Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Two-Thirds of Tweeted Links Come From Bots, Report Says (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the it's-a-bot-world dept.

We already know bots have a significant presence on Twitter. But a report published Monday by the Pew Research Center suggests automated accounts are more prevalent than we may previously have thought. From a report: Pew estimates that two-thirds, or about 66 percent, of the links shared on Twitter come from bots rather than people. The research specifically focused on the 2,315 most popular websites and over 1 million tweets sent between July 27 and Sept. 11, 2017.

33 comments

  1. Not suprising. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    These sites have algorithms that benefit higher users. So a Bot will just post stuff, and perhaps get the usage that benefits them.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Not suprising. by bobstreo · · Score: 2

      These sites have algorithms that benefit higher users. So a Bot will just post stuff, and perhaps get the usage that benefits them.

      I never joined twitter, but I'm pretty sure there are bots with more followers than anyone who isn't posting nudes or bikini pics.

    2. Re:Not suprising. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nah. There are lots of famous people who don't post nudes who have tons of followers. Obama, for example, has 102 million followers and I'm quite sure he's never posted nudes.

    3. Re:Not suprising. by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nah. There are lots of famous people who don't post nudes who have tons of followers. Obama, for example, has 102 million followers and I'm quite sure he's never posted nudes.

      You have to wonder how many of those followers are democratic party bots?

      There are famous people on twitter, some (maybe most) of them aren't the actual people, just their PR teams, or interns...

    4. Re:Not suprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama, for example, has 102 million followers

      Makes you wonder how much he paid to get that many bots.

    5. Re:Not suprising. by gnick · · Score: 1

      There are famous people on twitter, some (maybe most) of them aren't the actual people, just their PR teams, or interns...

      I follow DJT; he's the only reason I have a Twitter account. He SHOULD have a team managing his Tweets, but I'm quite confident that many come straight from him.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    6. Re:Not suprising. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      At least some are bots. You can't get any significant number of followers without bots slipping in. There are only 20 people following me (most are friends or bands I know members of) but one is almost certainly a bot that only ran for one day last August, tweeting 5 times and following 668 other people, before going silent. God only knows what the person behind it was trying to accomplish.

      Still, over 60 million people voted for Obama in each election, so a large chunk of the 100 million followers are likely to be real.

      As far as who runs his account? Probably managed by a PR person, but at least some of the content is provided by Obama. The back and forth between him and George W Bush about NCAA brackets was amusingly mundane. I don't think a PR team would have been able to resist trying to make it more interesting.

    7. Re:Not suprising. by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2

      A PR team would at least use a spell checker, so I believe you're correct.

    8. Re:Not suprising. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is people are allowed anonymity on the internet and access to unlicensed general-purpose computing devices and unregulated software. As long as anonymity and unlicensed general-purpose computing devices running unregulated software are a common reality there will be danger.

      The only way to make the internet safe, law-abiding, and civilized is to remove the ability to be anonymous and disallow any ability to connect unregulated/unregistered/unlicensed devices or devices running unauthorized software. The US needs to shift it's entire internet infrastructure over to government ownership, operation, and control so that such measures can be implemented.

      If you oppose these actions then you are for allowing sex-trafficking, child-porn, and terrorism free reign on the internet.

  2. No Shit by darkain · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just file this one under "NO FUCKING SHIT" - Twitter is the modern day RSS feed. Slashdot has a "bot" account as well. Every new article posted to the front page is shared w/ link to their Twitter feed. Cross-posting tools do the same, too (such as Facebook, Instagram, and anything that shared an image before Twitter allowed images directly)

    1. Re:No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just file parent's reply under "DUMB FUCKING SHIT" - the point is that most social media users likely don't appreciate the prevalence of automated "users." With RSS feeds, the user specifically chooses what content is fed to them. With social media, "feeds" can be manipulated using bots designed to spread a particular message with the user remaining completely oblivious. Users are pretty much dumb and lazy so the real point is should we allow a system to take advantage of this?

    2. Re:No Shit by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It's true that the RSS feed single account twitter feed would account as a bot and it could muddle the discussion but it would be odd if Pew would mess up the analysis by including these in the 'scattergun bot' group. This page says the verified accounts from news sites do not affect the results because their contribution is insignificant http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

    3. Re:No Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twitter is the modern day RSS feed.

      Wish they didn't drop support for RSS back in 2012. At least there's services like https://twitrss.me/ which bring back the same functionality.

    4. Re:No Shit by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "most social media users likely don't appreciate the prevalence of automated "users."

      Sheep also don't care for the shepherd's dogs, but nobody ever asks the sheep.

    5. Re:No Shit by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Funny, I actually highly appreciate the bots--as well as the ones that give me something approximating RSS feeds (which I can't easily get otherwise anymore), there's also a couple I follow that are just status bots, that tweet out if a site or server is up, and sometimes also when they're back up. (At least, I hope they're bots, because it would be a bit of a thankless job to stick an actual human with.)

      All of these, however, are pretty honest about what they are. The bots that are trying to fake being people are the problem.

  3. It's OK! by Kludge · · Score: 2

    That is fine, because only bots subscribe and read those feeds anyway.

    1. Re:It's OK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yup. twitter is only for egotists

    2. Re:It's OK! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      That is fine, because only bots subscribe and read those feeds anyway.

      Twitter is a primitive form of AI. Musk might be right.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  4. Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ____% of slashdot articles are posted by bots.

    1. Re:Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ____% of slashdot articles are posted by bots.

      100

  5. Yeah but who follows bots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only other bots.

  6. Do humans use Twitter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought Twitter was 100% bots. All I have ever done with Twitter is make it so that stuff from my employers' CMS gets posted to it. Theoretically we do this because someone thinks that some humans out there might be reading our twits, but not a single person in the company said they read Twitter.

    Not a single person in the company. But our bot posts.

  7. Twitter: For Bots, By Bots by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 2

    Twitter these days is such a mess, they should have the tagline, "For Bots, By Bots". I'm at a loss on how to fix it (if it can be saved), but Twitter is in need of real help.

  8. Trending on twitter is news worthy by roccomaglio · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many of the traditional news outlets cover things that are trending on twitter. This means that trending twitter subjects leads to news coverage. If twitter is mostly bots, trending on twitter is meaningless and news is doing us a disservice by covering it.

    Why do the news organizations rely on twitter? One reason is that it a great way to get quotes on a subject. John Jones "calls for more investigation". Previously, it could take many phone calls to get a good quote. With twitter you can sort through hundreds of potential quotes until you find one that makes your point.

    1. Re:Trending on twitter is news worthy by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Many of the traditional news outlets cover things that are trending on twitter. "

      Their bots do the trending and direct users to their main business: You watching their ads.

    2. Re:Trending on twitter is news worthy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previously, it could take many phone calls to get a good quote. With twitter you can sort through hundreds of potential quotes until you find one that makes your point.

      Which is a different kind of disservice, selective reporting.

  9. Re: Twitter needs to be obsoleted, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    absolutely

  10. the math never did pass cursory review. by nimbius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    twitter, youtube and facebook all suffer the same malaise: cooking the books when it comes to interactivity numbers. Likes, subscribes, and similar artifacts of user interaction have no incentive to be properly vetted by either consumers or the platforms owner. For example: Fandango doesnt need you questioning the number of absurdly high likes for the upcoming Marvel trailer because that number drives revenue for them outside the platform. more likes means more user interest, a better chance to arrive on the front page of youtube, and in turn more hype generated by editors and content managers on other sites as they visit Youtube for their daily meme fix. Content management and talent management agencies that handle big names like Pewdiepie, Markiplier and similar artists dont need you questioning their half-billion member subscription count either, as the carefully curated presence on Youtube of these celebrities translates directly to the salaries of numerous behind-the-scenes studio workers in Hollywood.

    but the sword cuts on both edges. Industries that have slept through nearly 20 years of fake currency in the way of likes/tweets/subscribes have no purchase when they suddenly turn around and decry fake news and the outcome of popular opinion that was driven by their broken system.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  11. Twitter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and Jack Dorsey can go fuck themselves.

  12. The Solution is Simple by shubus · · Score: 1

    #deleteTwitter

  13. Don't follow Twitter, who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's bad enough I am on Facebook. And, other then primary news agencies. I just look for jokes