[seaish]

This happens to basically all the women of enough notoriety that I follow on Twitter. It's usually a single individual, but often it's someone being extremely offensive and not technically defamatory. I don't think there's much legal action to take in those cases.

[arp242]

I don't think "offensive" and "defamatory" are really the same thing though. If I say "seaish is an asshole" then that's not very nice, but ... you know, I'm allowed to have that opinion for whatever reason ("everyone with two s's in their username is an asshole!")

But if I say "seaish is a pedophile and went to Asia for rentboys" then that's quite another thing (and these were among the claims that were made).

Not that the Twitter harassment of women in particular isn't an issue though; but I don't think it's really on the same level.

[lifeisstillgood]

I think that, while its clear it is an example, it would be preferable to use "XXX is a paedophile" as the example text than the parents username.

It would come off as less aggressive and less directed at the parent, which with such an accusation, even as an example, is rather jarring.

[arp242]

I don't really see the problem to be honest? I don't see how it's aggressive? (and it's too late to edit it now anyway, so not all that much I can do about it now anyway).

[betwixthewires]

I used to have deep conversations as a teenager with some of my friends, and on occasion I would say something as an argument, like "suppose I threatened to kick your ass." I meant no ill intent by it, it was an example of bad behavior used in discussion. But on a couple of occasions it was taken as a veiled threat, like I was getting upset with the discussion. Technically I did nothing wrong there, but later I came to see why it would be taken that way sometimes by some people, and stopped doing it.

[drdeca]

I agree that using as an example the person you are talking to is permissible, but I also agree that it is a bit preferable to instead either use a generic placeholder, or instead of saying “If I said [X] about [someone], that would(n’t) be libel”, instead saying “If [someone] said [X] about me, that would(n’t) be libel.” I don’t think this is obligatory though. I think that no one should feel pressured to make this change in how they phrase things, but I do think it is an improvement in phrasing.

[cwkoss]

There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.

[throw_m239339]

> There are also several (known) political mercenaries who operate bot farms specifically to attack leftists and signal boost those attacks to astroturf popularity.

You mean harassers and bullies from hexbear AKA chapotraphouse who target radical feminists? Yes, it's leftists attacking women who disagree with them.

[cwkoss]

Haven't heard about this.

Is there evidence of bot accounts specifically? Or is it unclear if its bots (network of accounts managed by one or few people) or a crowd of tribalist low-information angry people? Often hard to tell them apart, and a successful former often breeds the later, so I think it can be challenging to determine conclusively.

"Bot" has also increasingly (and incorrectly IMO) been used as a pejorative for belligerent human trolls, which further obfuscates this discussion.

Would love to see a source about chapo bots - google isn't turning up anything for me. I find these sorts of social media propaganda operations fascinating.

[drdeca]

(I have no information about the specific topic of alleged CTH bots/“bots”. I’m not asserting that any particular group is using bots. I’m just speaking generally about the topic of what counts as “bots” and what doesn’t.)

I kind of feel that in a case where there are many accounts using identical text (which is too long to be identical by coincidence) (e.g. in replies to something), it is probably fair to call these bots, even though one can’t rule out the possibility that the automation is as small as just copying and pasting the same text into different accounts + something to open windows as different accounts viewing the same tweet.

Like, maybe that setup wouldn’t strictly count as bots, but really only because it hasn’t been automated as much as it could be while having the same result.

So, I think it is probably fair to call that observable-phenomenon “bots” even though it might not always strictly be bots?

But I agree that a group of paid astroturfers(/trolls?) who are writing different things, probably shouldn’t be called “bots”, even if they each use multiple accounts (provided that they aren’t semi-automatically saying the same things from the different accounts).

I do think that the concept of sock puppets probably captures much of the idea that “bots” is inappropriately extended to, and in a sense applies to many of the kinds of bots that people are talking about in this context (bots pretending to be many people, rather than a bot which is up-front about being a bot).

So, maybe talking about “socks” would be a good substitute for when some are talking about “bots” when they don’t really care if they are actually bots?

[cwkoss]

Interesting. I do consider accounts managed by paid astroturfers who manually write replies from multiple accounts with different identities "bots" but maybe that is a misnomer. "Sock-puppet-masters"?

Copy-paste reply bots are clearly "bots" IMO - but these seem to be falling out of favor because pointing out many identical replies tends to be a very effective "dunk" on the idea they are promoting.

Someone found screenshots Sally Albright's tooling in a support request: she had ~50-100 different accounts with unique identities. She could post replies to a given tweet from multiple different accounts from a single page. However, liking and retweeting each others replies could be fully automated (with some randomization of timing and which accounts are used).

Albright has claimed that the accounts she managed were originally owned by people who gave her control of them. I am incredulous, particularly because some accounts were identified as using a dead person's image with a different name. But there is the possibility that she was given the impression by whoever provided these accounts to her that these were 'real' accounts where the owners consented to have them used in this manner.

It gives the capability for a single person to seem like they are a crowd of like minded people all in agreement on social media. I believe this model of automated likes/retweets but manual replies is the most common (and pernicious) method used today - practically impossible to prove without data outside the platform it is occurring.

[drdeca]

I suppose if “bot” came to refer separately to mass-sockpuppeting as well as to automated messages, that wouldn’t really be that unfortunate of a change in the meaning of the phrase, so I could accept it.

I would prefer things that don’t have any significant automation to them be called something related to sockpuppets than bots, but sockpuppet is unwieldy because it is much longer, both in speech and in writing, so if there is no abbreviation for “sockpuppet”/“sockpuppet master” which is convenient, easily understandable, and feels right to use, then I guess that could be justification enough to call them “bots” despite there being little automation to it.

Regardless, I think the big issue is how people can use these techniques to massively overrepresent how common certain views are compared to other views, regardless of whether it uses any automation. (Because of this, when I make multiple accounts on some service which I keep separate from one-another, which isn’t often, I try to say in my user profiles roughly how many other accounts I have on the service, to avoid contributing to this problem. This has only come up on one website for me though.)

(Also many-account auto-liking would qualify as “being bots” in the narrow sense IMO even if the tweets were all manual. And automation certainly makes the problem bigger.)

[cwkoss]

I was primarily referring to Sally Albright (the example with the most publicly available evidence). She is a political mercenary who was outed as operating a large bot farm using identities of people who died. Funded by ShareBlue to attack people critical of HRC, then Biden.

Arguably, she created the "donut twitter" faction - which grew past the bot accounts she controlled.

Though I'm sure this tactic is used by every political leaning to some extent. I think her example is particularly egregious because she is being funded by the DNC apparatus - not just a lone wolf.

[Smithalicious]

Saying shareblue/CTR, a leftist astroturf organization, is "attacking leftists" is incredibly misleading. They attack towards both sides of the political spectrum from themselves, but there's much more to the right of them than these is to the left.

[cwkoss]

I think it's misleading to call ShareBlue "leftist" - they are 'left' to the extent that Joe Biden is 'left', but leftist typically refers to "the radical left" or marxists or democratic socialists in modern political discourse.

Yes, they attack to both sides, but their anti-right operations are pretty transparent. Their anti-leftist operations tend to be clandestine, presumably because DNC funds used to attack "their own" voters would be politically toxic.

[ttt0]

ShareBlue, CorrectTheRecord wasn't targeting just leftists.

[ttt0]

Everyone does that since forever and this isn't limited to a single political affiliation or even politics at all. By now this is a standard practice and I hope this isn't news for anybody.