5 ms·

> We found that 47% of local trends in Turkey and 20% of global trends are fake, created from scratch by bots. Between June 2015 and September 2019, we uncovere

> We found that 47% of local trends in Turkey and 20% of global trends are fake, created from scratch by bots. Between June 2015 and September 2019, we uncovered 108,000 bot accounts involved, the biggest bot dataset reported in a single paper. Our research is the first to uncover the manipulation of Twitter Trends at this scale. It can be some complex crypto puzzle that can be only solved by real users. We need to find a solution. I think democracies should introduce regulations that ensures that. * Bots cannot be created in large scale like this in social media platforms. Basically you have to be a real perso to create an account and there should be a limit on nunber of accounts one can create. Who is a real human? Twitter verified users can be one solution. Airbnb verified hosts seems to be another example. Anything is better than the current model. * Complex Ml models for generating the time lines should be replaced with simple algorithms like sort on basis of upvotes/time. Also the users should be able to easily access what is the algorithm behind the news feed.

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago
Ironically, asking for an ID for internet access is usually a telltale of not-so-democratic regime.
- Zigurd 5y ago
  Asking for a method of payment, and using methods of payment as a factor in enforcing bans, is an entirely private sector market-based mitigation of bots and badly behaved humans. Subscriptions are the future of worthwhile social media.
- hanniabu 5y ago
  Democracy and privacy are separate.
  - thechao 5y ago
    That only works in a well-functioning non-authoritarian state. I would suspect that every major Western democracy began in secret.
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    No, they're not. Privacy is a human right.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      And democracy is not; if people want (say) anarchy instead, they may, but they mustn't take away others' privacy.
      - pjc50 5y ago
        Under ECHR democracy is elevated to a human right: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168006377c https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventio... (well, the right to free elections by secret ballot, which is necessary but not sufficient)
- blocked_again 5y ago
  Nobody said to ask for an ID. You can verify the user is real without tying the account to the ID.
  - pjc50 5y ago
    This is remarkably hard to do, and it's even harder if you want to prevent duplicate accounts.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Sounds authoritarian to me. Hard pass.
- blocked_again 5y ago
  Well if a democracy elected by people decides to make this decision how is that authoritarian?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    In the same way that if a democracy elects an authoritarian then it stops being a democracy; by not respecting the rights of its citizens in the name of a political expedient.
    - blocked_again 5y ago
      I don't see how preventing malicious actors from using 1000s of bots to manipulate the public consensus as authoritarian.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        The goal isn’t, at least not publicly, but the methods are. But then again, authoritarians almost never come out and say “we intend to control every aspect of our citizens lives in order to maintain power”; rather they find some convenient fig leaf to hide behind. And such is the same with your proposal; you’re advocating for greater government control over personal lives in the name of protecting citizens from other governments. Authoritarian shit, full stop.
        blocked_again 5y ago
        You keep saying authoritarian a lot but you don't seen to have any logical arguments on why the proposed solution is bad. How on earth is preventing users from making 1000s of bots and influencing the public consensus bad for the democracy? I don't work for government. I don't want random people with 1000sof bots to manipulate the people around me and turn the democracy into a shitshow. I don't know how the tech companies will do it. But there should be only 1 account per person. 1 persons voice should not be worth 1000 times the voice of other people. That is not democracy.
cheschire 5y ago
How could you conceivably limit a service to only real users? What is a real user anyways? One account per person? What if that person has multiple personas they're curating? Require some form of ID verification? Well now you're talking about thousands of differing implementations. How does one prevent click farms that leverage real fingers tapping on phones? None of these allow a platform to scale like social networks are expected to.
drunkpotato 5y ago
While I think some careful regulation is required, I don't see how it would be legal to ban Twitter, nor possible for Twitter to entirely eliminate bots. But I think regulation could provide some carrots and sticks to encourage platforms like Twitter to be better at spotting and responding to these campaigns. Right now there's not enough incentive for them to invest much in combating bots, when their incentives are overwhelmingly to drive engagement (and advertising dollars).
nathias 5y ago
OR simply not treat them as relevant in their decision making?

AlexTWithBeard 5y ago

Ironically, asking for an ID for internet access is usually a telltale of not-so-democratic regime.

Zigurd 5y ago
Asking for a method of payment, and using methods of payment as a factor in enforcing bans, is an entirely private sector market-based mitigation of bots and badly behaved humans. Subscriptions are the future of worthwhile social media.
hanniabu 5y ago
Democracy and privacy are separate.
- thechao 5y ago
  That only works in a well-functioning non-authoritarian state. I would suspect that every major Western democracy began in secret.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  No, they're not. Privacy is a human right.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    And democracy is not; if people want (say) anarchy instead, they may, but they mustn't take away others' privacy.
    - pjc50 5y ago
      Under ECHR democracy is elevated to a human right: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168006377c https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventio... (well, the right to free elections by secret ballot, which is necessary but not sufficient)
blocked_again 5y ago
Nobody said to ask for an ID. You can verify the user is real without tying the account to the ID.
- pjc50 5y ago
  This is remarkably hard to do, and it's even harder if you want to prevent duplicate accounts.

ashtonkem 5y ago

Sounds authoritarian to me. Hard pass.

blocked_again 5y ago
Well if a democracy elected by people decides to make this decision how is that authoritarian?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  In the same way that if a democracy elects an authoritarian then it stops being a democracy; by not respecting the rights of its citizens in the name of a political expedient.
  - blocked_again 5y ago
    I don't see how preventing malicious actors from using 1000s of bots to manipulate the public consensus as authoritarian.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      The goal isn’t, at least not publicly, but the methods are. But then again, authoritarians almost never come out and say “we intend to control every aspect of our citizens lives in order to maintain power”; rather they find some convenient fig leaf to hide behind. And such is the same with your proposal; you’re advocating for greater government control over personal lives in the name of protecting citizens from other governments. Authoritarian shit, full stop.
      - blocked_again 5y ago
        You keep saying authoritarian a lot but you don't seen to have any logical arguments on why the proposed solution is bad. How on earth is preventing users from making 1000s of bots and influencing the public consensus bad for the democracy? I don't work for government. I don't want random people with 1000sof bots to manipulate the people around me and turn the democracy into a shitshow. I don't know how the tech companies will do it. But there should be only 1 account per person. 1 persons voice should not be worth 1000 times the voice of other people. That is not democracy.

cheschire 5y ago

How could you conceivably limit a service to only real users? What is a real user anyways? One account per person? What if that person has multiple personas they're curating? Require some form of ID verification? Well now you're talking about thousands of differing implementations. How does one prevent click farms that leverage real fingers tapping on phones? None of these allow a platform to scale like social networks are expected to.

drunkpotato 5y ago

While I think some careful regulation is required, I don't see how it would be legal to ban Twitter, nor possible for Twitter to entirely eliminate bots. But I think regulation could provide some carrots and sticks to encourage platforms like Twitter to be better at spotting and responding to these campaigns. Right now there's not enough incentive for them to invest much in combating bots, when their incentives are overwhelmingly to drive engagement (and advertising dollars).

nathias 5y ago

OR simply not treat them as relevant in their decision making?