Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Now Lets You Report Accounts That You Suspect Are Bots (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the fake-account-crackdown dept.

Twitter is updating its reporting process to allow you to report accounts that you suspect are bots. "Now, when you tap the 'it's suspicious or spam' option under the report menu, you'll be able to specify why you think that, including an option to say 'the account tweeting this is fake,'" reports The Verge. From the report: Twitter announced the change through its official safety account today, and it's now live on both the web version and mobile version of the service. You can see an example of the mobile report flow pertaining to this update [via a tweet from @TwitterSafety.] According to a Twitter spokesperson, "The new reporting flow will allow us to collect more detailed information so we can identify and remove spam more effectively. With more details to review, we'll be adding more resources to our review processes."

42 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Report RealDonaldTrump by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Maybe they want it to be abused. What a great way to compile a list of asshats whose reporting you can safely ignore? Other warning flags include the HTTP referer being 4chan.org or anon.to.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Bots that report real users as bots by shanen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think you [AmMoJo] have already been led down a wormhole by some AC troll. I see no reason to peek.

    My initial reaction is that the obvious problem will be with bots that are programmed to submit bot reports on real users. To maximize the confusion, they'll obviously program the bots to look for humans that act like bots so they can more plausibly report them. Of course the same data will be useful in modifying their attack bots to act more human to make them more difficult to detect and purge.

    My basic position is that Twitter is broken beyond redemption. MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) might be applicable to Facebook or even Slashdot, but Twitter is just FUBAR.

    Apparently the troll wanted to lead the discussion down some Trumpian road. I actually have a comment that is slightly germane on that topic, given that #PresidentTweety is the de facto king of Twitter:

    A good election is one between good candidates.
    A bad election is one where voters are choosing the lesser evil.
    The worst election is where the evil candidate "wins" by lying and assassinating the character of a good candidate.

    The saddest part? In theory, an election between a good and bad candidate should be a landslide for the good one. In practice, it too often becomes a worst case election decided by big money and corporate cancers investing in the bad candidate because he's cheap. On November 6th I think we'll find out how much democracy still exists in America.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    1. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Bots and fake accounts are like spam was a couple of decades ago. A seemingly very hard problem, and somehow people fall for the investment scams and pen1s enlargement pills even though it seems impossible that anyone could be that daft.

      It's a harder problem to solve than spam, not least because we have state level actors putting resources into it. But Twitter could do a hell of a lot more. These accounts often have really poor op-sec, e.g. posting photos with metadata showing Moscow time instead of where they claim to be. Twitter should have a decent sized team working to find and remove such accounts. Amateurs do it for fun, report the accounts and then Twitter demonstrates its incompetence by being unable to comprehend the evidence.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by Kiuas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The saddest part? In theory, an election between a good and bad candidate should be a landslide for the good one. In practice, it too often becomes a worst case election decided by big money and corporate cancers investing in the bad candidate because he's cheap.

      Yep. And for those who haven't read their history, this is by no means a new, or a US centered phenomenon. The father of political history Thucydides descried the political situation in island of Corsya after their civil war in 427 BC as all trust in the political system had been destroyed and the island turned to heavy partisanship thusly:

      So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occurred late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one’s blow in first against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership, since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of the established laws, but to acquire power by overthrowing the existing regime; and the members of these parties felt confidence in each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical effect.

      Revenge was more important than self-preservation. And if pacts of mutual security were made, they were entered into by the two parties only in order to meet some temporary difficulty, and remained in force only so long as there was no other weapon available. When the chance came, the one who first seized it boldly, catching his enemy off his guard, enjoyed a revenge that was all the sweeter from having been taken, not openly, but because of a breach of faith. It was safer that way, it was considered, and at the same time a victory won by treachery gave one a title for superior intelligence. And indeed most people are more ready to call villainy cleverness than simple-mindedness honesty. They are proud of the first quality and ashamed of the second.

      Love of power, operating through greed and through personal ambition, was the cause of all these evils. To this must be added the violent fanaticism which came into play once the struggle had broken out. Leaders of parties in the cities had programs which appeared admirable—on one side political equality for the masses, on the other the safe and sound government of the aristocracy—but in professing to serve the public interest they were seeking to win the prizes for themselves. In their struggles for ascendancy nothing

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    3. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Twitter and Facebook could go a long way toward minimizing the problem by limiting how many posts you can make on a thread - certainly on a thread that's not 'following' you. Or at very least, make you solve a captcha every 3 or 4 posts on such threads.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    4. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by shanen · · Score: 1

      My suggestion with MEPR is essentially to make free accounts worth what you paid. In other words, I would be able to ignore them until they earned positive reputations. Actually I think the default visibility setting should be slightly positive, which would mean that trolls would have to make significant investments in creating credibility before anyone would even see them. I would actually prefer to set mine higher than the default in some dimensions, and perhaps lower in others.

      The data for the MEPR should be public and accessible. This would make it possible to trace the trust networks to actual people with long-established reputations.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    5. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by Raenex · · Score: 1

      On November 6th I think we'll find out how much democracy still exists in America.

      What, if they vote the "right" way, meaning what you think is right?

    6. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by shanen · · Score: 1

      Not sure why you are quoting the book at such length (though I read it many years ago and it was interesting to see it again), but the point is that Athens did divide and conquer itself and the human dynamics haven't changed that much since then, if at all. You could cite Caesar for the other side of it, how to divide and conquer from the outside.

      The scale of the problems has changed, however. The oscillations have become more severe. Even though the overall trend has been for things to get better, that's only the long-term average. On the short term, which is where we live, things could go below zero on one of the swings. There might be no recovery from a sufficiently negative oscillation.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    7. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by shanen · · Score: 1

      Can you explain how your comment is related to anything I wrote?

      Or should I merely dismiss you as the troll you appear to be and regard your fake discussion as terminated?

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    8. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I directly quoted you. Instead of calling me a troll, can you respond to the argument? Or will you just go back to your smug opinions?

      We have a democracy if people are free to vote, not based on what candidates are voted for.

    9. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the default visibility setting should be slightly positive, which would mean that trolls would have to make significant investments in creating credibility before anyone would even see them

      Doesn't this mean EVERYONE starts out as a tr0ll, and that they are invisible to all others, unless of course someone chose to change their settings to allow them to see the "unwashed masses", but why would they ever do that? ..."before anyone would even see them", so, it would be a platform where only someone that somehow paid to be visible was visible, because why would you ever want to see the potential tr0lls when you could avoid that altogether. Instead, you just end up with tr0ll factories that are raising the reputations of their main tr0lls, or tr0lls that have somehow invested in other ways to become visible.

      Every system can be gamed, and this just sounds like another game waiting to be played by bad actors.

      I agree, it's an interesting thought, I'm just a guy that tries to pull things apart to find the reasons not to do something, so take it as that, not that I necessarily disagree with what you're trying to accomplish with the thought.

      HOLY FS!

      Filter error: Lameness filter encountered

      FUCK YOU SLASHDOT! Is that unlame enough for you?

      Repeated use of the word "troll" was what triggered the filter, hence using tr0ll. How lame. Sorry

    10. Re:Bots that report real users as bots by shanen · · Score: 1

      Don't think of it as censoring newbies. Think of it as asking the young children to sit quietly and listen for a bit before they demand attention.

      (No, that is NOT my actual philosophy for dealing with REAL children. I think they deserve ALL the attention they want ALL the time. It's just not humanly possible to do that as well as it should be done.)

      Actually, one of the important dimensions is just age of the account, and the newbies would be free to chat among themselves and give themselves some positive evaluations, too. However I think the fastest path to higher reputation should be having sponsorship from a high-reputation friend--and that high-reputation friend should actually pay a reputational price for doing things like helping trolls get into discussions.

      To me the real question is whether such a system would sufficiently deter the trolls that the newbies would see a more pleasant environment as they are spending their time in low-reputation purgatory.

      By the way, that lameness filter you mentioned has obviously outlived its usefulness. At least I am unable to see that it has done anything to reduce the troll problem on Slashdot in particular let alone the worldwide problems of fake identities bearing fake news and other lies.

      Going completely off topic now, but here are the paired thoughts that most in my mind these days, and I feel like sharing them again:

      Good election = good candidates
      Bad election = bad candidates (and may the lesser evil win)
      Worst election = bad candidate lies and "wins" by destroying the good candidate

      Character assassination should not be the best campaign strategy. Our best hope for democracy right now appears to be the hope that November 6th is actually a 3-way election between:

      (1) Democratic candidates who want government of the people, by the people, for the people
      (2) GOP candidates who want government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% and
      (3) Trump who merely wants government of, by, and for the Donald

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  3. Re: Now They Gonna Make Bots To Rat On Bots by Millennium · · Score: 2

    Yo dawg I heard you don't like bots so I made you a bot to report bots so you can report bots while you report bots?

  4. Re:Report RealDonaldTrump by markdavis · · Score: 1

    >"What a great way to compile a list of asshats whose reporting you can safely ignore?"

    +1 very good point. Almost like meta modding. Of course, this depends on if Twitter really does want to stop bots...

  5. In Soviet Russia... by aneroid · · Score: 2

    In Soviet Russia, the bots report you.

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by aneroid · · Score: 1

      Speaking of which, wasn't Twitter supposed to have, by now, a process to create actual bot accounts with a flag/indicator clearly specifying that it's a bot account? Apart from the obvious or popular ones.

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I have a hunch you're very close to what's gonna happen.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, the bots report you.

      Not really a joke. I foresee trolls abusing the hell outta this.

  6. Bots aren't against the rules by truedfx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Twitter never said they were taking action against bots. They are taking action against fake accounts. There are plenty of bots that are not fake accounts, include in their name or description that they're a bot, do not disrupt any conversations, do not mislead users. That's explicitly allowed. Misleading reporting like this may end up getting those accounts reported too.

    1. Re:Bots aren't against the rules by sh00z · · Score: 1

      Twitter never said they were taking action against bots. They are taking action against fake accounts. There are plenty of bots that are not fake accounts, include in their name or description that they're a bot, do not disrupt any conversations, do not mislead users. That's explicitly allowed. Misleading reporting like this may end up getting those accounts reported too.

      True. I've somehow gained the attention of a trivia bot that responds to most of my Tweets with a trivia question based on a keyword in what I've stated. Weird, but harmless.

  7. oh sure by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    No way that could be abused, for political or popularity reasons.

  8. Please report any commie activity, citizen by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Remember, the Red Menace is sneaky. Report any suspicious activity to your local office of the Ministry of Truth and Values. Only you can save America from the communist horde!

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  9. Re:Report everyone with a blue check by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    As an active Twitter-avoider, what's a blue check?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Next up by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    An army of bots reporting every human user.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re: Orange Man Bad!! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Yeah ... That's what it is genius. Most of the country doesn't know what a narcissistic sociopath and con man Trump is ... It's all bots. The deficit will shrink back to its pre-Trump size, jobs will start paying a livable wage, and we'll all get tax breaks just as soon as Mexico pays for that wall, and before the election even though Congress isn't in session and by the time it is Democrats will be the majority. I have bad news for you: Orange man bad; idiots been had; after the election Mueller is gonna make all the decent people glad.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  12. Re: Race to the bottom: Ban everyone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thanks for proving his point. You have no logical retort, just name calling. Kindergarten tactics.

  13. You can't fix Twitter. by ruddk · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

    --
    L'Idiot
  14. And those that you don't by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Thus opening the door to time-honored account-settling-by-reporting approach to things, nurtured and encouraged by all sorts of authoritarian, dictatorial systems worldover and throughout history.

  15. No BOTS allowed by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I haven't really used Twitter in a long time, are bots not allowed now? In the early days it seemed like Twitter was encouraging them. There were tutorials on how to create your own bot. I remember some horse story bot was celebrated almost as a hero. Have they changed their mind about them now? Or does Twitter differentiate between malicious and non-malicious bots?

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  16. only correct bots! by gDLL · · Score: 1

    Only good bots that follow the THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS are allowed.

    1. Re:only correct bots! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Only good bots that follow the THREE LAWS OF ROBOTICS are allowed.

      1) A bot may not tweet anything bad about a human being.
      2) A bot must obey the rules and laws of twitter unless it counteracts the first law
      3) A bot must not tweet anything that gets itself banned

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  17. Re: gab.com by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    That wasn't Ivan. That was Alex Jones!

  18. Re:Report RealDonaldTrump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Your statement is false, my human friend.
    I am also human.

  19. Re: Race to the bottom: Ban everyone.. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    "He", which is of course you, started with name calling, and saying I somehow proved your point by pointing out that you are an idiot just proves you are an idiot.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  20. Re: Orange Man Bad!! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    You suck at trolling.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  21. Re: Report RealDonaldTrump by Orange+Man+Bad · · Score: 1

    Yes yes because Twitter will them shut him down because you voted him a bot! Orange man bad!

  22. Once upon a time by 3seas · · Score: 1

    There was the hobbyist computer, then came piracy followed by viruses, then malware and tracking cookies and ransomware and now we have bots to contend with.
    At what point is the resources of computing going to be mostly used for battling others?

    Oh wait,up next is AI.... well that does it, computer are no longer useful entrapment's of the users.

  23. Ever heard of "brigading" by knorthern+knight · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... A bunch of SJW/NPC types get together and "report" conservative videos on Youtube as "hate speech". And "the algorithm" deletes the video. Get ready for the same to happen with tweets.

    --

    I'm not repeating myself
    I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
  24. Re:Report everyone with a blue check by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    As an active Twitter-avoider, what's a blue check?

    IIRC (and I'm not a user either) it was originally a way for twitter to indicate that they had verified the identity of famous or noteworthy people.

    Then they started pulling it from people who said things they don't like ...

  25. Re:Nobody's calling them communists anymore by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

    It has to be so amusing to those that fund the astroturf and paid-protestor NGOs that people actually parrot Blame Russia despite all the evidence that it was a false narrative . It's fucking hilarious, when you think about it. #cutthecheck

  26. Awesome! by forkfail · · Score: 1

    Twitter wasn't enough of an echo chamber already. Glad they are working to improve the situation!

    --
    Check your premises.
  27. Public masturbation of 947668 by shanen · · Score: 1

    Z^-1

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.