There is nothing "neutral" about botted lists that effectively ban people for an inane level of Batman logic. How on gods green earth does "following" lead to the people doing the following being or passing on scammers? It equates the people trying to gain broad exposure as a scammer themselves. SMH
I assure you that every addition to my moderation lists is an artisinal hand-crafted judgment that someone is a credulous mass-follower who will be exposed to and repost scams, propaganda, and concerted nation-state influence operations, not "botted"
Go read these papers and be enlightened by knowing that every single one of these networks that I know the dataset for got established by manipulating followback hashtags: synecdochic.dreamwidth.org/807781.html
Accounts and networks that are "run by", "led by", "organized by" yet oddly none are caused by people "FOLLOWED BY". The take is dead simple, you all think people are too stupid to evaluate what comes across their feeds, when in reality it is bad actors with bots & compromised accounts doing this.
friend, you are not immune to propaganda and of your last 50 posts, I counted six that are either reposts of someone repeating or you yourself repeating a story that originated with an organized disinformation network
No I am absolutely not immune, but limiting my exposure to a platform at best leaves me ill equipped to discern misinformation to begin with. I used to think that the IDF were basically good with handcuffs causing them to make mistakes. That has been proven wrong at every level now. Also what 6?
Discourse requires conversation and debate, not silencing in the name of "security", how do you not see the parallel with laws that make us all "safer" but does it at the expense free movement of ideas?
Cannot correct what I don't know about, reply to them and tell me what is wrong with them. Or is that "too hard"?
I don't take homework assignments from mediocre white dudes who came in hot, loud, and wrong, didn't do the reading, and are looking for an excuse to dismiss anything I say, sorry not sorry
If you want an actual answer to your question, my standard billing rate starts at $300/hour for that kind of work but for you, it'll be $500. It's about a 15 hour job. Lemme know the address if you want the invoice; it's payable in advance
Ah a paywall for sticker shock for an "expert opinion" and you know already I am not a celeb or political leader and I am not rich enough to own a domain that is verifiable. If this chaps your butt so much that you are going to this length to punch down, I have to ask: Why? What does it serve? Srsly
idk, babe, maybe you should have smiled more
oh, surely you should be able to find them since you're a bigger expert on how disinformation spreads and how organized disinformation networks manipulate social media to disseminate their disinformation than I am
Again, never said I was, and all the scholarly data you have provided still does not show ANY evidence of the follower being the problem. Just the reach of the networks that are organized to get followed. I read your information, now enlighten us all with actual information. Respond to the posts.
bsky.app/profile/raha...
Check out @knittingcultlady.bsky.social @parkroseperma.bsky.social and @mdg650hawk.bsky.social if you want good information from reliable sources and diverse opinions. Just a touch of what else I expose myself to, sorry if it is one too many, because I am too dumb to be able to understand it 😔
Or this one: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Same with this article, again it is not the following account that does the spreading PER THE ARTICLE it is the supersharer manually spreading the misinformation maliciously, not through being shared organically by followers who are duped. This is the dumbest take away for this entire subject.
Or this one: counterhate.com/research/the...
This article and its sources don't even talk about people who follow a bunch of accounts, it speaks instead of the misinformation accounts themselves! Yes, more people who follow many are EXPOSED to misinformation, but it is not the following account that spreads it, it's the account being followed.
Or this one: journals.plos.org/plosone/arti...
Superspreaders? So now I am a disease? What kind of holier than thou crap is this? Who a person follows does not equate to what they post. By the article's own admission the follower cannot spread that misinformation faster than the original misinformation accounts. It is a false narrative entirely.
yep, knew you weren't gonna read the papers, called it You're totally right, the entire field of Trust and Safety developed over 25 years is wrong, you're a special pretty princess who's immune to social media manipulation, will you go away now?
You are yelling at the wrong person, I am not the person who put you on whatever list you're whining about, I'm just the person who explains fundamental principles of social media moderation because I was literally one of the first handful of people to pioneer the field
You definitely and absolutely know more about how disinformation spreads on social networks than I do! I only first identified the tactics that the Russian government was using to spread disinformation on social media in 2005 and all
Yes but oddly nothing about people who follow others who are spreading the information... So again the premise is that people who follow a lot of accounts are stupid, right?
it's almost like there's an entire-ass literal textbook coming out in a few months about it or something www.bloomsbury.com/us/livejourn...
Or this one: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
This only is looking at bot accounts and automated accounts for how this misinformation spread. So the answer is to use a lazy bot account instead of rolling up one's sleeves and actually moderating content, you know the old "fact checking"?
Or -- you know what, nevermind, you're not going to read any of the citations I send you, you people who want to get righteously angry about moderation never do. If only one of you would read my goddamn bio for once
And yes I did read your bio, but being exposed to something for a long time does not impart wisdom about it. As an old Sergeant of mine told me over 30 years ago: "the day you know absolutely EVERYTHING about your job, is the day you need a new one." The implication is that you only THINK you know.
She was one of the pioneers of the field, dude, or do you not understand what that means either?
Ohhhhhh, you were in the army, that explains it then. hate to tell you my dude but people whose job isn't killing babies in countries we're trying to colonize actually do have the capacity to learn things about what they do even if they aren't shouted at for five hours a day
I did read most of the summaries and in the dozen or so I did read starting from the top down, none of them spoke to people who follow many accounts. This isn't "moderation" it is lazy botting and blaming the victim (read recipient) for their more exposure to misinformation. It is lazy at best...
Did you read any of the actual articles in their entirety
Most of the laundry list, I have 4 more to go in the large list of links...
Also "botting" isnt a word.