Twitter is a poor place

[nyvinter]

If what Musk has revealed (recent twitter post) is Twitter even a real place. If 1/2 of a certain government officials followers are deemed bots than what is Twitter really? IF as im only speculating they could be in big legal trouble. By creating fake bots you are inflating your real value to stockholders and advertisers etc

Bots gathered around famous people doesn't really affect how people use it as such. So yes, it's still a real place as much as the next Internet site.

It might affect the ego of Musk that he's lumped in politicians with made up followers, but for people who post about science fiction books, possums in funny hats, micro fiction, wikipedia moderation issues, or portrait photography those bots are a non-issue and far less destructive than bigoted trolls. Just like the rest of Internet.

 

[Guest 7034872]

If what Musk has revealed (recent twitter post) is Twitter even a real place.

It never was.

 

[Lanefan]

"Social" media, isn't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It never was.

Twitter has always been a very insulated conversation. So has facebook. Which is fine. There isn't anything wrong with that sort of thing. But the problem in my mind is the way those opinions have been presented as relevant or important. Thankfully it happens less and less. But I still remember articles in major papers siting minor tweets as if they reflected the opinions of a broad swath of the public. It is also the kind of place that to me, feels a lot like junior high school. People who know how to use the platform to attack others, whip people into a frenzy around others, are usually the ones who get popular. But they often end up also being the ones who become the target of those frenzies.

 

[wicked cool]

Bots gathered around famous people doesn't really affect how people use it as such. So yes, it's still a real place as much as the next Internet site.

It might affect the ego of Musk that he's lumped in politicians with made up followers, but for people who post about science fiction books, possums in funny hats, micro fiction, wikipedia moderation issues, or portrait photography those bots are a non-issue and far less destructive than bigoted trolls. Just like the rest of Internet.

but a bot isnt a real user. is it is being counted as a total

Lets say hollywood A actress has 40 million followers but 10 million are bots. The major companies that sponsor that actress are looking at the 40 million (mountain dew, clothes etc). investors etc are looking at that. Its has nothing to do with musks ego it has to do with the real value. You can go to jail for overinflating assets . you have lied to top stockholders , banks that have lent you money etc. This could crush the stock.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Bots gathered around famous people doesn't really affect how people use it as such. So yes, it's still a real place as much as the next Internet site.

It might affect the ego of Musk that he's lumped in politicians with made up followers, but for people who post about science fiction books, possums in funny hats, micro fiction, wikipedia moderation issues, or portrait photography those bots are a non-issue and far less destructive than bigoted trolls. Just like the rest of Internet.

I see the bot issue as a separate thing from the 'twitter isn't a real place' argument. The latter always struck me as a reminder that twitter is just a place on the internet, that doesn't necessarily reflect the attitudes and views of the broader world; that it is literally not a real place (it exists on the internet) and that you can unplug from it and resume your real life: it is basically telling people they don't need to enslave their mind and opinions to social media platforms. Friends, family, Mom and dad are more real and relevant to your life than @horseofwar32. Relationships on a social media network are not the same as those in real life, and I think that is why people are so capable of being cruel to one another online, especially in places like twitter and facebook.

 

[Mannahnin]

but a bot isnt a real user. is it is being counted as a total

Lets say hollywood A actress has 40 million followers but 10 million are bots. The major companies that sponsor that actress are looking at the 40 million (mountain dew, clothes etc). investors etc are looking at that. Its has nothing to do with musks ego it has to do with the real value. You can go to jail for overinflating assets . you have lied to top stockholders , banks that have lent you money etc. This could crush the stock.

Right. The percentage of users which are bots impacts advertising value, for one of the most prominent things, as well as the quality of general discourse. I saw a recent comment that Twitter estimates their bot user percentage as around 5%, whereas Musk just did some sort of rough analysis that came up with around 20%. This has a direct impact on valuation.

 

[nyvinter]

Relationships on a social media network are not the same as those in real life, and I think that is why people are so capable of being cruel to one another online, especially in places like twitter and facebook.

No, that depends on how you see people through an anonymous lens. They're just removing the mask as social media makes that easy and shows you how they treat people they do not know. "Internet isn't real" is what naughty words say to justify behaving like naughty words as people online is not that different from people one was penpals with in school; it's a real relationship separated by vast distances. Not seeing it as real is what create numbness farms like 4chan.

But the bot issues are a little interesting, because there are several bots on social media. The padding of followers one is an issue for advertising yes, but also advertising is an issue for Internet that most people have been trained to ignore and see past — with social media far more and more ignore those numbers and go with engagements, the follower bots don't affect those at all.

Then there's the post animal pic bots and bots boosting particular subjects — archillect comes to mind. There quite a lot of those. The ones we should be concerned are the phishing bots, but Musk don't care about those or their victims as he's not been phished himself.

 

[Ryujin]

No, that depends on how you see people through an anonymous lens. They're just removing the mask as social media makes that easy and shows you how they treat people they do not know. "Internet isn't real" is what naughty words say to justify behaving like naughty words as people online is not that different from people one was penpals with in school; it's a real relationship separated by vast distances. Not seeing it as real is what create numbness farms like 4chan.

But the bot issues are a little interesting, because there are several bots on social media. The padding of followers one is an issue for advertising yes, but also advertising is an issue for Internet that most people have been trained to ignore and see past — with social media far more and more ignore those numbers and go with engagements, the follower bots don't affect those at all.

Then there's the post animal pic bots and bots boosting particular subjects — archillect comes to mind. There quite a lot of those. The ones we should be concerned are the phishing bots, but Musk don't care about those or their victims as he's not been phished himself.

Oscar Wilde said it best, over 100 years ago. Take away consequence and you'll see who someone really is.

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask and he'll tell you the truth”

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, that depends on how you see people through an anonymous lens. They're just removing the mask as social media makes that easy and shows you how they treat people they do not know. "Internet isn't real" is what naughty words say to justify behaving like naughty words as people online is not that different from people one was

We are kind of talking about different uses of the expression. Not real refers to the platform, not the people on it (which is why I separated it out from the bot issue). I am not using it to say that the people online aren't real (otherwise I would not be concerned by the cruelty that happens on twiter). I am not talking about people who say it isn't real, so that means they can mistreat people online. I am talking about people who have been mistreated on line and get off because they realize it isn't real life, that people think and behave differently in online environments and it isn't conducive to empathy at the moment. That isn't real life, and that even many of the things people say there aren't even always what they really think (they are things people say to promote themselves, to play to what they think others want them to say, etc). Saying it is not a real place, is a way to help keep the voices on twitter out of your mind when they disruptive to your life or your way of thinking. I do give people the benefit of the doubt. I don't think we are seeing who people really are, I just think the worst part of them is being unleashed. I think a lot of people who see themselves as wonderful people are capable of more cruelty than they realize in the right circumstances. I have made a point of being as forgiving as I can towards the people who have been bad to me online, and hope they can eventually understand what they are doing is affecting real people. Twitter is a very negative place in my opinion and I think an easy way to rebuke that negativity is with a phrase like "it isn't even real" because in many ways it is not.