Slashdot Mirror
Inside the Real Economy Behind Fake Twitter Followers
colinneagle writes "People continue to pay money for Twitter followers, and, naturally, a deep network of developers and merchants has arisen to feed the market. A Barracuda Labs study found that the average dealer has the capacity to control as many as 150,000 followers at a time, sometimes more. Those who can control 20,000 fake accounts and can attract sales of $20 or more — the going rate is 1,000 followers for a minimum of $18 — stand to earn roughly $800 per day, according to Barracuda Labs. Keep in mind that very little of this work is manual; the dealers could easily control a system of botnets and set up a few software tools to automate much of the process. Using Twitter's API, developers can design programs that collect all the information of a given group of Twitter users, such as, for example, the 800,000 users following Mitt Romney's account. These programs don't necessarily hijack these accounts — they copy the images and text from their profiles and tweets. This pool of information can then be automatically ported into accounts based on an algorithm that automates the registration process on a massive scale."
Is the sole purpose of doing this to make an entity seem more popular on Twitter than they really are? Assuming so, what is the tangible benefit of doing that? Does Mitt Romney win the election if he has more (albiet fake) Twitter followers?
Um he's the president of the united states...the population of the USA is three hundred and eleven million people, and I'm sure there are plenty of people outside of the USA who follow him as well. I don't really see Obama buying twitter followers, perhaps when he initially, campaigned for president, but that would just be an assumption at best.
Does this sound like a science fiction story? thousands of internet profiles developed by computers using hijacked accounts manipulating the masses for money in a grand Machiavellian scheme
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
It's not just Twitter that has issues with paid-for accounts. Many sites do. You can see prices from one large seller here. I work on Gmail signup abuse (amongst other things) and am quite proud of the price of Gmails on there.
Yep, no way ~6% of a country could possibly be interested in what the holder of its highest political office has to say.
> I doubt there's 18 million people that interested in him.
Really? You dont think that as a leader of the country of 350 million people... and the most internationally well know country on a planet of 4 billion people... that 18 million of them would follow him on twitter? I cant really think of any other individual who would be likely to have more followers than him.
the average dealer has the capacity to control as many as 150,000 followers at a time, sometimes more. Those who can control 20,000 fake accounts and can attract sales of $20 or more — the going rate is 1,000 followers for a minimum of $18 — stand to earn roughly $800 per day,
Throw in some "unlimited" and some "caps" and it sounds like a cellphone confuseopoly plan. Break it down simple for a fool like me... Lets look at the market. Say you're 18 and hired as the "social media director" at your F500 megacorp for $250K/yr and your key performance indicator is gaining 1000 twitter followers per month. That means you'll have to whip out your personal credit card for... What, $18 every month, or $18 for every 1000 PER month, or $20 for 20 kiloaccounts or what?
So... twitter is basically a "service" where fake media personalities have their PR agent write fake posts for fake followers to read, because it makes money, huh?
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
...and the most internationally well know country on a planet of 4 billion people...
7.
There are 7(+) billion living humans on Earth.
Otherwise, spot on.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
As a side project I built TwitterAudit (which is under a lot of load right now and runs on a 512mb VPS :) to estimate how many followers are real vs how many are fake. It looks at a sample of 5000 followers and about 5 criteria to guess whether a given user is real or fake... check it out!
Just like SEO, this is for managers who were given an arbitrary popularity metric to follow rather than being told to create good content people actually wanted to read.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
That's like organizing a speech in a stadium to only fill the seats with stuffed mannequins... then proceeding to do the speech anyway.
And then taking a picture from high above in a blimp and putting it in the paper with the headline about the speech given to a full stadium. The public doesn't know that the audience is fake, but it sure looks good for the speaker.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
Hi friends. I present a question.
Who the fuck cares how many Twitter followers a said person has? Is this the new e-penis? I assume it has to do with spam and advertising somehow (exposure hits) but in all, it sounds silly.
...unless you're in on this sort of thing early, you usually can't really profit much from it. You can profit, and waste time, but it's better to find the next frontier rather than jumping on the bandwagon.
I know some guys who do this sort of thing and they always end up using a combination of outsourced labor and automated posters, and it's really not that hard to do. XRumer usually does a decent job at this sort of thing, amongst others. The thing is, they were in on it early, before twitter even became a thing in the mainstream.
Really, though, aside from just selling followers to people and generating a bit of ad revenue or whatever, this is probably less profitable than splogging and having cloaking pages take non-spider visitors to your sales pages... From there you just spam links...though Penguin made that a bit more difficult. Either way, this type of marketing suffers diminishing returns faster than anything I've ever worked with, otherwise, I'd be spamming twitter right now.
CEO Goldman Sachs, Chairman of Soros Fund Management, Chief Executive of ConocoPhillips. Maybe Chief Justice SCOTUS. When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators. Left, right, center, everyone serves somebody, and these days it aint us.
I dunno, I'd say Obama is more powerful than Roberts overall. The Supreme Court can occasionally overrule the President, but on most days the President has a lot more influence. Roberts ain't got no drones.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In some cases, I'm sure that the actual account-holder thinks it's a good idea to add followers because then people will think he/she is important enough to follow. And I'm sure, to some degree, it works. Whether it's worth it or not is a secondary question.
In other cases, such as the alleged purchase of followers by the Romney campaign, I'm sure it went instead something like this:
Campaign Social Media Adviser: We need to leverage social media.
Campaign Manager: He's right! We need to harness the power of the Internet!
Romney: Yes, let's use the complex series of tubes to get the message out! Make it so.
Campaign Manager: Make it so!
Social Media Adviser: Uh, it takes more than "make it so" to make it so.
Campaign Manager: MAKE IT SO! Get me followers or lose your job!
Social Media Adviser: Gotcha! (purchases followers, keeps job for now)
The CB App. What's your 20?
Many voters, probably most, are too apathetic to bother evaluating candidates on their merits. Instead they extrapolate those merits from things like poll numbers and other horse race indicators.
Let's put a twist on this. What if instead of "apathy" we switch in "availability." If you watch US corporate news or read (almost) any newspaper, you'll only find what you mentioned: poll numbers from biased surveys, Twitter sound-bites, pretty pictures of candidates in their shirt sleeves. That's all a voter has to go on unless they do their own research. Which is time consuming even for those who excel at analysis.
Quick, where do you go to critique a voting record, review the original bill, find out what was crammed in at the last minute, and figure out why a politician voted as they did? When you go to the source you'll find volumes of data. There's 6 hours gone, though with some small but significant knowledge digested. There's a lot of analysis on the Internet, some that's really excellent, but then again you're on a search for good info with a lot of effort dedicated to filtering the various biases. So to save time you start to look for a few analysts to trust, maybe one that other people have found, one that's popular. And you're back where you started, voting with a crowd.
One of propaganda's methods is the bandwagon effect, and these fake Twitter accounts use the technique because it has a history of working.