Wow, thanks for showing that post on Twitter. I think I did five different Google searches on this topic and I could not find a single link because Google kept

Wow, thanks for showing that post on Twitter. I think I did five different Google searches on this topic and I could not find a single link because Google kept feeding me garbage search results (Off-topic: Google Search is getting really, REALLY frustrating recently to find what I want and I'm not sure if it's me or the search engine. It seems like Google Search is getting worse and worse with every passing month, like it's not specific anymore and it doesn't care what words or quotes I put in the search query). Anyway, half that Twitter post is about platform manipulation, which I agree definitely relates to bots. However, I still have this gut feeling that platform manipulation is done almost unilaterally by swarms of people, not bots. I think the definition of the term I am familiar with is clashing with how the word is being used. > However, My point still stands: If the accuser cannot prove that a particular account has the properties of being a "robot" which issues replies very quickly in an automated fashion [0], then perhaps the fault is on Twitter not being able to find a way to disclose if these accounts are either a "bot or not". I really don't think it takes a genius to realize which accounts are automatons and not-automatons, because the former replies nonsensically. So, I was going to reply to your comment saying that it's not really necessary for Twitter to disclose which accounts are bots or not. However, after typing out that sentence, I realize that technologists (which I identify as) have a better understanding on what is capable by state-of-the-art automation. Do you really think that people genuinely can't tell which social media accounts are bots or not? My emerging understanding was that "bot" was a label used to mostly maliciously insult others, but I did not consider that these people could genuinely not tell if the accounts were bots or not. I'm not saying I could not be fooled by a program, because there is that recent instance of someone from my university claiming to have fooled Hacker News with GPT-3 [0]. Unlike a blog post or article, however, it's much easier to tell when you are having an interactive discussion and a back-and-forth of talking points. This is why I have a hard time believing that anyone actually thinks someone they are talking to is a "bot". [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24164470 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24164470