U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Academic research teams, review the #socialbot papers.
Journalists and lawmakers, don't base your reporting and laws on wrong research claims.
Do you have more info? Get in touch!https://michaelkreil.github.io/openbots/
It is important to look for explanations for the main political events of the last years. And we should keep doing so.
But the research needs to be accurate, reviewed, and reproducible. The #socialbot theory isn't.
I call #bullshit!
Interesting presentation. I wrote the Wired weak-bot-legislation article you cited, so a couple thoughts. 1) Actual automated bots were much more interesting in 2015-16, when their impact was enabled by Twitter not assessing for low quality accounts when determining a trend.
I worked on a couple of the early taxonomies then that looked at their strategies. Some of those taxonomies generally influenced the development of tools like Botometer. 2) Early Botometer had an overfitting problem. Undeniably. Particularly in 2017-2018.
It sounds like better studies are require, not necessarily that it's bs. One of the problems is the lack of understanding of virality, how online influence happens, and for others the 50+ thing. The scientists not understanding the field only means the studies are bad.
Well done. I spend a lot of time looking at fake accounts & rarely encounter actual automation. There are sinister & manipulative things going on, it seems, but when people protest "I didn't vote (x) because of a bot", I think they're correct. 1/2
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.
