3 ms·
In theory, (most) botnet operators can’t afford $8/month/bot; so this seems like a reasonable strategy from that point of view
by barbariangrunge 4y ago
In theory, (most) botnet operators can’t afford $8/month/bot; so this seems like a reasonable strategy from that point of view
- night-rider 4y agoIn theory, yes, but it's known that these gangs who do platform manipulation somehow acquire SIM cards in bulk to register accounts en masse. And that costs money.
- petodo 4y agonot 8 dollars, SIM cards are basically for free in countries with botnets, heck even in relatively developed Czechia I can get sim card for free
- mandeepj 4y ago> platform manipulation somehow acquire SIM cards in bulk to register accounts en masse You think teleoperators would deny such a request from the sitting government in their country?
- 323 4y agoThe last vote had 17 mil votes. If I were Russia or China, I would gladly pay 150 mil if I could steer Twitter into a direction I want.
- nickthegreek 4y agoif all results are within say 10% of each other, your botnet just needs to make up the dif. So it would really just cost a fraction of that.
- dagmx 4y agoWould be even cheaper because there’d be so few Twitter blue users, so you’d only need to account for the delta amongst that small subset of the current user base
- phphphphp 4y ago“botnets” are boogeymen, it’s a story that doesn’t stand up to any meaningful interrogation. Elon Musk has simultaneously argued that Twitter is the most popular it has ever been, that there are hundreds of millions of real people using each day… while also supposing that 17 million votes in 12 hours couldn’t possibly come from real people and there must be “botnets” responsible. Why couldn’t 10% of the people using a platform want to vote in a poll about the future of the platform?