this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
94 points (98.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36107 readers
1140 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I feel like with rampant bot/AI posting the traffic into social media sites are being spoofed. And companies know this and allow it to happen because it will inflate the ad value and then the stock value. Is this true to an extent or is this taken into account?

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong 31 points 9 months ago

Oh 💯. Reddit was rude with the it and was no exception. Likewise, they also run internal bots and AstroTurf accounts to buy earned media. There is no way the crappola SW movies of the previous couple years would have gone any where without this kind of AstroTurfing.

With these better AI tools, it's bots posting to bots consuming the content.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 9 months ago

Yes! On twitter at least.

I have twitter for lurking and following some accounts, I never post anything

Here are my followers: Screenshot_20240321-135833

Just a bunch of bots...

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Anyone with a brain knew that online ad metrics had been borked by bots for 15 years now. This isn't new, it's just the industry is still playing pretend, and as long as you have enough industry leaders playing pretend and not saying the quiet part out loud, nothing will get done.

Also, it's a dead-end politically, because both parties love being able to sockpuppet online. Correct the Record and Cambridge Analytica are both examples of this kind of behavior from each party. They won't make legal rules around sockpuppeting because it benefits them. They won't go out of their way to make sockpuppets have to say they're a paid advertisement like news and radio ads do. Because they much prefer it that it "seems like people are saying this" because they send in so many bots with their talking points. They'd prefer to flood the zone will bullshit than let citizens come to their own conclusions about anything.

So, don't expect this problem to get better anytime soon. It's too beneficial of a tool to the political and business classes. They won't make any rules to stop it or make advertisers admit how many of their "views/clicks" are bots.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

To play devil’s advocate here, why would advertisers not object to this situation if their money is not effectively recruiting as many customers as platforms claim?

[–] alilbee 6 points 9 months ago

This is my take. If this held true, why are advertisers not pulling out or drastically limiting their deals with these companies? They obviously find the value proposition worth it, bots included. So, by that metric, I don't think they're overvalued. They're valued on what they bring in from advertisers and that seems to be working well. I wish it didn't (hence me being here), but reddit is exceptionally effective at delivering ads. I don't think reddit is going to fail as hard as we all wish they would.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

"...So, don't expect this problem to get better anytime soon..."

NFS.

Pitchfoooorks! GETCHA PITCHFORKS HERE FOLKS!

. ⌐----
. -------+---
. ∟----

[–] marcos 4 points 9 months ago

Don't buy stocks of social media companies. And save your pitchforks for some more useful application.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

it depends on who evaluates them. some people will do it right and only look at their capital and how much money goes in and out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

Yes. Musk tried to get Twitter for cheaper and argued there are more bots than management thought.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Check the recent news with the super bowl and Twitter. It's asinine how much bot traffic there is

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

I suspect this is probably true but it’s also the type of psychologically appealing narrative that we should be sure to interrogate.

It’s certainly true that online spaces have some level of bit activity but how much? I haven’t seen data on this, but I’m sure someone must have investigated.