4 ms·
Why would bots be limited to twitter? Wouldn't Bluesky be just as susceptiblle. I stopped using Bluesky because I was seeing too many people celebrating the m
by Lerc 2mo ago
Why would bots be limited to twitter? Wouldn't Bluesky be just as susceptiblle.
I stopped using Bluesky because I was seeing too many people celebrating the misfortune of others. I didn't have that on twitter, I know people were on the platform behaving like that, but it didn't seem to be what was delivered to me.
I was never a big user of either though. I suspect my lifetime sum of Tweets and Blurts would be under 50.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- inigyou 2mo agoIt's not about susceptibility, it's about actuality. When you open your home page, do you see an army of bots or an army of non-bots? That's what matters. There isn't an infinite pool of bots out there seeking to get into anything they can. There are like, at most twenty bot actors and they're focused on the most lucrative targets. Remember when the entire car insurance phone spam in the USA turned out to just be one guy with an army of proxies. There are surprisingly few people at the top of the worldwide spam operations.
- Lerc 2mo agoIsn't that because they are aiming for the biggest targets. Anything that became similarly successful would be similarly targeted. Being small enough that malicious actors are not interested in you is beneficial, but by definition it is a solution that cannot be widely adopted.
- inigyou 2mo agoIt doesn't matter why, when you're talking about results.
- numpad0 2mo agoTwitter is having bots and spams actively injected rather than them simply existing as a phenomenon. There are not many possible explanation for that other than that its owner is likely wanting them.