Slashdot Mirror


Florida Firm Sells Twitter Followers and Bots That Retweet Celebrities, Executives, and 'Influencers' (nytimes.com)

Over the weekend, The New York Times published an expose on an obscure American company called Devumi that sells Twitter followers and bots that automatically retweet celebrities, executives, social media "influencers" and anyone else who will pay. From the report: Devumi sells Twitter followers and retweets to celebrities, businesses and anyone who wants to appear more popular or exert influence online. Drawing on an estimated stock of at least 3.5 million automated accounts, each sold many times over, the company has provided customers with more than 200 million Twitter followers, a New York Times investigation found. The accounts that most resemble real people reveal a kind of large-scale social identity theft. At least 55,000 of the accounts use the names, profile pictures, hometowns and other personal details of real Twitter users, including minors, according to a Times data analysis.

[...] The actor John Leguizamo has Devumi followers. So do Michael Dell, the computer billionaire, and Ray Lewis, the football commentator and former Ravens linebacker. Kathy Ireland, the onetime swimsuit model who today presides over a half-billion-dollar licensing empire, has hundreds of thousands of fake Devumi followers, as does Akbar Gbajabiamila, the host of the show "American Ninja Warrior." Even a Twitter board member, Martha Lane Fox, has some.
Hours after the report was published, New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, opened an investigation into Devumi. "Impersonation and deception are illegal under New York law," Mr. Schneiderman said. "We're opening an investigation into Devumi and its apparent sale of bots using stolen identities."

66 comments

  1. Twitter ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... is a depressing rabbit hole.

    I recommend we don't scrape the slime off.

    Let it fester in a vacuum.

    It's public masturbatory narcissism.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Twitter ... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I recommend we don't scrape the slime off.

      Let it fester in a vacuum.

      It's public masturbatory narcissism.

      Burma Shave

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Twitter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter is Mostly Narcissistic Morons and now apparently, mindless zombies.

    3. Re:Twitter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Twitter is Mostly Narcissistic Morons and now apparently, mindless zombies.

      Just like Facebook, Instagram and the rest

    4. Re:Twitter ... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ... is a depressing rabbit hole.

      I recommend we don't scrape the slime off.

      Let it fester in a vacuum.

      It's public masturbatory narcissism.

      The problem with your assertion is we wish Twitter were regulated down to nothing more than public masturbatory narcissism. Unfortunately, a lot of morons look to social media as a source of news and facts, which is why many are concerned with a certain (cough, POTUS, cough) Twitter account being damn near capable of starting a war.

    5. Re:Twitter ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 2

      I agree.

      I sense a fatigue in those vertical markets on the part of all involved.

      Ad agencies can't shake a buck, users want more dancing bunnies, the silos are not news-friendly, and content is becoming vacuous except for the over-the-top shit that requires expensive human intervention to stave off government regulators.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:Twitter ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't Twitter or the pussy-grabbing POTUS.

      The problem is on the demand side for that kind of shit.

      It's wearing thin and the market shows it.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re:Twitter ... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Demand side is largely Pussy Hat wearing or Sean Hannity watching idiots. Known by the term "average Americans'. What we need are a few Elites to tell us what we need to know, like perhaps, CNN and the NYT!

      (Please note, the post is filled with all sorts of sarcasm and ad hominem to the point of being reductio ad absurdum)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    8. Re:Twitter ... by Major_Disorder · · Score: 1

      ... is a depressing rabbit hole.

      You misspelled "shithole"
      Maybe that was what Trump was trying to say...

      --
      First law of people: People are generally stupid.
    9. Re:Twitter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't Twitter or the pussy-grabbing POTUS.

      The problem is on the demand side for that kind of shit.

      It's wearing thin and the market shows it.

      Ignorance, gullibility, narcissism, and stupidity are wearing thin? That's a fucking laugh.

      P.T. Barnum made an infamous assessment long ago, and it sure as hell hasn't shown any signs of wearing thin.

    10. Re:Twitter ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everyone's an elite compared to Fox News morons.

    11. Re:Twitter ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... long ago ...

      Precisely my point.

      On Sunday, May 21, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey® said its final farewell ...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    12. Re:Twitter ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      They don't have Twitter in shithole countries.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    13. Re:Twitter ... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Lucky shitholes ...

    14. Re:Twitter ... by geekmux · · Score: 1

      ... long ago ...

      Precisely my point.

      On Sunday, May 21, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey® said its final farewell ...

      You know what we call Ringling Bros. in the 21st century?

      YouTube.

      You know how many suckers are taking the click bait to keep a shitload of clowns employed in that circus? About one every minute.

  2. Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If deception is illegal under NY law, why is the wallstreet allowed to operate; or any advertising for that matter?

    1. Re:Wait, what? by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exaggerating (Lying) in journalism is protected by law.

      --
      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    2. Re: Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting to rename all bot accounts to "journalist"?

  3. Followers I get but retweet accounts? by Anon-Admin · · Score: 1

    What is the point of the retweet account? I have seen lots of them that just take something someone posts and retweets it. Heck there is a service I use to manage multiple social network accounts and it has a plugin that allows me to set up an account that does nothing but retweet what I post. I just dont see the need for it.

    1. Re:Followers I get but retweet accounts? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Informative

      What is the point of the retweet account?

      Valuation, nothing more. It also helps to bypass twitters awful anti-spam system. An account with more activity, more retweets, and so on is less likely to be autobanned by people simply trying to shut it down. Really though, Twitter is having a hard enough time staying afloat and them pissing on users isn't helping them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    2. Re:Followers I get but retweet accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are herd animals. They see that others like something, so they automatically assume it's good.

      Plus, algorithms might treat content that's "popular" better than that which has no engagement.

    3. Re:Followers I get but retweet accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What is the point of the retweet account?
      It's the same as the purpose of mod points on Slashdot comments. High scores==illusion of consensus.

      don't fucking be ironic, mods

  4. Wait what?! by the_skywise · · Score: 2

    "Impersonation and deception are illegal under New York law,"

    Since when is a twitter account considered a bona-fide persona for legal purposes?

    It's one thing if you've got a Twitter account trying to act like an official mouthpiece like DeBlasio's office or DeBlasio himself. But a name retweeting or liking a post isn't impersonation. Deception? That 3.5 million retweets aren't a valid count of a posts accuracy? Likability? Popularity? What's being deceived? a "i like this" has no meaning unless you're a sheep. Likewise, a retweet doesn't mean something is liked or unliked.
    Is this guy honestly insinuating that all tweets must be legally accurate?! How about RottenTomatoes? Amazon review scores?!
    And what does this portend for Slashdot's mod system?

    1. Re:Wait what?! by BradleyUffner · · Score: 2

      What's being deceived?

      Bots are using personally identifiable information of REAL people, without their consent, in order to "be" those people.

    2. Re:Wait what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure about that? It's easier to generate random "identities".

    3. Re:Wait what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fake it till you make it" may be customary in the business world, but it's in the word: to fake something means to deceive. Also, they're impersonating real people. That's called identity theft.

    4. Re:Wait what?! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      And since when does New York get to dictate what a company in Florida can do?

      I've said it before and I'll say it again: The vast majority of Twitter's "users" are bots. There are probably less than 10 million daily active users at this point. Everyone and their dog has dumped Twitter and Snapchat for Instagram. And I mean they literally have accounts for their dogs that have huge followings. Having an Instagram-famous dog is a career now.

    5. Re: Wait what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personal information cannot be absolutely unique. Which means you can't claim copyright on it.
      There can and will be two or more oldfarts called Hillary Clinton, and probably a number of perverts called Bill Clinton.

    6. Re:Wait what?! by naughtynaughty · · Score: 2

      When the company in Florida does business with people/companies in New York or commits a crime in New York (such as stealing the identity of people who live in New York.

      You don't have to physically set foot in a state to commit a crime in that state.

    7. Re:Wait what?! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      When the company in Florida does business with people/companies in New York or commits a crime in New York (such as stealing the identity of people who live in New York.

      Except New York doesn't get to regulate interstate trade. New York is going to have to demonstrate that specific New York citizens were harmed (e.g., their identities were stolen), and then the worst they can do is ask the feds to tell the Florida company not to sell its services to people in New York.

      You don't have to physically set foot in a state to commit a crime in that state.

      You pretty much have to if you want the state to have jurisdiction to do something about it.

    8. Re:Wait what?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pointless to say, but RTFA, ac. They copied profile info from real people that used their real names for their twitter handle and started tweeting as those people. Clear case of identity fraud.

  5. amazing article by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is a very well researched NYT article. I can imagine this required quite a bit of data mining and analysis and must have been fun to investigate. Especially impressive the time charts illustrating the patterns which give away when followers were bought. I'm glad this is investigated as it would really bother me personally to have my profile been sold like in the case of Jessica in the story. Just one thing about the appearance of the article on the website: I know it looks cool with all this dynamic build up of the diagrams and pages. At the moment, as a reader I feel lost in a maze of dynamic text buildup and never know whether I have missed something. as scrolling modifies the page constantly. Still, this story is an eye opener.

    1. Re:amazing article by e**(i+pi)-1 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what are you talking about. This is not my article and don't know the authors.

    2. Re:amazing article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly what the author would say.

  6. Why is this allowed? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 0

    More evidence that so-called 'social media' is a metasticized cancer on our civilization. Time for some serious chemo.

    1. Re:Why is this allowed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      More evidence that so-called 'social media' is a metasticized cancer on our civilization. Time for some serious chemo.

      Social Media thrives on ignorance, stupidity, and narcissism.

      In other words, you've got about as much of a chance of eradicating it as you do the Darwin Awards.

    2. Re:Why is this allowed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well-placed EMPs? Tactical nukes?

  7. Polocies by g01d4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many of the accounts identified by The Times appear to violate Twitter s own policies, but remained active on the social media platform for years, each retweeting and promoting Devumi customers.

    (Emphasis mine) If a company has policies it can't adequately enforce it should be held liable for, at minimum, false advertising. Either enforce the policies or abandon them. Enforcing policies only when it suits them commercially should fail any test of adequate enforcement.

    1. Re:Polocies by Stan92057 · · Score: 1

      In my experience no web site polices its own site and enforces its own rules unless a member of that site reports the violation.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    2. Re:Polocies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Polocies? How do you get that so wrong and then right in your own comment.

    3. Re:Polocies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry. I typed the Subject quickly and didn't look twice. Preview and spellcheck don't bother with the Subject either.

  8. Did anyone not know this ? by RedK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Next up : You can buy Reddit upvotes and Facebook likes. Sky is blue, more at 11.

    --
    "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
    Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    1. Re:Did anyone not know this ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also sell Slashdot accounts with low id numbers.

    2. Re:Did anyone not know this ? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Kids knew it. People in the industry knew it. Advertisers knew it but tried to hide it while using it. People like our parents and grandparents however, unfortunately, not only did not know it, but also literally can't believe the notion. The vast majority of the voting public in fact can't react maturely to this revelation. They will simply think the concept is too absurd to happen in real life. And that's why it worked.

    3. Re:Did anyone not know this ? by RedK · · Score: 2

      Kids knew it. People in the industry knew it. Advertisers knew it but tried to hide it while using it. People like our parents and grandparents however, unfortunately, not only did not know it, but also literally can't believe the notion. The vast majority of the voting public in fact can't react maturely to this revelation. They will simply think the concept is too absurd to happen in real life. And that's why it worked.

      I'm honestly more puzzled why Twitter/Facebook don't just cut out the middle man and do it Loot box style.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    4. Re:Did anyone not know this ? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      I'm honestly more puzzled why Twitter/Facebook don't just cut out the middle man and do it Loot box style.

      Probably because they can't come up with original ideas, only steal them. Now that you posted this though, you've just given them a new idea.

    5. Re:Did anyone not know this ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm honestly more puzzled why Twitter/Facebook don't just cut out the middle man and do it Loot box style.

      What makes you think that Twitter (or the people in charge of it) doesn't own those middle men indirectly through some sort of shell corporation?

  9. while they last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get fake friends here now. Cheap!

  10. Oh, NOW you just noticed? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    Years too late on this one guys.

  11. fraud upon fraud? by Holi · · Score: 1

    Selling counterfeit profiles is one thing, but actually lying about the location of your business? Yeah, I can't see this ending well for German Calas (even if he did graduate Princeton when he was 10).

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:fraud upon fraud? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't the first thing that went wrong for the Germans at Calais.

  12. A death knell for Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the real Ms. Rychly [19 year old whose identity was stolen by Devumi] may soon leave Twitter for good. “I am probably just going to delete my Twitter account,” she said.

    When the youngster's start abandoning a social media platform, it will eventually end up like Myspace.

    1. Re:A death knell for Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When apostrophes start leaving a sinking ship...

  13. because the narcissist says so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In my experience

    you're bat-shit insane if you think anyone cares

  14. Truth in Labeling... Almost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I glanced at the summary, and thought the name of the company was 'Devium'.

    Take a concept word, like 'devious', and modify it to make your company name. Good job guys... almost :)

  15. I have 6 bots following me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have like 6 bots following me, how do I know they're bots? Because none of them are people I know or follow, and I don't promote my account because I've never twitted and have no plans to do so in the next year and a half.

    1. Re:I have 6 bots following me by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      You plan internet activity 18 months out? How much time a week do you set aside for porn?

    2. Re:I have 6 bots following me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18 months puts him into the primary season of the 2020 US election cycle. I'm guessing 8 hours.

  16. They trick old people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    into believing they are helping them get logged into twitter they use the account themselves the real person has no idea what the real password ever was.

  17. You are wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a leeway otherwise journalists wouldn't be able to safely criticize the wealthy and powerful. This is a good thing. It's what makes America great. Very few others countries allow this. France and England don't.

    American journalist can't deliberately lie though. They have to be fair. Tell both sides of the story. Ask both sides to comment and give them 24 hours t reply.

    That Aziz story by BABE was shitty journalism. Only gave him 6 hours. BABE are scum but they were rewarded with millions of hits.

  18. Useless by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Twitter is the confetti of the internet.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...