Thread. Add to read list
Can't help but wonder whether hypothesis holds up better if one defines social bots broadly enough to include software bots & humans engineered to behave indistinguishably from software bots #ReEngHum
I'm not defending the 50 tweets/day = bot thresholdhttps://twitter.com/MichaelKreil/status/1221785812150423552 …
Very interesting, indeed! I can't help but wonder if it's possible to address the "bot" issue without addressing a much deeper problem, i.e. messing with people's heads on purpose to subjugate them or turn them into obedient consumers. We're not a very honest culture in general!
-
-
Bots, as awful as they are, reproduce the status quo—at scale. In the olden days of Digg, for instance, brands with $$ would hire people to downvote competitors. Today, brands and organizations alike use similar tactics for "online reputation management." O tempora o mores!
-
Bots are the personified irony of "social" proof. In the days of one-to-many broadcasting, entities with $ would use TV and expensive publicity campaigns to shape public opinion. And while that is still an existing practice, we also have fake "social proof," to make things worse.
Koniec rozmowy
Nowa rozmowa -
Wydaje się, że ładowanie zajmuje dużo czasu.
Twitter jest przeciążony lub wystąpił chwilowy problem. Spróbuj ponownie lub sprawdź status Twittera, aby uzyskać więcej informacji.