If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   The biggest problem with political polls taken on Twitter: #fakefollower   (politico.com) divider line 42
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

610 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Jun 2014 at 3:16 AM (18 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-17 02:53:27 AM  
There's no problem asking the real goldfish what they think. People are honest, rational and have excellent long term memories on the internet.
 
2014-06-17 03:22:38 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-17 03:31:20 AM  
Because the folk on twitter are the people we want voting.
 
2014-06-17 03:45:01 AM  

robohobo: Because the folk on twitter are the people we want voting.


#funnybecauseitstrue #democracyispeople #blessed
 
2014-06-17 04:01:15 AM  
images.sodahead.com
 
2014-06-17 04:02:15 AM  
As much as it shames me to admit this, I've been following the doings of /pol/ recently. I'm intrigued by how they can, when they want to, organize a twitter hashtag campaign. What's scary about this is that, being on 4chan, they do things mainly to fark with people. And they do it well. One thing they've been doing lately is starting hashtag campaings to discredit feminists. These campaigns have been picked up by the media (both blogs and mainstream) and they're bought and sold as if they're legit beliefs (keep in mind these hashtag trends, such as #endfathersday, and juuusst believable enough to be the real thing).
I said that this is scary, and the scary part is not the message of these twitter campaigns, but how easy the media can be manipulated by only a bunch of neckbeard guys with too much time on their hands.
 
2014-06-17 04:05:19 AM  
fta: ...the culprits behind fake followers are sometimes overzealous campaign workers...

Boy, that overzealous staffer guy sure does get around.
 
2014-06-17 04:36:01 AM  
According to a POLITICO-driven analysis, heavy hitters with Twitter handles attracting the highest rates of fake followers include the president's political account @BarackObama (46.8 percent), Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz's @DWStweets (35.1 percent), the official handle @SenJohnMcCain (23.6 percent) and likely White House aspirants @HillaryClinton (21.9 percent) and @ChrisChristie (18.9 percent).

Pfft, amateurs

http://gawker.com/5826960/update-only-92-of-newt-gingrichs-twitter-f ol lowers-are-fake
 
2014-06-17 05:29:32 AM  
Twits?
 
2014-06-17 05:44:46 AM  
Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?
 
2014-06-17 06:47:08 AM  

Yaw String: Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?


Not even close.... Most of the twitterers are like the average voter in my mind: Dead or dumb.
 
2014-06-17 06:49:41 AM  
FTA:  "I think there are times that the other side does it to get you caught," said Zac Moffatt, who ran Romney's digital campaign and recalled reaching out to Twitter for help after his boss's Twitter followers jumped by more than 115,000 in a single day in July 2012. "There's no way that this is just happening randomly."

Wait, what? Did Romney's e-guy actually accuse the Dems of adding those Romney bot followers in order to make him and his boss look bad?

Cos that's what I thought I just read.

/Bots for Romney.
//Is that irony or redundancy?
 
2014-06-17 07:00:14 AM  

Yaw String: Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?


I've never tried it either.
 
2014-06-17 07:20:26 AM  

Frank N Stein: As much as it shames me to admit this, I've been following the doings of /pol/ recently. I'm intrigued by how they can, when they want to, organize a twitter hashtag campaign. What's scary about this is that, being on 4chan, they do things mainly to fark with people. And they do it well. One thing they've been doing lately is starting hashtag campaings to discredit feminists. These campaigns have been picked up by the media (both blogs and mainstream) and they're bought and sold as if they're legit beliefs (keep in mind these hashtag trends, such as #endfathersday, and juuusst believable enough to be the real thing).
I said that this is scary, and the scary part is not the message of these twitter campaigns, but how easy the media can be manipulated by only a bunch of neckbeard guys with too much time on their hands.


There are times when they harness that force for good.  A couple of years ago, a WWII vet in a nursing home was turning 90, and all of the guy's family and friends were dead.  Someone who worked at the home told /b/, and two dozen people (including a few lovely young ladies) showed up to help him celebrate.
 
2014-06-17 07:35:08 AM  
Read an article back during the 2012 election that claimed that a large number of the "fake" accounts aren't really fake/paid to boost up the persons follower count.  A lot are journalists/newspapers creating an account just to monitor the feed and people who created an account just to follow that person.

The metric used to label a person fake seems to be mainly "do they have followers of their own" and "do they retweet or tweet anything themselves."  So if you're just lurking, you're a fake.
 
2014-06-17 07:46:18 AM  
I kind of wish the media would give up on pushing twitter as a bellwether for anything of significance.
 
2014-06-17 07:50:56 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Read an article back during the 2012 election that claimed that a large number of the "fake" accounts aren't really fake/paid to boost up the persons follower count.  A lot are journalists/newspapers creating an account just to monitor the feed and people who created an account just to follow that person.

The metric used to label a person fake seems to be mainly "do they have followers of their own" and "do they retweet or tweet anything themselves."  So if you're just lurking, you're a fake.


Partially true, but other criteria has been activity or cross-linking. Changing a profile picture, typing in some detail, provided an email address that shows up on some other site, and the clustering of bot nets to other bot nets (sharing 5000 followers with another dummy account). Fall into those and you're DEFINITELY a fake.

I wouldn't be surprised that Twitter lurking is an easy thing to do, however.
 
2014-06-17 08:04:29 AM  

Frank N Stein: As much as it shames me to admit this, I've been following the doings of /pol/ recently. I'm intrigued by how they can, when they want to, organize a twitter hashtag campaign. What's scary about this is that, being on 4chan, they do things mainly to fark with people. And they do it well. One thing they've been doing lately is starting hashtag campaings to discredit feminists. These campaigns have been picked up by the media (both blogs and mainstream) and they're bought and sold as if they're legit beliefs (keep in mind these hashtag trends, such as #endfathersday, and juuusst believable enough to be the real thing).
I said that this is scary, and the scary part is not the message of these twitter campaigns, but how easy the media can be manipulated by only a bunch of neckbeard guys with too much time on their hands.


Lets be clear about this, all /pol/ does is throw chum in the water. If the likes of Suey Park wants to go into a "hashtag activism" frenzy and start using the tag, that's just sauce for the goose. If it were just a bunch of guys with neckbears, it wouldn't get sufficient exposure to make the real media.

Lets face it, there are some people with a lot of followers who aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. When those people start using #endfathersday and #notyourasiansidekick and #notyourresource, they are agreeing with and disseminating an idea that makes them look like fools to normal, well adjusted people.

So is the problem really /pol/ or is it the hashtag activists who see something like #endfathersday and start repeating it. In the absence of /pol/ they'd still be mindlessly repeating something, just maybe not what should be an obvious troll tag.
 
2014-06-17 08:06:29 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I kind of wish the media would give up on pushing twitter as a bellwether for anything of significance.


I disagree. Twitter is clearly a bellwether for a societal trend towards oversimplification of complex ideas in order to fit them into a sound bite. It's a harbinger of the tide of shallow thinking to come.
 
2014-06-17 08:06:45 AM  

Yaw String: Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?


macross87: Yaw String: Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?

Not even close.... Most of the twitterers are like the average voter in my mind: Dead or dumb.


The new "constantly mentioning you don't have a television", ladies and gentlemen.
 
2014-06-17 08:11:58 AM  

UNC_Samurai: There are times when they harness that force for good.  A couple of years ago, a WWII vet in a nursing home was turning 90, and all of the guy's family and friends were dead.  Someone who worked at the home told /b/, and two dozen people (including a few lovely young ladies) showed up to help him celebrate.


I'd say that giving Suey Park and Anita Sarkeesian the ammunition to make themselves look like fools is doing god's work. They are con artists who are making a career of being perpetually aggrieved and I wish I could say they were isolated cases. Unfortunately, a significant fraction of the atheism-plus group are in that boat as well.
 
2014-06-17 08:13:18 AM  

quatchi: FTA:  "I think there are times that the other side does it to get you caught," said Zac Moffatt, who ran Romney's digital campaign and recalled reaching out to Twitter for help after his boss's Twitter followers jumped by more than 115,000 in a single day in July 2012. "There's no way that this is just happening randomly."

Wait, what? Did Romney's e-guy actually accuse the Dems of adding those Romney bot followers in order to make him and his boss look bad?

Cos that's what I thought I just read.

/Bots for Romney.
//Is that irony or redundancy?


If I had to bet ... I'd go with this guy bought the fake followers, then when he got called on it, tried to shift the blame to Obama in an attempt gin up sympathy for Mitt.
 
2014-06-17 08:14:02 AM  

HeartBurnKid: The new "constantly mentioning you don't have a television", ladies and gentlemen.


I keep hoping "constantly telling your next door neighbor that you don't have internet" will be the next big thing but that robs the special snowflakes of what they crave most: an audience.
 
2014-06-17 08:15:47 AM  
Ahhh...the warm comfort of my blanket of complete indifference.

Wake me when the bots can vote.
 
2014-06-17 08:25:12 AM  

Yaw String: Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?


I like it, but I only use it as a news source. I'm an information junkie, so that kind of raw data is very satisfying. But it is very raw, so you can't rely on it, only get some idea of what people are worked up about.

I normally don't like social networking anything, but Twitter is very stripped down. No games, no crazy headers or footers, and I can make specialized lists.
 
2014-06-17 08:29:41 AM  

AteMyBrain: Ahhh...the warm comfort of my blanket of complete indifference.

Wake me when the bots can vote.


The bots aren't intended to vote, they're intended to create a false appearance of consensus which influences individual behavior and thus voting trends. People like to think that they are strong, independent bastions of rationality but the fact is that most people will deny the obvious and clear evidence of their senses when faced with a consensus that says otherwise.
 
2014-06-17 09:04:19 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: UNC_Samurai: There are times when they harness that force for good.  A couple of years ago, a WWII vet in a nursing home was turning 90, and all of the guy's family and friends were dead.  Someone who worked at the home told /b/, and two dozen people (including a few lovely young ladies) showed up to help him celebrate.

I'd say that giving Suey Park and Anita Sarkeesian the ammunition to make themselves look like fools is doing god's work. They are con artists who are making a career of being perpetually aggrieved and I wish I could say they were isolated cases. Unfortunately, a significant fraction of the atheism-plus group are in that boat as well.


The only thing that gives Anita Sarkeesian any legitimacy at all is the way /b/ reacts to her.
 
2014-06-17 09:26:12 AM  

HeartBurnKid: The only thing that gives Anita Sarkeesian any legitimacy at all is the way /b/ reacts to her.


She was trolling with her youtube channel and sexism in media/gaming narrative long before /b/ knew she existed. She just happened upon the right mix of dishonesty, feminism, and victim narrative to parley that into an overfunded kickstarter.

/b/ may give her grist for her victim narrative mill but it wasn't /b/ that overfunded her kickstarter and propelled her into a GDC Ambassador award or a consulting gig with EA.
 
2014-06-17 09:41:54 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: HeartBurnKid: The only thing that gives Anita Sarkeesian any legitimacy at all is the way /b/ reacts to her.

She was trolling with her youtube channel and sexism in media/gaming narrative long before /b/ knew she existed. She just happened upon the right mix of dishonesty, feminism, and victim narrative to parley that into an overfunded kickstarter.

/b/ may give her grist for her victim narrative mill but it wasn't /b/ that overfunded her kickstarter and propelled her into a GDC Ambassador award or a consulting gig with EA.


yeah she was totally asking for it
 
2014-06-17 09:48:20 AM  

Yaw String: Apart from the Amish, am I the only one who has never tried Twitter?


Nope. Never even looked at it. It seems poorly suited to me - I can't even sneeze in fewer than 140 characters.
 
2014-06-17 10:28:55 AM  

sprawl15: yeah she was totally asking for it


Not what I said so you get a complimentary threat narrative clown horn.
 
2014-06-17 10:39:32 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: sprawl15: yeah she was totally asking for it

Not what I said so you get a complimentary threat narrative clown horn.


what
 
2014-06-17 10:56:37 AM  

sprawl15: what


You conflated people saying mean things to Anita Sarkeesian on the internet with a stereotypical apology for rape. Whether you actually buy into the narrative that people saying mean things to other people on the internet constitutes legitimate threats or simply Tycho's Greater Internet farkwad theory in action makes no difference. By conflating the two you draw a connection between people getting their feelings hurt on the internet and one of the most reviled crimes in modern society. You're buying into and or selling the threat narrative which fuels the "careers" of these con artists.
 
2014-06-17 11:13:52 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: You conflated people saying mean things to Anita Sarkeesian on the internet with a stereotypical apology for rape.


i was agreeing with you when you said that she tempted the internet into their reaction by her actions and thus really deserves the blame more than those who actually committed the harassment or death threats
 
2014-06-17 11:32:36 AM  

sprawl15: i was agreeing with you when you said that she tempted the internet into their reaction by her actions and thus really deserves the blame more than those who actually committed the harassment or death threats


It sounds like I misinterpreted what you said then. It's a loaded phrase and frequently used as a silencing tactic so it raised a number of red flags with me.

I honestly wouldn't consider the comments on her youtube channel or responses on twitter as legitimate death threats any more than I think the thirteen year old on xbox voice chat who I just pwned is going to track down my mother and rape her.
 
2014-06-17 11:57:58 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: AteMyBrain: Ahhh...the warm comfort of my blanket of complete indifference.

Wake me when the bots can vote.

The bots aren't intended to vote, they're intended to create a false appearance of consensus which influences individual behavior and thus voting trends. People like to think that they are strong, independent bastions of rationality but the fact is that most people will deny the obvious and clear evidence of their senses when faced with a consensus that says otherwise.


I get it, Sparky. I'm saying I don't care.
 
2014-06-17 11:59:15 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: It's a loaded phrase and frequently used as a silencing tactic so it raised a number of red flags with me.


so what? you should stand up for what you believe in. if she was asking for it, then she was asking for it. who cares if it happens to sound like incredibly sexist victim blaming?

have some pride
 
2014-06-17 12:08:31 PM  

sprawl15: so what? you should stand up for what you believe in. if she was asking for it, then she was asking for it. who cares if it happens to sound like incredibly sexist victim blaming?


You're really hell bent on using the most loaded language you can, aren't you?

sprawl15: have some pride


I apologize, I thought you were being honest. I'll try to remember not to make that mistake in the future.
 
2014-06-17 12:15:56 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: You're really hell bent on using the most loaded language you can, aren't you?


how is it loaded? i'm contrasting your comments with sexist victim blaming, not comparing. i'm saying there's a difference between the two and suggesting you hold your chin high and proudly let everyone know how it's different from the other types of victim blaming which generally have roots in sexism

you're the one trying to hide their opinions out of some weird sense of shame
 
2014-06-17 12:56:42 PM  

sprawl15: how is it loaded? i'm contrasting your comments with sexist victim blaming, not comparing. i'm saying there's a difference between the two and suggesting you hold your chin high and proudly let everyone know how it's different from the other types of victim blaming which generally have roots in sexism


I'll be honest, what you've written here sounds like disingenuous bullshiat.

sprawl15: you're the one trying to hide their opinions out of some weird sense of shame


I'm not hiding anything. I think that Anita Sarkeesian, Suey Park, and significant fraction of the A+ crew are little more than con artists who first bait and then exploit verbal abuse to fuel a threat narrative for personal gain. They dissect the innocuous to support an unquestionable dogma. Rational criticism is ignored or dismissed but the worst of their negative feedback is held up as further evidence in favor of their threat narrative. They are the antithesis of honest communication.

I think what was once a healthy, legitimate discussion of social status and mobility has degenerated into a fetish for victimhood as a means towards unassailable virtue.

I hope that was clear enough for you.
 
2014-06-17 09:10:45 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: HeartBurnKid: The only thing that gives Anita Sarkeesian any legitimacy at all is the way /b/ reacts to her.

She was trolling with her youtube channel and sexism in media/gaming narrative long before /b/ knew she existed. She just happened upon the right mix of dishonesty, feminism, and victim narrative to parley that into an overfunded kickstarter.

/b/ may give her grist for her victim narrative mill but it wasn't /b/ that overfunded her kickstarter and propelled her into a GDC Ambassador award or a consulting gig with EA.


Nah, it was /b/ who screamed sexist epithets at her instead of actually engaging her on a rational basis, and made normal people look at that and say, "You know, with the way those guys are treating her, maybe she has a point."  /b/ is the reason I have to follow up "I'm a gamer" with "I'm sorry".  /b/ is the farking worst thing on the internet, and if all of them dropped dead tomorrow, nothing of value would be lost.
 
2014-06-17 09:26:53 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I'll be honest, what you've written here sounds like disingenuous bullshiat.


you seem awfully concerned about tone policing instead of actually discussing anything

Monkeyhouse Zendo: I'm not hiding anything.


then stop accusing me of being disingenuous for simply agreeing with your position that a video on the internet that you personally disagree with deserves a tide of anger and violence because some people who share her views decided to give her money. accept it. embrace it. it's a scary world out there sometimes

you are afraid that someone will suggest some incredibly irrational argument like "why don't you just ignore someone if they're shouting for attention". you are afraid that someone will suggest that maybe people producing a game where you punch her in the face denotes a higher level of vitriol than normal. you are afraid that someone might look at your posting complaining about how your victim blaming is similar to other victim blaming but different for reasons you can't quite put into words (but are totally real)

and that's ok. that's the burden we have to bear to fight this massive usurpation of the national dialogue by a woman who collected donations to say princess peach is not as important as mario. the fear is normal. but i believe that you, too, can have the courage to overcome it. as i did. if someone says "wow you sure sound like a creep", i just point out that 'creeps' are just defined by the matriarchy as people who do not agree with their agenda. the looks on their faces show that they don't expect people to fight back

and that means we're winning
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report