What do you think of this possible method of detecting disinfo bots?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
If they have a fairly new account but a lot of posts, especially if they lean the way of the establishment, i.e. the "top turd" lame stream media candidates. More detail is to click on their recent posts and see how far apart minute wise they were from each other. Some people have whole posts quoted and responded to in just a few minutes. Either this is a computer generated response or they are quoting the passage and not really reading it unless they are in mensa and can just type 100 words a minute while reading 100 words a minute and quoting large passages and sometimes multiple passages. But if they are that smart why would they support the lame stream media?
edit on 10-10-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
When was it determined that "disinfo bots" actually exist?

Can you give an example of one on ATS?

Are you a "disinfo bot"?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
You know I am sure the technology exists for this. I don't doubt that it is indeed a very real threat to nearly every information site online. If they could fake putting a man on the moon I am sure they can easily make bots to post.
Thing about these are they are very well hidden. In the case of disinformation it may be more like being a triple agent. Never the less, I am not sure I have encountered anything to show they actually function here on ATS. Truly there are problems with Trolls, and just plain folks who like to set someones tail on fire or just plain derail someones thread. There are many reasons. But this is a conspiracy site so I will stick with that. If these things are fully operational now it is only a matter of time until we are able to identify them. And we will



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
If they have a fairly new account but a lot of posts, especially if they lean the way of the establishment, i.e. the "top turd" lame stream media candidates. More detail is to click on their recent posts and see how far apart minute wise they were from each other. Some people have whole posts quoted and responded to in just a few minutes. Either this is a computer generated response or they are quoting the passage and not really reading it unless they are in mensa and can just type 100 words a minute while reading 100 words a minute and quoting large passages and sometimes multiple passages. But if they are that smart why would they support the lame stream media?
edit on 10-10-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


A vast over-simplification of what would be done by T(main)PTB or several T(minor)PTB.

First, you need to hire at a handsome wage some nerdy folks that know and like computer gaming and give them a job with a real target. Next, you supple them each with incredible data bases of anything that will be in their domain plus, on-call contacts to aid in any sticky dilemma day or night. Finally, you provide them with at least three top-of-the line computers so that they can be looking at two data screens while they are creating their responses. Response time will be a key factor in recognizing such shills. If you find your self asking how they had time to gather that data and respond, then that person is probably your stinker. Lastly, and most importantly, the response will be always factually correct in data or offer a view on the situation that takes away from the typical conspiratorial view such as to defuse, obscure or deny it.

I have no doubt but that folks such exist on ATS but not by ATS.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalunom
When was it determined that "disinfo bots" actually exist?

Can you give an example of one on ATS?

Are you a "disinfo bot"?


Remember when anonymous members attacked HB Gary and revealed the wikileaks smear campaign?


The U.S. Central Command says its new “Persona” social media "infiltration" software is designed to cozy up to extremist bloggers overseas, not law-abiding Americans chatting on Facebook or similar sites. Earlier this month, the Web buzzed with a report that the software was designed to “manage ‘fake people’ on social media sites and create the illusion of consensus on controversial issues,” implying that the Defense Department was targeting critics of the war in Afghanistan and other conflicts. Further compounding a sinister view of the software was the discovery of e-mails from the head of a company implicated in “dirty tricks” against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and a pro-labor organization, which discussed how such technology could be used.

voices.washingtonpost.com...

This is them basically admitting to running a system of what we know as spam-bots. Its easy to argue these kinds of automated accounts are being used on facebook and twitter (being large sites of interest of course).

It depends on how much of a userbase ATS has. If its big enough for them to try and persuade opinions to the 'other' side of the arguement, then it would be worth them targetting a site such as ATS.

In all honesty i think they are more interested in spreading propaganda on the sites i mentioned above, ie; facebook & twitter.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
On the other hand, we could just accept that some people don't follow the various orthodoxies on ATS, and have a civilised debate with them?

Just sayin'.





top topics
 
5

log in

join