6 ms·
Incase any Ai / tech minded people are reading, this is a relevant quote: > As fall semester kicked up, RoBhat hand-picked 100 Twitter accounts with automated
by throwaway2016a 9y ago
Incase any Ai / tech minded people are reading, this is a relevant quote:
> As fall semester kicked up, RoBhat hand-picked 100 Twitter accounts with automated behavior to serve as “ground truth” data to train their model. They picked accounts with several red flags: ones that joined the site, say, a month prior but had tweeted 10,000 times, or ones that were followed by thousands of other suspected bots.
While I was skeptical they could train a model without actually knowing for sure which accounts are bots, their assumptions here seem to make sense. There is a certain "tweets per day" ratio that can't be easily maintained by a human.
- mring33621 9y agoBotRank -- the more suspected bots follow a given feed, the more likely that feed is itself a bot
- ghostbrainalpha 9y agoAdd to that sentiment analysis by topic. Real people don't tweet about Hillary 100% of the time, no matter how awful she is. If there aren't at least 10% of tweets about food, sports, or TV shows, I think its probably fake.
- newjersey 9y ago> Real people don't tweet about Hillary 100% of the time, no matter how awful she is. I disagree. Real people use pseudonyms as well. I have multiple twitter accounts and while I don't have an ax to grind against Hillary, I can imagine some of my friends in Texas would create and devote a twitter account solely for venting about something like this. Of course, there is a difference between someone in Katy, Texas tweeting "lock her up" versus someone using a farm to make it look like there is a groundswell when there is none. However, is it wrong, immoral, or illegal? How do we define these things? We have to be really careful because we might end up making advertising illegal.