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

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."

Comments

Bots that report real users as bots

[shanen]

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.

Re:Bots that report real users as bots

[Kiuas]

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

Bots aren't against the rules

[truedfx]

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.

You can't fix Twitter.

[ruddk]

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