4 ms·
This is the closest I could get to as an original source... https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-discussing-%E2%80%98reopening-america%E2%8
by koheripbal 6y ago
This is the closest I could get to as an original source...
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-discussing-%E2%80%98reopening-america%E2%80%99-may-be-bots?mod=article_inline https://www.cs.cmu.edu/news/nearly-half-twitter-accounts-dis...
I imagine they're going to publish the research, but it doesn't look like they have yet.
...though some of their methods are described.
- mch82 6y agoThis quote from the CMU article lines up with the headline on this HN discussion thread (200M, 62%, bots, COVID-19): > CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19. Of the top 50 influential retweeters, 82% are bots, they found. Of the top 1,000 retweeters, 62% are bots. Fascinating article. Thank you for taking the time to find it.
- leereeves 6y agoThat suggests an entirely different conclusion: that bots are better at becoming influential on Twitter than people are.
- dmix 6y agoInfluential if you want your audience to be entirely made of other bots.
- zaxm 6y agowithout peer review or even an arxiv link these numbers might as well be pulled out of thin air
- mch82 6y agoCarnegie Mellon University has credibility and is highly ranked (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-university-3242 https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-univers...), so a press release from them is more credible than thin air or a random blog.