How much do bots affect the political landscape?

[Worldtraveller]

Interesting article.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-tool-shows-how-bots-drive-conversation-for-news-events/

Late last week, about 60 percent of the conversation was driven by likely bots. Over the weekend, even as the conversation about the caravan was overshadowed by more recent tragedies, bots were still driving nearly 40 percent of the caravan conversation on Twitter.

On a related note, does TFT do anything to ensure that the 'posters' here aren't bots? I have my suspicion about a few.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Here you go.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Interesting article.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-tool-shows-how-bots-drive-conversation-for-news-events/

Late last week, about 60 percent of the conversation was driven by likely bots. Over the weekend, even as the conversation about the caravan was overshadowed by more recent tragedies, bots were still driving nearly 40 percent of the caravan conversation on Twitter.

On a related note, does TFT do anything to ensure that the 'posters' here aren't bots? I have my suspicion about a few.

There are Bots and then there are provocateurs. In general, Bot'ing in a web forum would be difficult, there needs to be a degree of conversation included and it is pretty easy to tell when a program is trying to speak English here.

Honestly, it feels like there are a good number of Americans whose politics are decided upon 'what will rile up a liberal'. Certainly Bots on Twitter (who gets their news via Twitter?!), can have a significant impact on driving conversation or stoking reactions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Interesting article.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-tool-shows-how-bots-drive-conversation-for-news-events/

Late last week, about 60 percent of the conversation was driven by likely bots. Over the weekend, even as the conversation about the caravan was overshadowed by more recent tragedies, bots were still driving nearly 40 percent of the caravan conversation on Twitter.

On a related note, does TFT do anything to ensure that the 'posters' here aren't bots? I have my suspicion about a few.

It would be pretty hard to be a bot in a place like this. Bots can't carry on coherent conversations other than in narrowly-focused areas.

On the other hand, there certainly could be people who are paid to promote an agenda. Identifying them would be effectively impossible, though--whether someone has an agenda doesn't say whether they are paid to have it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Interesting article.

https://www.wired.com/story/new-tool-shows-how-bots-drive-conversation-for-news-events/

Late last week, about 60 percent of the conversation was driven by likely bots. Over the weekend, even as the conversation about the caravan was overshadowed by more recent tragedies, bots were still driving nearly 40 percent of the caravan conversation on Twitter.

On a related note, does TFT do anything to ensure that the 'posters' here aren't bots? I have my suspicion about a few.

It would be pretty hard to be a bot in a place like this. Bots can't carry on coherent conversations other than in narrowly-focused areas.

On the other hand, there certainly could be people who are paid to promote an agenda. Identifying them would be effectively impossible, though--whether someone has an agenda doesn't say whether they are paid to have it.

Are you forgetting the existence of Sayed?

Or that other guy that just popped up? Pretty sure we had a whole thread worth of throwing Turing tests at them.

I know a few other posters too, who may as well just be reddit bots posting based on keywords.

It's not that far beyond the pale.

 

[Elixir]

It would be pretty hard to be a bot in a place like this. Bots can't carry on coherent conversations other than in narrowly-focused areas.

On the other hand, there certainly could be people who are paid to promote an agenda. Identifying them would be effectively impossible, though--whether someone has an agenda doesn't say whether they are paid to have it.

Are you forgetting the existence of Sayed?

Or that other guy that just popped up? Pretty sure we had a whole thread worth of throwing Turing tests at them.

I know a few other posters too, who may as well just be reddit bots posting based on keywords.

It's not that far beyond the pale.

I agree, though it is much easier for a human to accurately emulate a 'bot than it is to create a 'bot that can roughly emulate a human.
And either suffices to "rile up the opposition".

 

[barbos]

Bots are writing (and selling for profit) books now-days. Hell, I think Agatha Christie was a bot.
Not to mention websites, some are obviously written by bots to attract clicks.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Bots are writing (and selling for profit) books now-days. Hell, I think Agatha Christie was a bot.
Not to mention websites, some are obviously written by bots to attract clicks.

Ya, but aren’t most of those clicks just from other bots, generally written by the same people who made the first bots so that they can show higher traffic to their site to get more from ad revenue?

 

[barbos]

Bots are writing (and selling for profit) books now-days. Hell, I think Agatha Christie was a bot.
Not to mention websites, some are obviously written by bots to attract clicks.

Ya, but aren’t most of those clicks just from other bots, generally written by the same people who made the first bots so that they can show higher traffic to their site to get more from ad revenue?

Yes, but one of these sites was linked here I remember. So they managed to fool some people. To be fair that site was filled with articles written by what it looks like human-bots.
And book writing bot did make money by selling books to unsuspecting humans.

 

[PyramidHead]

Imagine wanting to preserve the status quo and drown out all dissent that doesn't reinforce it. Imagine having a material interest in framing all the problems people face in terms that don't implicate you in any of them. Imagine that the type of person whose unconditional support you can rely on the most is a population of sundowning boomers who were floored by The Net starring Sandra Bullock when it came out. What narrative would you push to maintain your political influence and protect your wealthy donors from scrutiny, if you had an obedient media class who will faithfully broadcast your wishes to the entire world?

It would be this one:

There's no grand conspiracy. The Bots want to divide the democrats and depress our turnout. Don't be a tool...

 

[Torin]

You should report the posters you think are bots. The moderators will investigate, and if they do turn out to be bots then presumably they will be banned immediately.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You should report the posters you think are bots. The moderators will investigate, and if they do turn out to be bots then presumably they will be banned immediately.

My question is mostly about the investigate part. How would that happen?

 

[Torin]

You should report the posters you think are bots. The moderators will investigate, and if they do turn out to be bots then presumably they will be banned immediately.

My question is mostly about the investigate part. How would that happen?

I don't think we have a special bot detector tool, we would just look for signs that they were a bot (like you would) and then ban if appropriate. I'm a relatively new mod, though.

One thing we do have access to that you don't is IP addresses, so if the IP address were the same as a previous bot then in theory we could use that as evidence.

 

[ZiprHead]

You should report the posters you think are bots. The moderators will investigate, and if they do turn out to be bots then presumably they will be banned immediately.

My question is mostly about the investigate part. How would that happen?

I don't think we have a special bot detector tool, we would just look for signs that they were a bot (like you would) and then ban if appropriate. I'm a relatively new mod, though.

One thing we do have access to that you don't is IP addresses, so if the IP address were the same as a previous bot then in theory we could use that as evidence.

Actually, we do. All new applicants to the board have their email, IP, and username run through a spam/bot detector. It doesn't work to catch all of them but it's pretty good. Presently, about 99% of applicants are spammers/bots. I've banned 8 of them in the last twelve hours alone.

 

[Torin]

I don't think we have a special bot detector tool, we would just look for signs that they were a bot (like you would) and then ban if appropriate. I'm a relatively new mod, though.

One thing we do have access to that you don't is IP addresses, so if the IP address were the same as a previous bot then in theory we could use that as evidence.

Actually, we do. All new applicants to the board have their email, IP, and username run through a spam/bot detector. It doesn't work to catch all of them but it's pretty good. Presently, about 99% of applicants are spammers/bots. I've banned 8 of them in the last twelve hours alone.

Good to know, thanks.

 

[barbos]

I don't think we have a special bot detector tool, we would just look for signs that they were a bot (like you would) and then ban if appropriate. I'm a relatively new mod, though.

One thing we do have access to that you don't is IP addresses, so if the IP address were the same as a previous bot then in theory we could use that as evidence.

Actually, we do. All new applicants to the board have their email, IP, and username run through a spam/bot detector. It doesn't work to catch all of them but it's pretty good. Presently, about 99% of applicants are spammers/bots. I've banned 8 of them in the last twelve hours alone.

LOL, really?
Were they all Russians?

 

[PyramidHead]

Irrespective of the influence Russian election interference has had on the actual outcome of the 2016 race or any other, the meme of Russian influence has had at least two major impacts on public discourse:

1. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it provides a convenient way for politicians and pundits to dismiss any criticism that attacks entrenched or established power. There are other ways to dismiss it, but they all involve acknowledging the disagreement as ideological, which would require explaining why the ideology behind it is wrong. Sublimating the entire realm of criticism coming from outside the mainstream down to Russian attempts to sow discord is tremendously beneficial to the mainstream.

2. The corollary of #1: because many voters accept the narrative that not all criticism of the establishment is genuine, they too easily conclude that anyone whose opinion is drastically different from their own has a nonzero chance of being a paid operative of a foreign government. Thus, the prevalence of truly horrible views being earnestly held by real people is downplayed; "There couldn't REALLY be that many people who think Ilhan Omar is the Antichrist, right? Most of the ones you see online are probably just Putin puppets."

Combined, these factors stultify the political process arguably more than the actual meddling itself, especially if you are of the opinion (as I am) that the main obstacle to transformative change in America is not only the extreme right but also the 'extreme center'.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't think we have a special bot detector tool, we would just look for signs that they were a bot (like you would) and then ban if appropriate. I'm a relatively new mod, though.

One thing we do have access to that you don't is IP addresses, so if the IP address were the same as a previous bot then in theory we could use that as evidence.

Actually, we do. All new applicants to the board have their email, IP, and username run through a spam/bot detector. It doesn't work to catch all of them but it's pretty good. Presently, about 99% of applicants are spammers/bots. I've banned 8 of them in the last twelve hours alone.

LOL, really?
Were they all Russians?

Actually, a large percentage of them are Russians. I actually blocked completely some Russian ISPs.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Combined, these factors stultify the political process arguably more than the actual meddling itself

The actual meddling itself's whole purpose is to "stultify the political process." You're missing the meta; seeing only the trees, not the forest.

especially if you are of the opinion (as I am) that the main obstacle to transformative change in America is not only the extreme right but also the 'extreme center'.

Ahhh, so only the extreme left promotes "transformative change." So you're not missing the meta, you're just blind to irony.