[S_A_P]

In a somewhat related note. I read the original NY Times article that laid out the case for the fake followers. The combination of good writing, investigative journalism and compelling presentation actually made me feel like they are producing content worth paying for. I am now subscribing to the new york times.

[mike_hearn]

Don't take anything you read in the New York Times about twitter bots too seriously. They do publish articles that look superficially well researched but which are nonsense or actually deceptive:

https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f...

The problem is that some phrases that appear on the surface to have one meaning have been grabbed and redefined by particular political groups, almost used as code words. "Bot" and especially "Russian Twitter Bot" for example isn't used by Twitter or others in the way you'd always expect:

https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/11/undercover-video-t...

"Just go to a random [Trump] tweet, and just look at the followers," Singh says. "They'll be like guns, God, America, like, and with the American flag and like the cross. Who says that? Who talks like that? It's for sure a bot."

The idea that Twitter bots can change society in fundamental ways is one that seems to obsess journalists, who all seem to spend half their day on Twitter anyway, but I've yet to see evidence that it's true.