4 ms·
I think there's another category: 5. Users with plausible names and a profile photo of a person that are bots I don't remember the study but when there were s
by moduspol 4y ago
I think there's another category:
5. Users with plausible names and a profile photo of a person that are bots
I don't remember the study but when there were studies coming out of believed Russian-controlled accounts supposedly amplifying misinformation, all the examples I saw were in category 5.
And this category is the most deceptive. Nobody cares what a Twitter egg says. People care about supposedly grassroots outrage / support / etc. from supposedly legitimate people.
- mikkergp 4y agoYeah, I wasn't sure whether to include this as a false positive in category 2 or it's own category but yes your point stands.
- remram 4y agoI think there are many more categories. I am on Twitter with a pseudonym, and while it is not bot-looking, it is obviously not a real name. At first glance I may or may not be a bot run by somebody else. I can be Googled easily and you will find some PII there, such as my employer, but it would take some checking that you can't scale. I am definitely between 2 and 3 in the above classification, and so are many of my contacts I would say. [edit: can't* scale]