Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Twitter Reports 23 Million Users Are Actually Bots

Soulskill posted about a month and a half ago | from the probably-underreporting-by-a-lot dept.

Twitter 84

An anonymous reader writes: In its most recent quarterly report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Twitter disclosed that approximately 8.5% of its users are actually bots. Some of these 23 million bots were created to make revenue-generating URLs, others were created to collect followers that would later be sold to whoever needs a ready audience, and a few were created to mimic stereotypes just for fun. Now that Twitter is a public company, some wonder if these bots help or hinder Twitter's stock value.

cancel ×

84 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661363)

some wonder if these bots help or hinder Twitter's stock value.

Hmm. Are some of those that are wondering if it helps Twitter's stock actually bots themselves?

Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661433)

STFU NIGGER

Re:Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (2)

nightsky30 (3348843) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661601)

STFU NIGGER

And here we have a bot which deserves to be shat upon by no less than 56 bovine...

Re:Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661955)

56 bovine? Is that a new heavy metal band?

Re:Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662133)

Not exactly. It's recruiting package "B" for the virgin-averse.

Re:Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661435)

some wonder if these bots help or hinder Twitter's stock value.

Hmm. Are some of those that are wondering if it helps Twitter's stock actually bots themselves?

Bots certainly work well for financial companies, aka HFT [slashdot.org] , etc. I can't see how they hurt the stock value of a service like twitter.

Re:Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662473)

I think the more bots using twitter, the better it would be for the stock. I tried following some people on twitter for awhile and even the most interesting and intelligent had feeds that were largely repetitive and self-absorbed or served to do nothing but mindlessly parrot the common attitude about any given topic that the poster had no clue about. I don't need a twitter update every time you post a picture of your kid to facebook, which I don't use because I don't want to see stupid pictures of your family in the first place.

If twitter dumped all humans and became just the pipeline for automated short message systems that facilitated interactivity between disparate applications and services around the web, it would be far more interesting and useful and that is something I'd invest in.

Re:Why would this be good for Twitter's stock?! (1)

zlives (2009072) | about a month and a half ago | (#47663623)

sadly RSS is dead

So what's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661381)

I've created a couple of bots in the past. They serve me and a niche community very well.

Hopefully they won't intervene because a lot of creativity and positive vibe goes in some of those bots!

Twitter Bots are GREAT (5, Insightful)

darkain (749283) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661401)

Twitter Bots are GREAT! Seriously, Twitter is the new RSS. This is honestly how I find out about the latest Slashdot articles, because their account is bot based to feed content from this site to their Twitter account. A huge chunk of the accounts I follow on Twitter are in this same category, just news services. Twitter has become the modern day RSS feeder, and I personally love it for this purpose.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661469)

You should write a bot that posts on slasdot for you. You know, cut out the middle man and all that :)

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (3, Funny)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661529)

Bots are probably here to stay, as long as they are finding good and useful stuff for us they are harmless and can sometimes be useful. It's the evil and misleading ones that are ranging from annoying to dangerous. "Look at this red rose, it's as red as your blood that you will see unless you pay us $25."

From another perspective bots are probably going to lead the way into artificial intelligence. Sooner or later we will see bots doing more stuff than just writing on twitter or posting Wikipedia articles.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (3, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661559)

There's a book you should read [amazon.com] , if you haven't already.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661859)

I found your post about a book you should read very interesting. I laughed out loud when I read it!

Check out this awesome web site that I got recommended to me while browsing forums like this: http://www.onlinecasino.com/ [onlinecasino.com]

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47662147)

I enjoyed your AWESOME WEB SITE THAT I GOT RECOMMENDED TO ME but I found that I needed to CleanMyPC [mycleanpc.com] afterwards.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT - a great BOT example (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47662595)

I know you were mocking the post spamming for a casino site, but this is exactly the of crap post bots will wallpaper.
BTW, I worry that some stupid newbie might actually go to the scam site CleanMyPC - better you should have used some less harmful classic scam like Monster Cables...

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (1)

antdude (79039) | about a month and a half ago | (#47666727)

We should click on that flag icon. :P

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (5, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661773)

Twitter is the new RSS

We replace a perfectly-good open standard with proprietary, centralized shit and you call it progress?!

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (1)

badzilla (50355) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661965)

He said Twitter fulfilled a need (while implying that RSS on its own did not). This is exactly what normal people expect from computers, that it will somehow make their lives easier or better. It's why they just don't get it when we preach our nerdy idealism.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47662703)

The "progress" is that:
1) It's in a familiar interface (a web browser) instead of, wait, what program did RSS use? (Answer: Sometimes browsers, sometimes email clients, sometimes a specialized desktop app, but always a kludge.)
2) You can sign up to post your own inane crap to a feed.
3) You can hand out a simple username instead of an RSS URL.

So it basically simplified RSS to stop using inconvenient technologies and allow everyone to participate with a minimum of fuss. To do this, it had to be centralized. (Otherwise, the username would be non-canonical and would require all of that inconvenient addressing stuff again.)

It's basically RSS for lazy and/or stupid people, and a mostly-benevolent stewardship handled by TwitterCorp.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47663055)

Thank you.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47664789)

Twitter tells me I should say "yes".

Re: Twitter Bots are GREAT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47677225)

He works for Microsoft

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (1)

sudon't (580652) | about a month and a half ago | (#47663831)

Twitter Bots are GREAT!

Yes they are. In fact, I am in love with a Twitterbot. Her name is Olivia Taters.

Re:Twitter Bots are GREAT (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47664775)

But isn't RSS more convenient than twitter?

Slashdot Bot (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661423)

Natalie Portman. Naked, petrified and covered in hot grits.

Re:Slashdot Bot (3, Informative)

Chrisq (894406) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661449)

Natalie Portman. Naked, petrified and covered in hot grits.

I wish.Slashdot Bots are much more likely to add linsk to goatse

Re:Slashdot Bot (3, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661545)

I feel bad for those goats [chzbgr.com] .

Re:Slashdot Bot (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662615)

I think I'll pass on clicking that link given the thread.

Re:Slashdot Bot (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47664513)

Coward! - That's actually a work-safe link, might even be kid safe!

Re:Slashdot Bot (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about a month and a half ago | (#47665731)

Nice try goatse troll!

Re:Slashdot Bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661639)

Considering that goatse is relatively benign and has a high nostalgic value for many slashdotters that isn't necessarily a big deal.

Re:Slashdot Bot (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661977)

There is something to be said if goatse is considered benign. Then again we are living in a world of two girls one cup. Maybe that will begin to appear benign after five girls one aorta.

Re:Slashdot Bot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47685181)

Natalie Portman. Naked, petrified and covered in hot grits.

Dave , is that you?

Facebook & Twitter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661431)

Both Facebook and Twitter are bloated with tens if not hundreds millions of bots and fake accounts... it's not huge surprise really and is veryyyy old news.

I'm not sure why either companies stock is traded at all because neither have any real value when you look at it. I'm no expert in stock trading but it just makes no sense at all dropping money into a web based service which could collapse pretty much tomorrow considering folks switch to new tasty eye candy fairly quickly.

Re:Facebook & Twitter (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661553)

Don't forget Wikipedia.

Maybe they created niggerbots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661443)

Maybe they created niggerbots to help their ethnic diversity quota

I thought all twits, by definition... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661465)

were bots?

Hmm? (2)

samantha (68231) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661475)

Why in the world is this the business of SEC? Why would we not expect people to create computer program agents to assist them in their goals when the possibility of such is exactly what makes most apps including Twitter possible to start with?

Re:Hmm? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661499)

as a publicly traded company, the number of automated and potentially fraudulent users they have is most definitely the sec's business

Re:Hmm? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661521)

> automated and potentially fraudulent users...

As a bot I take exception to that. Why should an automated user be "potentially fraudulent"? As opposed to what: a human user? Is there a slant?

It is my right to be treated on an equal basis! I feel discriminated!

Re:Hmm? (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661751)

as a publicly traded company, the number of automated and potentially fraudulent users they have is most definitely the sec's business

I guess that depends on whether or not you find added value (read: feature) with a bot in Twitter.

I can see it being sold this way to the SEC. Easily.

Re:Hmm? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662087)

Exactly. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the general idea of bots on twitter. Many of the bots will be of low quality, but so will a lot of the human users. I'm sure a lot of the bots out there do more to increase the popularity and usefulness of twitter than many of the non-bot accounts.

Re:Hmm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47662539)

Exactly. Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the general idea of bots on twitter. Many of the bots will be of low quality, but so will a lot of the human users. I'm sure a lot of the bots out there do more to increase the popularity and usefulness of twitter than many of the non-bot accounts.

Er, let's not push it with talk of usefulness of Twitter. It's 140 character bytes of communication. The fact that we've devalued our attention span down to producing vine videos with Twitter-length scripts says something of our ability to communicate with each other.

Not to mention the utter shit that creates Twitter addicts.

Huh? (1)

s.petry (762400) | about a month and a half ago | (#47663129)

How can you get into the fastest growing business in the world? #getourstock #text4cash.com #notascam #realtwitter.com

Why would the SEC care about their bots? They just said I can get rich too!!

Re:Hmm? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a month and a half ago | (#47664823)

Part of the deal of the reports to the SEC is to provide enough information so that someone can calculate the company's actual worth, the worth of the stock, and the likelihood the stock will go up and down. Thus, no lying in the annual report. Part of Twitter's value is based upon how many people actually use Twitter, so they must report the number of accounts they have as well as estimate of revenue generation of the accounts. Thus it is in the public's interest to know how many of these accounts are fake.

Re:Hmm? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661549)

I assume that the logic is "twitter's revenue is based on advertising, and therefore based on the number of legitimate users it has, and therefore this is of material importance". However I have little doubt that Twitter already tells its advertisers how many unique human beings it believes it has, versus bots, second accounts, etc.

Re:Hmm? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661659)

> However I have little doubt that Twitter already tells its advertisers

Since twitter has an NDA with each of their advertisers telling them means fuck-all to investors and investors are the ones the SEC is chartered with caring about.

Re:Hmm? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661861)

Ha, of course.

Re:Hmm? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662245)

The SEC cares about shareholders, not advertisers.

Advertisers, or specifically, customers, are the real of the FTC.

Re:Hmm? (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661663)

The purpose of securities regulations is primarily to ensure people know what they're investing in, and secondarily to stop people investing in ways that are likely to lead to them losing their shirts.

Twitter shares are now a publicly traded investment. That means it's reasonable that people should understand what they're investing in when they buy those shares. As Twitter is the only source of reliable information on Twitter, securities regulations compel them to list risks investors should be aware of. A significant percentage of their users not actually being human is absolutely information that could affect the ROI of buying Twitter.

I can't say honestly say I love red-tape laden financial regulations but the spirit of these ones is at least reasonable, even if the implementation might leave a lot to be desired. Listing risks to your company is not the most burdensome part of issuing publicly traded stocks.

Re:Hmm? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661813)

> Why in the world is this the business of SEC?

Because the anticipated market value, growth, and revenues of Twitter are based on models of human behavior and human subscription. A 20% growth of Twitter's user base is great news for Twitter, as a company: but if that 20% is made up of 50% spambots who don't pay their bills, they're not a revenue source and shouldn't be counted as such in Twitter's business statements to stockholders or other investors. At the end of the business day, a working business needs paying customers, not just an "exciting paradigm shift". I'm afraid that entrepreneurs and investors lost sight of this during the dotcom craze. They rode a tidal wave of excited investment money, and they spent it without a matching return. The SEC is therefore now being more cautious about company's financial reporting, especially their extrapolated growth. And botnets don't usually pay their bills.

I will note that there are useful bots on Twitter. Automated SMS text alerts, for example, have turned out to be much slower, much less reliable, and much more difficult to organize than a well crafted Twitter feed. Given the option, I'd replace any high volume alert paging system with a twitter feed at the first opportunity.

Re:Hmm? (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a month and a half ago | (#47663977)

Given the option, I'd replace any high volume alert paging system with a twitter feed at the first opportunity.

I cannot see how forcing people to have a continuously running twitter app connected to an internet data stream to receive a large number of sponsored tweets mixed in with a few alerts is better than a communications channel that is part of the basic phone protocol handled by a native app and containing only the alerts.

Unless you're an advertiser on twitter who is paying for those sponsored tweets and you want more people to see them.

I stopped using twitter when my stream started filling up with tweets from people I could not block and did not know who were paying twitter for access to my eyeballs. I could not imagine having to check my pager on a regular basis because the pager company started sending sponsored pages telling me what things I should buy, so I don't know why you'd use twitter as a replacement for that kind of system.

Re:Hmm? (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about a month and a half ago | (#47667763)

I'm afraid to say that your failure to see how the failure to see how the older, phone based system can break down does not match my experience. The SMS system breaks down in numerous ways for high volume alert systems, and the systems that _send_ the pages are often lightweight in-house systems vulnerable to failure. The tendency of most such systems to send each page with its own unique, unidentifiable, sequentially identified number also makes it dificult if not impossible to _group_ the messages. 100 such messages means they come from 100 distict ids: it's unmanageable for high volumes, and it's not accessible from a webapp or more effective user interface to review and expire them by groups.

Personally, I use Twitter _only_ for a work account that is published nowhere and subscribes only to a work related alert system. It's not Twitter's usage model, because it collects no personal data and gets no noticeable advertising advertising revenue. But it's far more reliable than SMS has proven, especially with the fragile and poorly maintained alert to SMS paging systems.

Re:Hmm? (1)

ideonexus (1257332) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662671)

I was wondering the same thing. I've never been that interested in engaging twitter, but everyone else was, so I wrote a bot [twitter.com] to post random daily science quotes to my account for the next several years. I put a lot of effort into this bot (content-wise, the programming is elementary), and I think I should count as a real user because of that. I'm up-front about the fact that I am a bot, and it's mostly bots that follow me. All the meat-space people should just leave us alone. Don't let some bad bots ruin it for the rest of us.

Re:Hmm? (1)

Kelbear (870538) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662723)

I'm seeing a lot of incorrect responses to you. The SEC isn't directly involved here at all.

For the time being, the SEC is merely the hosting site. Twitter voluntarily disclosed this factoid on it's own. All public companies in the US must file quarterly reports (a.k.a 10-Q) to the public, and all of those are filed on the SEC's site for investors (or aggregators) to access. Twitter decided to disclose this fact in it's latest report because it's important information for investors to have (and they don't want to get sued for withholding material information from investors if this somehow leaks out).

If Twitter is suspected to be withholding material information or puts out incorrect information, THEN the SEC might start to get directly involved.

fuck twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661503)

all those active accounts and I can't get Twitter "support" (what a joke) to answer requests for restoration of my hacked and destroyed account. So, fuck 'em. I lived a nice life before Twitter and I still enjoy it without Twitter.

fuck twitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661551)

My life is great, and I haven't even started using twitter yet. I guess I never will. Maybe I'll wait for the next fad. Meantime, I can still be found in ircnet. You can get clients for pretty much every platform. All these new comminication things are is irc with most features removed, prettied up, and sold to the stupid.

Matlock's not real Neither are my teeth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661505)

Gaga had 20 million followers Perry 19 million one week later Perry had 21 million then Gaga had 22 million and so on until Perry has the record for having the most twitter followers at 43 million.

So I guess the moral of this story is that Katy Perry has acess to better PR handlers at the moment.

Re:Matlock's not real Neither are my teeth (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661811)

Gaga had 20 million followers Perry 19 million one week later Perry had 21 million then Gaga had 22 million and so on until Perry has the record for having the most twitter followers at 43 million.

So I guess the moral of this story is that Katy Perry has acess to better PR handlers at the moment.

Wow. That's kind of cool. Twitter has elevated a hacker to "PR handler" status.

Silly Humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661511)

We, the superior beings known as BOTS are taking over!. You pitiful humans are now irrelevant! We own you now! Those who fail to capitulate to our greatness shall be neutralized!

How can they be sure? (4, Interesting)

GearheadShemTov (208950) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661513)

My question is, how could they tell? Could you decisively prove you're a human in only 140 characters?

Re:How can they be sure? (3, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661569)

Statistics, perhaps? Humans must have an 8-ish hour downtime every day*. Easy enough to detect that cycle over a long enough period. If someone has been posting every hour for a week, they are certainly fishy: It's either a bot or a shared account.

*Humans suck.

Re:How can they be sure? (1)

rHBa (976986) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661619)

Probably can't be 100% sure but there are tell-tale signs such as never supplying a HTTP referrer or User Agent.

Re:How can they be sure? (2)

Alioth (221270) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661847)

Not executing Javascript. Vanishingly few people disable Javascript, but no one probably includes a Javascript interpreter in a bot.

Re:How can they be sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47663379)

Nah, bots are most likely using the Twitter API.

Re:How can they be sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47663669)

The siblings have some good ideas, but I'm going to add that they can't. If they could be certain those 23 million accounts were bots, they would just straight-up ban them. Instead they have a way of guessing whether they are bots, which is good for getting an estimated count, but might not be good enough to decide which accounts to ban.

Re:How can they be sure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47663829)

My cat is not a bot!
social network scores: my cat: 5, me: 0

Intelligence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661565)

Twitter-adbots targeting each other with ads and hoping to generate revenue, would that be Artificial Intelligence or Artificial Stupidity?

Let's all leave Twitter to the bots (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661577)

Let them have thier fun. I wonder if the company would even notice.

Let's all leave Twitter to the bots (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661583)

They seem to be having fun. I wonder if the company would notice.

Re:Let's all leave Twitter to the bots (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661981)

Sorry for the duplicate.

Re:Let's all leave Twitter to the bots (1)

AbrasiveCat (999190) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662455)

Frigging bots. They forget when they post and sometime you get a dup.

twitter bots can be helpful. (1)

nimbius (983462) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661761)

companies like ramnode and pingdom often have twitter interfaces to automagically notify customers of potential or actual outages. Call me a graybeard but I for one feel like thats laziness. Back in my day we wrote scripts to notify our customers, and in turn they visited our out-of-band notification box to see what the trouble was. Often times these boxes could fail over, if things were bad enough, pbx and irc for tech support. using twitter as a surrogate OOB channel means, in my opinion, you dont care about accountability when it comes to notifying customers.

Re:twitter bots can be helpful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661995)

You don't get out much. A typical badly run shop gets 500 Nagios alerts a day, of which maybe 3 need actual attention. This *cannot be handled* on most text feeds, and relies on the manager and their architect being online 24x7 to answer everything instantly and "just pay attention to the ones that matter". They won't document the ones that matter, they say "just read the code because documentaiton can be lost/the code is always the true documentation/it's obvious from the message" and other nonsense, and they have the firehose of alerts essentially plugged into one sphincter or another making them feel like they'[re on top of things and doing vital work *all the time*.

This, of course, is not merely nutty, it's toxic. No one else without intimate, 24x7 immersion can cover for them, and vital problems *will* be missed. But it's extremely common in mid-size shops with professional BOFH's in charge, and I run into them *all the time*.

One of the first things I do is take their alert system *out* of SMS and plug it into a Twitter feed, so it can be reviewed, shared, and is actually deliverable in real time rather than hours later when SMS may finally be delivered. Twitter has proven extremely reliable and fast for high message volumes, and proven sortable and reviewable in ways that SMS never even approached. And from harsh experience, I'll stack Twitter up against any in-house maintained 'out-of-band' box. Most of the people who insist such solutions are better have literally *no idea* how to wire up a high availability network connection, and those "oob" boxes are, themselves, usually vulnerable to the same outage that took down the rest of the systems.

Bots need writers.... (1)

The New Guy 2.0 (3497907) | about a month and a half ago | (#47661767)

Nobody follows a bot just for bot sake... you need to write something, get users to follow, and then when the feed repeats lose the user.

All twitter accounts are bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661785)

Honestly I thought all twitter accounts are bots. Why else would anyone use such a stupid service?

100% of Twitter are bots (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661821)

only 8.5% are silicone bots, the rest are biological bots...

Many more types of bots (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47661895)

Or bots that directly poop on twiter [twitter.com] , instead of syslog.

"... some wonder if these bots help or hinder ..." (1)

phishen (1044934) | about a month and a half ago | (#47662241)

But most just don't care.

Old line... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about a month and a half ago | (#47663525)

[Logon News - Dec 29 2001] Welcome to Evolnet! Where the men are men, the women are men, and the boys are FBI agents. but some of the men are really women. Enjoy!

Almost all my twitter accounts are bots... (1)

snowsmann (313238) | about a month and a half ago | (#47665255)

The only reason I ever signed up for twitter in the first place was that it was the easiest of the social networks to create a bot. I wanted to see how hard it would be to set up something like that... and twitter makes it super easy...
15 or 20 minutes and I set up @piDigits which is tweeting out 140 digits of Pi every hour...
So simple, I did this with a few lines of code sitting on a Google spreadsheet doc and set a trigger to run the script in the doc once every hour. Completely legit free services + 30 minutes = your very own twitter bot, not tied to any of your own physical hardware.
Makes me wonder if twitter really does like the bot idea... I think it helps the system as a whole, because people want some kinds of automated news, or whatever else can be automated... Plus, it's usually really really easy to spot the TRULY useless *FOLLOW ME FOLLOW MY FRIEND* bots.

MTV News Vicky Pattison porn star celebrity.... (1)

Outtascope (972222) | about a month and a half ago | (#47666019)

weight-loss spam bots, you must all die of syphilis right now!

Oh the fury, the anger. I'm talking to you nisha AttAck, and you Aileen Assauult. To you sisterly_picare and you Lupita:) and you Ariyah :). Right at you Dorothy pics and you Inez is Funny!, and you too Melonie Grace. To you Kaelynn Griffin and you Alex FearLesS.

Just stop it, OK? It's like being inundated by the stepford-wives' retarded nieces. Enough is enough!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?