people use Twitter.
And yet another reason not to twitter and FB (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just one more reason I don't have any social media accounts and never will.
You and me both.
I got stuff to do, I can't be wanking off all day on twitter and instacrap and pinterest and linkedin and facebook. None of those site hold the slightest interest for me, zip, zero, nada.
Re: (Score:2)
How'd the Trump bots outnumber the Clinton ones? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Clinton's got a lot more money than Trump. She ought to be able to match him here. Conscious Decision maybe? I just don't know why.
I looked at the article and they never explain how they determine whether a twitter account is a bot. An awful lot of Trump supporters on twitter are anonymous because the left loves to dox people with the wrong opinions and harass them or try to get them fired, etc. Are these really bots, or just anonymous twitter users?
If they're bots, are they paid for by the campaigns? Where's the FEC filings for the Trump bot payments? We know Clinton's spending millions with Correct the Record for her fake online supp
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man. This guy doesn't know how tax returns work. Don't worry, one day you'll get a job, and then you'll see you don't put your net worth on your taxes. Thank God you're not old enough to vote!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, Hilary's State Department emails on her private server are not supposed to matter, but Trump's tax returns, which is nobody's business but his, is? He made a public financial disclosure when he announced as is required by the FEC, and that is as legally binding, and a more direct representation of his assets and liabilities
Somehow, it's amusing to see SJWs, who in the past attacked rich candidates like Romney, Bush, Forbes et al of being rich, to attacking Trump contesting his claim of being r
So now they are reduced to using sock puppets (Score:2, Funny)
Twitter? Seriously? (Score:2)
Bot or human, what's the difference? (Score:2)
There is nothing really new here : What is the difference between bots and humans paid for astroturfing or trolling?
Bots have an advantage here: their volume will quickly make everyone realize social media are rigged and irrelevant.
I'm just a bot programmed to #MAGA (Score:2)
Or maybe I am a real red-blooded American!!! Vote @realDonaldTrump for real change and less Hillary.
What's a fact? (Score:2)
Simply stating "We know for a fact that Russia...(or whoever)" doesn't make it a fact.
I call bullshit - that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eww. Madonna is like 100 years old, couldn't it at least be Lady Gaga?
Re: (Score:2)
1. I wouldn't vote for Hilary if the candidates running against her were Abu Baqr al Baghdadi and David Duke. And I'm neither White, nor am I a Muzzie.
2. I use PC-BSD and Windows. So even if I did vote for her, I'd still not get it
3. Had Madonna flipped the offer, I'd not even vote for Trump
Re: Invisible Robocalypse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter: for bots, by bots. (Score:2)
The purpose they serve is to generate activity, so Twitter can point to the activity and claim people are using the service. Bots tweet, other bots retweet. Further bots counter-tweet, with another set of bots that retweet. It's a giant bandwidth and energy consuming automated clusterfuck with a signal-to-noise ratio rapidly approaching zero.
Can't imagine why someone doesn't want to throw $billions at this fine service.
Re: (Score:2)
Hating something and making money are two separate things. I can hate something all day long, but if there is money to be made, I'll ignore my hate long enough to make a dime. I might even pretend to like something I hate, just to make a dime.
The funny thing is, you think Clinton is different. Let me assure you, she doesn't give a shit about anyone but herself.
Re: (Score:2)