Rumors aren't spread by bots, they're started by bots and spread by humans. The more outrageous the bot-rumor, the faster and voluminous it spreads. And the spread increases further when it gets reinterpreted and E-mailed or tweeted around.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Regulation of Online Media
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
There are bots that reply to tweets (sometimes in broken English). Mention Covid precautions and you get "why mask when death rate is 1%" or something like it
Sure, there are many registered accounts on Twitter, Farsebook, Instagram, and alike, which are actually interactive (AI) bots. When they hear certain key words or phrases, they've gotten better at replying with a programmed narrative.
...and as I mentioned a few days ago either in this discussion or another, a big reason for the rapid spread is that, in most cases the gossip and rumor and false items are more exciting and "sexier" than the actual truth, which can be boring by comparison.
Last edited:
Supreme Court rules in favor of Google in its copyright dispute with Oracle. The decision is a win for developers and those who believe in an open internet:
abcnews.go.com
However, if it means open code is fair use, then it makes it harder to regulate "big tech" on the charge of a monopoly.
Google wins big in Supreme Court clash with Oracle
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Google in a multi-billion dollar copyright clash with Oracle.
However, if it means open code is fair use, then it makes it harder to regulate "big tech" on the charge of a monopoly.
Justice Thomas, who wrote the dissent in the Google v. Oracle case, wrote a concurrence on another case ruled today by SCOTUS in which Twitter was a party. In it, Thomas was none too gentle on the social media platform and proposed Congress consider applying common-carrier rules to such companies:
Clarence Thomas blasts Section 230, wants “common-carrier” rules on Twitter
Thomas claims Twitter's "right to cut off speech" may be First Amendment problem.
arstechnica.com
Yes I saw that after I posted the previous story. Wouldn't that prejudice him on any future case, requiring him to recuse?
He also ignores that the first amendment doesn't apply to a private, membership only business.
You hit the nail on the head with that. Actually researching one's own opinions isn't exactly popular or 'sexy' as just believing something you've read that lines up with what one already believes.
People start rumors, half-truths and untruths, too. I'm not a Twitter follower, but the few tweets I've seen posted here and there, or forwarded, which were controversial or talked about had their origin in a tweet by an actual person, with an actual face or name, usually and actual title, and the tweets were written in real English, almost always by an American.
The only 'bots' I have actually seen were FB posters who -- when you looked up their profile -- had just signed up a few days previous, had a generic Anglo name, and usually were born in one major US city and lives in another major US city but they have no job title, no information, and few, if any friends. Sometimes their English is marginal, other times it's more like textese.
Sometimes they have no picture, and if they have a picture, it looks like it was cut and pasted from an advertisement or stock modeling photo, or stolen from another FB profile. In other words, the political version of the female, social media 'bot' data harvester.
- Status