11 ms·

Should social networks tell you if you’ve been following a fake account?

89 points by edent 6y ago

dreen 6y ago
Unless you require a proof of ID, theres not gonna be a reliable way to identify fake accounts. You'll get the same sort of algo-driven mass mistakes we now see in Youtube.
- rootsudo 6y ago
  Only because the platforms need to rid fake accounts to keep engagement high. Makes you wonder, would the platforms ever be truly transparent with their product? Example: Soylent Green.
- mcphage 6y ago
  They may not get identify all fake accounts, but there are still tons of accounts which can be clearly identified as fake.
  - dreen 6y ago
    My point is that proof of ID or ownership should be implemented, as that would get rid of the problem. Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      It would open yet another can of worms. The GDPR explicitly calls for the possibility of anonymous usage of services, for one. The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!
      - dreen 6y ago
        I agree totally it is a privacy minefield but proofs of ID are already required by many institutions that have far less resources than tech giants. In Poland for example (where I'm from), the National ID is required in all sorts of situations, both online and otherwise. Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right. At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
        klyrs 6y ago
        Not really sure what any of this would accomplish -- conspiracy-minded folk would actively distrust check-marked accounts and "I'm not operating under my real name because The Man" is a signal of trustworthiness.
      - mamon 6y ago
        >> Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones") Please don't spread the fake news. There is no such thing in Poland as "LGBT-free zones", just some asshole gay activist putting fake signs and posting photos of them on social media. I'm not aware of any significant persecution or hate towards gay people in Poland, although some LGBT activists try very hard to provoke it and paint themselves as victims (because in today's crazy world being a victim is desired, it opens many doors (and wallets) for you).
        pjc50 6y ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 "Around 100 towns and regions across Poland, nearly a third of the country, have passed resolutions declaring themselves free of "LGBT ideology". These resolutions are essentially symbolic and unenforceable but they have provided fresh ammunition in Poland's increasingly bitter culture war." True or false?
  - notahacker 6y ago
    This assumes they care. Even Facebook, the social network that used to kick you off for not using your real name, now informs you that low effort sex-bots (nothing but a pouting stock photo, a single post inviting you to join their 'adult dating' website at a dubious-looking link and a lot of random friend requests) don't breach their guidelines in any way if you report them, which presumably involves an actual human in the loop. Other platforms are of course more favourably disposed towards multiple accounts, automation assisted high volume posts, shifting identities and parody accounts
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > This assumes they care. They do slightly, but only to the degree that their actual users get annoyed by all the bots. And people are surprisingly willing to put up with the bots, so.... yeah, I agree.
- edent 6y ago
  Not all accounts are from people, though. Some accounts claim to be newspapers or technical organisations.
  - dreen 6y ago
    This can still be proven with some sort of document or proof-of-ownership
- olah_1 6y ago
  Have you heard of the BrightID project? I think it could be a pretty cool way to determine real identity without leaking info to the network at large.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dreen 6y ago
    I haven't and admit I don't have the expertise required to understand it unfortunately. I can't really see how it could work to actually prove someone is not a bot in large scale social networks. Like, what's stopping three real people to get verified and then use that to verify any amount of bots?
quelsolaar 6y ago
More importantly it should retroactively tell me about what I have read that is shown to be fraudulent. "On September 4th you clicked on link "Hillary Clinton runs child porn ring", this article has been fact checked as misleading and the account sharing this has been identified as a fake account operated from Russia". If they do look for fake accounts and misinformation, its not enough to remove the misinformation they have to inform people they have been misinformed.
- edent 6y ago
  I agree. But there is a "creepy" factor that a social network knows what you click on. I suspect lots of people are unaware of that. Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? Would that make people more or less likely to use the library?
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    > Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? If what I checked out was fake? Yeah, personally I would like to be told.
    - nradov 6y ago
      Your local library contains many non-fiction books that are filled with inaccurate statements. Librarians are happy to help you with fact checking research but it wouldn't be appropriate for them to label some books as fake. Make up your own mind.
      - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
        I'm imagining a situation where a book was discovered to be an unequivocal lie, in its entirety. Something like the autobiography of Howard Hughes [1], where Hughes eventually said that he had no involvement, and did not know the writer. (This isn't actually the best example, because the book was pulled right before publication, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where it did get published. It came close.) 1: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idiot http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idio...
smitty1e 6y ago
Some of the great Twitter accounts (e.g. Titania McGrath) are utter frauds. The ones that irritate are the Stolen Valor type, where people claim military service. The game tends to fall apart quickly, though. The reason is that these experiences are binary. Think sysadmins: you've either done it, and can sustain a conversation about Linux or you haven't. Fakery has a short half-life.
- sshine 6y ago
  > Fakery has a short half-life. But an infinite regress.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  > Some of the great Twitter accounts (e.g. Titania McGrath) are utter frauds Hmm? I thought Titania McGrath was a parody account. How is it (And other accounts) a fraud?
  - smitty1e 6y ago
    I was using the two terms synonymously.
mdpye 6y ago
I think this would probably be a good thing, but that it won't happen because it will reduce engagement and trust for the platform by drawing to attention how full of garbage it is - not in aggregate, lots of people know that, but in your immediate sphere, which I suspect most people like to believe is cleaner than the average. So: good for the world, bad for the platform. Not gonna be implemented by the platform owners...
- minot 6y ago
  I am not even sure if it is good for the world. When presented with evidence to the contrary, many people might simply dig in to their existing beliefs.
andy_ppp 6y ago
I would go further - I want to be able to nominate people who I follow and Twitter should tell me if they have marked Tweets I have interacted with as untrue. Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true. We know that this can work quite well and on average it should lead to better results than the social networks trying to do this themselves. You can even gamify voting things as untrue - each person could have a page rank of things they have said are false and if they consistently downvote "the other side" for things that are true their voting ability will be proportionally reduced.
- sJ646U9k6c6gME9 6y ago
  > Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true. In a sense we already do. Right-leaning and left-leaning groups already believe mostly non-overlapping sets of “alternative facts”. Each side builds its own narrative not so much because of hate for the other side, but because in aggregate the total amount of misinformation has eroded the potential for credibility of any person or statement that doesn’t come from one’s own “in” group. In today’s Internet you build your own picture of what’s true. Everything else is noise.
  - andy_ppp 6y ago
    When I see “Hydroxychloroquine is not able to cure COVID-19” is it better that warning is flagged by the community or by Twitter. I prefer a community solution; saying it’s not possible is IMO a lack of inventiveness around how the tagging could work. This also scales much better.
- jpttsn 6y ago
  Poe’s law means I don’t know if I’m engaging in good or bad faith here but... Your suggestion sounds like letting the ”crowd” decide; basically voting on the truth democratically. Religion is (kind of) an implementation, where people can “vote” for the denomination whose truth they prefer. They vote with their feet or with their guns, depending on surrounding historical context. Letting the “market” decide would probably require some additional mechanisms, like financial reinforcement. Advertising is (kind of) an implementation: the more money you spend, the stronger your signal will be. Alas, it’s an incomplete implementation and pernicious ground truth often has an undue influence.
sshine 6y ago
All your facebook friends are fake friends. Delete it and go outside.
dvh 6y ago
Why not simply delete the fake account?
martin_a 6y ago
What would be the benefit for Social Networks? Their metrics are active monthly users and ad revenue. The more buzz is going on, the better for them. They will sometimes have to delete the most obvious fake accounts, yeah, but besides that they couldn't be more happy when fans of the People’s Front of Judea have virtual battles with the fans of Judeas Front of People (i know the joke, but I don't know it in English, just German, hope this translation is correct). All of that generates just more buzz, drives people to the platform, generates clicks, pageviews, ad revenue. Social Networks will always only do the bare minimum to fulfill (the rather low) requirements of the law and let the rest flow...
- sammorrowdrums 6y ago
  Blessed are the cheesemakers! You were almost spot on. I believe it's the Judean People's Front. The People's Front of Judea is correct. Spare a coin for an old ex-leper?
  - martin_a 6y ago
    I would be interested in buying either a pack of small stones or ocelot ears. Do you have any of those?
- vonmoltke 6y ago
  Serious question, to you and the many other people who make points like this on these stories: what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements?
  - martin_a 6y ago
    > what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Because the number of monthly active users/the number of pageviews gets higher. That's a talking point when doing ad sales. It's about potential reach of advertisements, which also defines the price of your campaigns. > Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? They probably won't. You'll see lots of reach but no conversions. That's the point where ad-agencies or the social networks itself jump in and "help you" "optimize" your ads for conversions. Maybe some of it will even stick in the end, who knows. Anyway, some people along the chain made money. > What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements? Do advertisers really know? I think in most cases your targeting is kept fuzzy enough so you're not able to pinpoint it down to a post level or whatnot, at least you will reach your "target audience". (That also sounds great when your marketing presents the numbers: "Big hit in the target audience, but no conversions yet! We'll have to fine tune our ads even more...") Whether they are sharing cat pictures or are discussing genocide... You'll never really know in the end. Of course there was some uproar when companies found their advertisments as pre-roll ads on the YouTube videos of ISIS, but that's a storm in a water glass. Nothing to really worry about after all.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dutch3000 6y ago
lame. the real problem is the algorithm generated feeds that apps like instagram, FB and twitter use. their main goal is to occupy the eyeballs for as long as possible. this manifests in people being sucked deeper down into their own echo chamber. yes, that echo chamber is filled with garbage, but the garbage lined, endless pit of media streaming and it’s impact on our society squarely originates at the core and maniacal focus of SM platforms to to increase app use time. period. everything else is window dressing.
kyrers 6y ago
I assume the fake account will be deleted, which means I will stop following it. However, I do think they should notify every follower of said fake account, letting them know that what they've read might be false.
sjg007 6y ago
Yes.
mikece 6y ago
Caveat emptor. It says a lot about people on social networks that they can't see through a fake account. Either they don't have the intelligence to discriminate between fake and real or they are so easily led about that anyone -- even fake people -- can sway them one way or the other. The latter is what scares me the most, especially when they vote. The naive and easily swayed are the very people who elect and empower persuasive dictators and tyrants. Social media isn't "the problem" but it's accelerating an existing problem.
- intended 6y ago
  > https://spotthetroll.org/ https://spotthetroll.org/ Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot. I failed at spotting several, and I used to spend more time than average dealing with user content. It's hard to look at an account and simply say "this isn't a person.", perhaps more so if you have a broad view on the range of possible human behavior. Maliciously formed content works hard to be indistinguishable from normal behavior, Its essentially a pseudo turing test. Can we mass produce social media accounts that pass for human to both humans and automated systems. I'm really not sure how someone can identify this unless they are trained.
  - mikece 6y ago
    My larger point is that people who cannot distinguish between reality and not-reality are an extreme drag on a society as they require others to think for them. Such people shouldn't be on social media and shouldn't be voting... it's how we end up with the politicians in office that we have now. People who have a solid grasp on reality and their own convictions won’t be swayed by online activists whether they are flesh and blood or bits and bytes.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    > Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot. If you don't know the account holder in person, or through word of mouth in a social context, don't follow them.
mark_l_watson 6y ago
My answer would be yes, or rather not a binary yes/no but the probability from their models that an account is fake.
- sjg007 6y ago
  People don't understand probability. Clinton had a 70% chance of winning in 2016.
  - akerro 6y ago
    So don't say in probability but in stars: Chances this account is a bot: (I had utf-8 stars here) * * */- -
awinter-py 6y ago
should ebay tell you if you purchased something from a fraud account and it's never going to arrive?
sneak 6y ago
Those are real accounts, run by real people: people who are spammers or propagandists. The idea that there are “fake” or “bot” accounts is just pro-censorship nonsense. There is no AGI, these are just alt accounts for human beings (that potentially have an agenda). I, for one, don’t want Twitter, or anyone else, arbitrarily deciding what (or from whom) I’m allowed to read. Twitter’s shadowbanning a lot of terms from search lately, especially those related to conspiracies or organized, armed groups (even groups without histories of violence). It’s becoming really terrifying to not be able to get a clear or complete picture of the relative size/penetration of these memes, or to know what these groups are saying or being told (regardless of whether I buy into their ideologies or not). Keeping tabs on what’s going on in one of the most volatile and potentially dangerous times ever is now being actively hindered by the social platforms, and it’s terrible. We do not need more of that, and we desperately need less. Better scoring, grouping, tagging, and classification tools would be GREAT. More censorship would not.

89 points by edent 6y ago

Unless you require a proof of ID, theres not gonna be a reliable way to identify fake accounts. You'll get the same sort of algo-driven mass mistakes we now see in Youtube.

rootsudo 6y ago
Only because the platforms need to rid fake accounts to keep engagement high. Makes you wonder, would the platforms ever be truly transparent with their product? Example: Soylent Green.
mcphage 6y ago
They may not get identify all fake accounts, but there are still tons of accounts which can be clearly identified as fake.
- dreen 6y ago
  My point is that proof of ID or ownership should be implemented, as that would get rid of the problem. Edit: I need to point out that this should be optional. Anonymity should still be the default.
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    It would open yet another can of worms. The GDPR explicitly calls for the possibility of anonymous usage of services, for one. The other thing is - imagine I were a gay man living in Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones"), or in Russia where "advocating" for LGBT is a crime, or in Saudi-Arabia where you might end up literally decapitated. I could go and discuss topics regarding my sexuality on Twitter anonymously - but with a forced tie to a government ID?! I would have to fear authorities using my free speech to get me imprisoned or worse all the time!
    - dreen 6y ago
      I agree totally it is a privacy minefield but proofs of ID are already required by many institutions that have far less resources than tech giants. In Poland for example (where I'm from), the National ID is required in all sorts of situations, both online and otherwise. Also, I never meant to suggest proof of ID would be mandatory to use the service! It would be an additional status you can get optionally, if you want to get extra credibility. If you desire anonymity instead, that should absolutely be your right. At the moment, you can get a checkmark on your twitter but how you do it is a bit unclear. Technically you have to be somewhat noteworthy, but the bar seems to be really low. If this was an entirely user-initiated process, over time people would associate that status with higher credibility.
      - klyrs 6y ago
        Not really sure what any of this would accomplish -- conspiracy-minded folk would actively distrust check-marked accounts and "I'm not operating under my real name because The Man" is a signal of trustworthiness.
    - mamon 6y ago
      >> Poland (a country that recently made europe-wide outrage headlines with "LGBT-free zones") Please don't spread the fake news. There is no such thing in Poland as "LGBT-free zones", just some asshole gay activist putting fake signs and posting photos of them on social media. I'm not aware of any significant persecution or hate towards gay people in Poland, although some LGBT activists try very hard to provoke it and paint themselves as victims (because in today's crazy world being a victim is desired, it opens many doors (and wallets) for you).
      - pjc50 6y ago
        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-54191344 "Around 100 towns and regions across Poland, nearly a third of the country, have passed resolutions declaring themselves free of "LGBT ideology". These resolutions are essentially symbolic and unenforceable but they have provided fresh ammunition in Poland's increasingly bitter culture war." True or false?
- notahacker 6y ago
  This assumes they care. Even Facebook, the social network that used to kick you off for not using your real name, now informs you that low effort sex-bots (nothing but a pouting stock photo, a single post inviting you to join their 'adult dating' website at a dubious-looking link and a lot of random friend requests) don't breach their guidelines in any way if you report them, which presumably involves an actual human in the loop. Other platforms are of course more favourably disposed towards multiple accounts, automation assisted high volume posts, shifting identities and parody accounts
  - mcphage 6y ago
    > This assumes they care. They do slightly, but only to the degree that their actual users get annoyed by all the bots. And people are surprisingly willing to put up with the bots, so.... yeah, I agree.
edent 6y ago
Not all accounts are from people, though. Some accounts claim to be newspapers or technical organisations.
- dreen 6y ago
  This can still be proven with some sort of document or proof-of-ownership
olah_1 6y ago
Have you heard of the BrightID project? I think it could be a pretty cool way to determine real identity without leaking info to the network at large.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dreen 6y ago
  I haven't and admit I don't have the expertise required to understand it unfortunately. I can't really see how it could work to actually prove someone is not a bot in large scale social networks. Like, what's stopping three real people to get verified and then use that to verify any amount of bots?

quelsolaar 6y ago

More importantly it should retroactively tell me about what I have read that is shown to be fraudulent. "On September 4th you clicked on link "Hillary Clinton runs child porn ring", this article has been fact checked as misleading and the account sharing this has been identified as a fake account operated from Russia". If they do look for fake accounts and misinformation, its not enough to remove the misinformation they have to inform people they have been misinformed.

edent 6y ago
I agree. But there is a "creepy" factor that a social network knows what you click on. I suspect lots of people are unaware of that. Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? Would that make people more or less likely to use the library?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > Would you want a librarian chastising you for the books you check out? If what I checked out was fake? Yeah, personally I would like to be told.
  - nradov 6y ago
    Your local library contains many non-fiction books that are filled with inaccurate statements. Librarians are happy to help you with fact checking research but it wouldn't be appropriate for them to label some books as fake. Make up your own mind.
    - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
      I'm imagining a situation where a book was discovered to be an unequivocal lie, in its entirety. Something like the autobiography of Howard Hughes [1], where Hughes eventually said that he had no involvement, and did not know the writer. (This isn't actually the best example, because the book was pulled right before publication, but it's easy to imagine a scenario where it did get published. It came close.) 1: http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idiot http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/50-oh-howard-you-idio...

smitty1e 6y ago

Some of the great Twitter accounts (e.g. Titania McGrath) are utter frauds. The ones that irritate are the Stolen Valor type, where people claim military service. The game tends to fall apart quickly, though. The reason is that these experiences are binary. Think sysadmins: you've either done it, and can sustain a conversation about Linux or you haven't. Fakery has a short half-life.

sshine 6y ago
> Fakery has a short half-life. But an infinite regress.
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
> Some of the great Twitter accounts (e.g. Titania McGrath) are utter frauds Hmm? I thought Titania McGrath was a parody account. How is it (And other accounts) a fraud?
- smitty1e 6y ago
  I was using the two terms synonymously.

mdpye 6y ago

I think this would probably be a good thing, but that it won't happen because it will reduce engagement and trust for the platform by drawing to attention how full of garbage it is - not in aggregate, lots of people know that, but in your immediate sphere, which I suspect most people like to believe is cleaner than the average. So: good for the world, bad for the platform. Not gonna be implemented by the platform owners...

minot 6y ago
I am not even sure if it is good for the world. When presented with evidence to the contrary, many people might simply dig in to their existing beliefs.

andy_ppp 6y ago

I would go further - I want to be able to nominate people who I follow and Twitter should tell me if they have marked Tweets I have interacted with as untrue. Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true. We know that this can work quite well and on average it should lead to better results than the social networks trying to do this themselves. You can even gamify voting things as untrue - each person could have a page rank of things they have said are false and if they consistently downvote "the other side" for things that are true their voting ability will be proportionally reduced.

sJ646U9k6c6gME9 6y ago
> Why can't we peer review this stuff and let the "market" decide what is true. In a sense we already do. Right-leaning and left-leaning groups already believe mostly non-overlapping sets of “alternative facts”. Each side builds its own narrative not so much because of hate for the other side, but because in aggregate the total amount of misinformation has eroded the potential for credibility of any person or statement that doesn’t come from one’s own “in” group. In today’s Internet you build your own picture of what’s true. Everything else is noise.
- andy_ppp 6y ago
  When I see “Hydroxychloroquine is not able to cure COVID-19” is it better that warning is flagged by the community or by Twitter. I prefer a community solution; saying it’s not possible is IMO a lack of inventiveness around how the tagging could work. This also scales much better.
jpttsn 6y ago
Poe’s law means I don’t know if I’m engaging in good or bad faith here but... Your suggestion sounds like letting the ”crowd” decide; basically voting on the truth democratically. Religion is (kind of) an implementation, where people can “vote” for the denomination whose truth they prefer. They vote with their feet or with their guns, depending on surrounding historical context. Letting the “market” decide would probably require some additional mechanisms, like financial reinforcement. Advertising is (kind of) an implementation: the more money you spend, the stronger your signal will be. Alas, it’s an incomplete implementation and pernicious ground truth often has an undue influence.

sshine 6y ago

All your facebook friends are fake friends. Delete it and go outside.

dvh 6y ago

Why not simply delete the fake account?

martin_a 6y ago

What would be the benefit for Social Networks? Their metrics are active monthly users and ad revenue. The more buzz is going on, the better for them. They will sometimes have to delete the most obvious fake accounts, yeah, but besides that they couldn't be more happy when fans of the People’s Front of Judea have virtual battles with the fans of Judeas Front of People (i know the joke, but I don't know it in English, just German, hope this translation is correct). All of that generates just more buzz, drives people to the platform, generates clicks, pageviews, ad revenue. Social Networks will always only do the bare minimum to fulfill (the rather low) requirements of the law and let the rest flow...

sammorrowdrums 6y ago
Blessed are the cheesemakers! You were almost spot on. I believe it's the Judean People's Front. The People's Front of Judea is correct. Spare a coin for an old ex-leper?
- martin_a 6y ago
  I would be interested in buying either a pack of small stones or ocelot ears. Do you have any of those?
vonmoltke 6y ago
Serious question, to you and the many other people who make points like this on these stories: what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements?
- martin_a 6y ago
  > what makes you think these pissing matches and other toxic engagements increase ad revenue? Because the number of monthly active users/the number of pageviews gets higher. That's a talking point when doing ad sales. It's about potential reach of advertisements, which also defines the price of your campaigns. > Why do you think people in the midst of these will engage with the ads? They probably won't. You'll see lots of reach but no conversions. That's the point where ad-agencies or the social networks itself jump in and "help you" "optimize" your ads for conversions. Maybe some of it will even stick in the end, who knows. Anyway, some people along the chain made money. > What advertisers do you think want to have their ads and brands associated with these engagements? Do advertisers really know? I think in most cases your targeting is kept fuzzy enough so you're not able to pinpoint it down to a post level or whatnot, at least you will reach your "target audience". (That also sounds great when your marketing presents the numbers: "Big hit in the target audience, but no conversions yet! We'll have to fine tune our ads even more...") Whether they are sharing cat pictures or are discussing genocide... You'll never really know in the end. Of course there was some uproar when companies found their advertisments as pre-roll ads on the YouTube videos of ISIS, but that's a storm in a water glass. Nothing to really worry about after all.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dutch3000 6y ago

lame. the real problem is the algorithm generated feeds that apps like instagram, FB and twitter use. their main goal is to occupy the eyeballs for as long as possible. this manifests in people being sucked deeper down into their own echo chamber. yes, that echo chamber is filled with garbage, but the garbage lined, endless pit of media streaming and it’s impact on our society squarely originates at the core and maniacal focus of SM platforms to to increase app use time. period. everything else is window dressing.

kyrers 6y ago

I assume the fake account will be deleted, which means I will stop following it. However, I do think they should notify every follower of said fake account, letting them know that what they've read might be false.

sjg007 6y ago

Yes.

mikece 6y ago

Caveat emptor. It says a lot about people on social networks that they can't see through a fake account. Either they don't have the intelligence to discriminate between fake and real or they are so easily led about that anyone -- even fake people -- can sway them one way or the other. The latter is what scares me the most, especially when they vote. The naive and easily swayed are the very people who elect and empower persuasive dictators and tyrants. Social media isn't "the problem" but it's accelerating an existing problem.

intended 6y ago
> https://spotthetroll.org/ https://spotthetroll.org/ Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot. I failed at spotting several, and I used to spend more time than average dealing with user content. It's hard to look at an account and simply say "this isn't a person.", perhaps more so if you have a broad view on the range of possible human behavior. Maliciously formed content works hard to be indistinguishable from normal behavior, Its essentially a pseudo turing test. Can we mass produce social media accounts that pass for human to both humans and automated systems. I'm really not sure how someone can identify this unless they are trained.
- mikece 6y ago
  My larger point is that people who cannot distinguish between reality and not-reality are an extreme drag on a society as they require others to think for them. Such people shouldn't be on social media and shouldn't be voting... it's how we end up with the politicians in office that we have now. People who have a solid grasp on reality and their own convictions won’t be swayed by online activists whether they are flesh and blood or bits and bytes.
- dingaling 6y ago
  > Fake accounts, especially for swaying public opinion are not that easy to spot. If you don't know the account holder in person, or through word of mouth in a social context, don't follow them.

mark_l_watson 6y ago

My answer would be yes, or rather not a binary yes/no but the probability from their models that an account is fake.

sjg007 6y ago
People don't understand probability. Clinton had a 70% chance of winning in 2016.
- akerro 6y ago
  So don't say in probability but in stars: Chances this account is a bot: (I had utf-8 stars here) * * */- -

awinter-py 6y ago

should ebay tell you if you purchased something from a fraud account and it's never going to arrive?

sneak 6y ago

Those are real accounts, run by real people: people who are spammers or propagandists. The idea that there are “fake” or “bot” accounts is just pro-censorship nonsense. There is no AGI, these are just alt accounts for human beings (that potentially have an agenda). I, for one, don’t want Twitter, or anyone else, arbitrarily deciding what (or from whom) I’m allowed to read. Twitter’s shadowbanning a lot of terms from search lately, especially those related to conspiracies or organized, armed groups (even groups without histories of violence). It’s becoming really terrifying to not be able to get a clear or complete picture of the relative size/penetration of these memes, or to know what these groups are saying or being told (regardless of whether I buy into their ideologies or not). Keeping tabs on what’s going on in one of the most volatile and potentially dangerous times ever is now being actively hindered by the social platforms, and it’s terrible. We do not need more of that, and we desperately need less. Better scoring, grouping, tagging, and classification tools would be GREAT. More censorship would not.