Interesting Read

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Here's my take....

What the article says may very well be true. However, and this kills the article's value for me, the article didn't address (other than a hint at the beginning it would) the obvious other, and equally important, question: was the other side of the coin considered (i.e., how many accounts that champion "staying closed" are bots)? I don't need to know necessarily what that result was, but I do need to know that both sides of the "story" were looked at.

Because the "other side" wasn't addressed to any substantive degree means - to me - that this was a bait & switch post (whether intentional or not) that winds up being less about "science" post and more about agit-prop for the "stay at home" position.

Or did I miss something?

--- End of line (MCP)
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
It makes the progs feel better to think anyone who contradicts their brainwashing isn't a real person.
 
Reactions: BOP

22AcaciaAve

Active Member
1. Do you really believe my posts are automatically generated?

or

2. Fairies wear boots?
I think a lot of social media is controlled by bots. It is an unforeseen circumstance of the social media era. Unfortunately, a lot of the extremists on the far left and far right buy into whatever supports their agenda on social media. This is where Russian 'interference' in the election was most prominent. They understood how gullible the 70% of the partisan divide was to any story that supports what they believe. That's not interference, it's propaganda, something the US has been doing for years as well.

Now, as far as #2......Fairies wear boots and you gotta believe me. Yeah, I saw it, I saw it, I tell you no lies! :larry:
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Here's my take....

What the article says may very well be true. However, and this kills the article's value for me, the article didn't address (other than a hint at the beginning it would) the obvious other, and equally important, question: was the other side of the coin considered (i.e., how many accounts that champion "staying closed" are bots)? I don't need to know necessarily what that result was, but I do need to know that both sides of the "story" were looked at.

Because the "other side" wasn't addressed to any substantive degree means - to me - that this was a bait & switch post (whether intentional or not) that winds up being less about "science" post and more about agit-prop for the "stay at home" position.

Or did I miss something?

--- End of line (MCP)
The article is from CMU, not a news outlet. Their methodology didn't go looking for a specific narrative. They looked for bot activity and analyzed the content of the most influential and most active bots. This was one of their findings. Are you suggesting they found evidence of "stay-at-home" bot activity and are not reporting it? If so, what's your rationale. Even more importantly, if they had found it, that would be further indication that bot activity has increased to sow more division in the population.

You shouldn't be looking at this through a political lens. It's a national security issue.
 
Last edited:

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
I'm not currently familiar with an AI that has the ability to respond to specific points made in a text, respond with subtlety and sarcasm, and refer to multiple texts drawn from non-successive posts in an online forum. AI has become extremely sophisticated, but it is still very limited. And if such an AI existed, why would it be used here?

You're just trolling. But that may be the extent of YOUR programming.
 

SkylarkTempest

Active Member
Here's my take....

What the article says may very well be true. However, and this kills the article's value for me, the article didn't address (other than a hint at the beginning it would) the obvious other, and equally important, question: was the other side of the coin considered (i.e., how many accounts that champion "staying closed" are bots)? I don't need to know necessarily what that result was, but I do need to know that both sides of the "story" were looked at.

Because the "other side" wasn't addressed to any substantive degree means - to me - that this was a bait & switch post (whether intentional or not) that winds up being less about "science" post and more about agit-prop for the "stay at home" position.

Or did I miss something?

--- End of line (MCP)
You want a fair and balanced article? Here ya go:

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/nearly-half-tweeting-coronavirus-bots-researchers
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
"Researchers say" all kinds of things that turn out to be bullshit. Then AP/Reuters picks it up and distributes it to all the news outlets, who print/repeat it verbatim.

I go by what I personally experience, opinions of people I personally know and what I personally see. That's typically dead on and not subject to the manipulation "researchers" and "reporters".

You progs can certainly believe whatever you want - those articles are written specifically for you, so you might as well enjoy them.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
the researcher looks apolitical ...... WTF is a Social Scientist :sshrug:


Kathleen M. Carley is an American social scientist specializing in dynamic network analysis.[1] She is a professor in the School of Computer Science in the Institute for Software Research International at Carnegie Mellon University and also holds appointments in the Tepper School of Business, the Heinz College, the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, and the Department of Social and Decision Sciences.[2]



The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field

Q&A with Kathleen Carley on the spread of coronavirus disinformation

What role have social media bots played in this, and where are these bots coming from?

It's too early to say where the bots are coming from, but we're finding that 40 percent of the discussion around coronavirus and COVID-19 is coming from bots. Of the users themselves engaging in conversation around the virus, we're finding around 22 percent of them are bots.

A big issue is that these bots are very influential – the network around them is configured such that they have a lot of listeners. Forty-two percent of the top 50 influential mentioners are bots, 82 percent of the top 50 influential re-tweeters are bots, and 62 percent of the top 1,000 re-tweeters are bots. This means that, similar to the virus itself, disinformation about the virus is spreading quickly – only much, much faster.

I always like to know where the money is coming from .... funny she never mentions HOW They ID Accounts as BOTS


that ' famous ' Twitter Russian Bot Study Sapidus loved to quote was done by ONE GUY Who NEVER rel;eased is Methods and Methodology for Peer Review ..... Progressives Claimed was Gospel is a far left leaning progressive
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
But I'm not. Do you really believe my posts are automatically generated?
No, a bot would sound more intelligent.

BUT you do understand the meaning of "may be"??

Means they have no proof, they are talking out their ass, and will tell you what you want to hear so you can repeat it ad nauseam.. to prove to the world how great an independent thinker you are.
 
Top