4 ms·
The article EXPLICITLY states: > Of those, roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools So yes, your hunch is right, but
by sushid 9y ago
The article EXPLICITLY states:
> Of those, roughly 95 percent were identified by the company’s spam-fighting automation tools
So yes, your hunch is right, but it's also mentioned in the article.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y agoMissed that, thanks. Great to know that robots are running our censorship tools now!
- i_cant_speel 9y agoWhat is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? You aren't going to keep up with them without automated tools.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago>What is the alternative? Allow terrorists to spread propaganda? Yes
- i_cant_speel 9y agoWell than I would say automated detection is the better of the two options.
- pjc50 9y ago"Robots" have run our "censorship" tools for two decades of spam-fighting. Even on the decentralised USENET platform, back when one third of traffic was spam and one third was spam cancels.
- mi100hael 9y agoTo be fair, it also EXPLICITLY states: > Twitter said about 75 percent of the blocked accounts this year were spotted before a single tweet was sent So the impact to average users is probably not very substantial.
- brainfire 9y agoOne of those was probably mine. I was banned within five minutes of signing up, I'm guessing because I was using semi-public wifi and didn't provide a phone number (although the signup form says it's optional.) The stated reason was for "bot-like activity".
- supergreg 9y agoHow do they know the account was from an actual terrorist or from a Viagra salesbot if it never made a post?
- chc 9y agoI get spam follows from bots with no posts all the time. It's generally pretty easy to tell who will turn out to be a real person or not — they'll have random, super botty names (Svetlana Nakamoto with the handle jonesdevin), or their profile pics will be stock art or porn stars, or something like that.