3 ms·

> I think these sentences contradict each other? The first statement is conditional on Twitter behaving like a neutral platform, which it does not. The second

> I think these sentences contradict each other? The first statement is conditional on Twitter behaving like a neutral platform, which it does not. The second is meant to indicate that there is a cost associated with creating fake accounts, which is a factor in the economics of the system. > It's very easy to make a fake account seem like a real person. Why is this a bad thing? If casual Twitter users find the content entertaining, the fake account benefits the ecosystem. > Do you count "retweets" here? Yes. No need to ban retweets, just to show stats that indicate which are likely from retweet networks. > ... hm, are you focusing on the aggregate affect of fraudulent accounts? Yes because that is what drives the money flows. People create fraudulent accounts of both kinds to generate revenue. Someone somewhere is paying for the campaign that included thousands of fake retweets, etc. I saw a network graph recently that showed that such networks are easily identifiable with simple network analysis.

geofft 11y ago
I don't think @AdamDriver2015 was created to drive money flows. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they had zero fake retweets. Just have a plausible-sounding name (done) and no competing account that's actually by the person in question (done), and reply to some relevant tweets from high-profile accounts, so you show up in the single-tweet view. At that point, some fraction of real humans will find out about the account and retweet you. No analysis will differentiate this from real humans, because everyone involved is a real human. It seems difficult to argue that @AdamDriver2015 benefitted the ecosystem. Those who found the content entertaining did so because they thought it was genuine. Especially if it's true that the person behind the account was creeping on people in DMs, this seems like a very indefensible claim—but even if not, it's not advantageous to the ecosystem, unless Twitter is actively participating in making people believe the fake content is genuine.
zippergz 11y ago
I have worked closely with the management teams of some large celebrities. Almost all of them get anywhere from a handful to dozens of fake accounts created EVERY DAY, mostly by trolls and people who want to harrass others. Some of them are very convincing and "leak" false information, bully young fans who believe they are real, and so on. A small handful of them try to monetize by posting spam links, but it's really rare. The vast majority are just trying to get attention or have fun at someone else's expense. This may seem like a non-issue, but when you're a high-profile person trying to protect a reputation, it's a real headache. And when you're a fan thinking you're interacting with a celebrity, and they turn out to be a fake, it greatly reduces your trust in the platform. Now, we could argue that we shouldn't really care about the concerns of celebrities, and that fan/celebrity interactions aren't what Twitter is for. But it's clear that they drive a lot of the traffic there, and Twitter encourages it. The verification system is one tool for making this experience better.

geofft 11y ago

I don't think @AdamDriver2015 was created to drive money flows. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they had zero fake retweets. Just have a plausible-sounding name (done) and no competing account that's actually by the person in question (done), and reply to some relevant tweets from high-profile accounts, so you show up in the single-tweet view. At that point, some fraction of real humans will find out about the account and retweet you. No analysis will differentiate this from real humans, because everyone involved is a real human. It seems difficult to argue that @AdamDriver2015 benefitted the ecosystem. Those who found the content entertaining did so because they thought it was genuine. Especially if it's true that the person behind the account was creeping on people in DMs, this seems like a very indefensible claim—but even if not, it's not advantageous to the ecosystem, unless Twitter is actively participating in making people believe the fake content is genuine.

zippergz 11y ago

I have worked closely with the management teams of some large celebrities. Almost all of them get anywhere from a handful to dozens of fake accounts created EVERY DAY, mostly by trolls and people who want to harrass others. Some of them are very convincing and "leak" false information, bully young fans who believe they are real, and so on. A small handful of them try to monetize by posting spam links, but it's really rare. The vast majority are just trying to get attention or have fun at someone else's expense. This may seem like a non-issue, but when you're a high-profile person trying to protect a reputation, it's a real headache. And when you're a fan thinking you're interacting with a celebrity, and they turn out to be a fake, it greatly reduces your trust in the platform. Now, we could argue that we shouldn't really care about the concerns of celebrities, and that fan/celebrity interactions aren't what Twitter is for. But it's clear that they drive a lot of the traffic there, and Twitter encourages it. The verification system is one tool for making this experience better.