6 ms·
"Censored" for running spam bots to drive traffic their way. > They realized that the decision to unpublish the Facebook page followed what appears to be an at
by 0110101001 6y ago
"Censored" for running spam bots to drive traffic their way.
> They realized that the decision to unpublish the Facebook page followed what appears to be an attack by apparent bots (automated accounts). “Someone probably made it look like we were paying someone to share our posts with the bots,” the source explained.
Of course, it wasn't the Wikileaks store trying to drive traffic their way, but some spooky unknown entity trying to make it look like the Wikileaks store was doing it themselves so that the Wikileaks store would get shut down.
- colechristensen 6y agoWhy would anyone give wikileaks the benefit of the doubt? Having actively engaged in what is difficult to argue was not espionage, is spam below them?
- 0110101001 6y agoMy "benefit of the doubt" was sarcastic, if it wasn't obvious. I think they 100% got caught spamming and are now trying to cast it as a Facebook/government conspiracy against them.
- serial_dev 6y agoI don't know what happened in this case, but it's entirely possible that someone who wanted to bring them down organized some bot traffic to them. It happens for much smaller mailing lists with far fewer enemies where attackers just sign up with trash email addresses in order to increase the chance of your mailing list to be flagged as a spammer account.
- xerxespoy 6y agoFacebook itself is effectively a spam bot that uses people and their invasively-assessed psychological proclivities to proliferate. To hold it up as somehow distinct from other unethical and invasive mechanisms used to "drive traffic" is hopelessly naive.