What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Twitter Thread (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s funny how we talked about the porn bots early in this thread a while ago and now there are 15x as many, easily. Spread like fleas.
No no no you need to curate
I was introduced to a new term listening to Sam Harris' latest podcast interview with author Cal Newport, hyper-curation (I'm pretty sure that the term I heard, but old-age and all that...) Ive not finished the podcast yet, but it's pretty interesting and it's relevant to FBG FFA too, where an argument is made for more interaction on smaller social media platforms (the distributed trust model of curation) because they are the real town halls, while Twitter is best thought of as the Colosseum. He (Cal Newport) states that he is bearish on the future of large social media platforms.

Here's a link to the podcast: https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/363-knowledge-work. I think the link will bypass the paywall.

Again, have not finished, but it's shaping up to be a pretty meaty conversation, as it touches on many popular topics in the FFA. Quoting from the summary, "They discuss the state of social media, the "academic-in-exile effect," free speech and moderation, the effect of the pandemic on knowledge work, slow productivity, the example of Jane Austen, managing up in an organization, defragmenting one's work life, doing fewer things, reasonable deadlines, trading money for time, finding meaning in a post-scarcity world, the anti-work movement, the effects of artificial intelligence on knowledge work, and other topics."
 
It’s funny how we talked about the porn bots early in this thread a while ago and now there are 15x as many, easily. Spread like fleas.
No no no you need to curate
lol yea I remember that one. Just block 50M accounts and you’ll be all set!
Twitter is opt-in, so you don't need to block anybody as long as you're under the Following tab.

For You tends to be a dumpster fire. If you're having a negative experience under that tab, I 100% believe you.
 
I have zero posts zero likes 1:follower and follow5.

My account doesn't even have a picture.

All of sudden I had 3; people follow me. I'm sure they are bots and insta blocked but no clue how they find me
 
It’s funny how we talked about the porn bots early in this thread a while ago and now there are 15x as many, easily. Spread like fleas.
No no no you need to curate
lol yea I remember that one. Just block 50M accounts and you’ll be all set!
Twitter is opt-in, so you don't need to block anybody as long as you're under the Following tab.

For You tends to be a dumpster fire. If you're having a negative experience under that tab, I 100% believe you.
I don’t know which one it is, but it’s mostly in the comments, which yes are opt-in by nature but also you really can’t click on them much anymore. But whatever. It’s not going to improve.
 
The bot farms must be crazy sophisticated these days because Twitter seems to really be going all out to make it difficult for them to sign-up but somehow they persist.

If you're in the US you have to register with a phone number now.

Outside of the US the captcha process is insane. You have to pass 20 captcha tests, each one that is a relatively slow captcha to solve, and if you miss even one you fail the entire thing.

I don't know if these bots just have farms of people in a warehouse somewhere solving captcha's all day or what, but you can't say Twitter isn't trying.
 
It’s funny how we talked about the porn bots early in this thread a while ago and now there are 15x as many, easily. Spread like fleas.
No no no you need to curate
lol yea I remember that one. Just block 50M accounts and you’ll be all set!
Twitter is opt-in, so you don't need to block anybody as long as you're under the Following tab.

For You tends to be a dumpster fire. If you're having a negative experience under that tab, I 100% believe you.
I don’t know which one it is, but it’s mostly in the comments, which yes are opt-in by nature but also you really can’t click on them much anymore. But whatever. It’s not going to improve.
That's true. I was seeing these in basically every comment section for months.
 
It finally happened. I logged in yesterday to check some football stuff and got my first porn tweet on "my" page (which has nothing to do with me).

I look forward to feeling new urges, to my voice cracking, and to getting hair in new places.
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
Yeah it’s all meant to make money or sow seeds of hate.
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
Yeah it’s all meant to make money or sow seeds of hate.
Do you mean the bots? Who in your opinion wants to sew seeds of hate? What is their goal and purpose?
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
Yeah it’s all meant to make money or sow seeds of hate.
Do you mean the bots? Who in your opinion wants to sew seeds of hate? What is their goal and purpose?
China, Russia, Iran and North Korea all have huge cyber warfare groups that exist to do this in order to influence and destabilize countries they view as hostile to them.

Here are a few rather scholarly reports/investigations on this. Lots and lots to dig into, but really solid data/examples/analysis if you’re truly interested.

Study on social media manipulation by Oxford

Study in social media manipulation from NATO

Hostile social manipulation report from US Department of Defense’s
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
Yeah it’s all meant to make money or sow seeds of hate.
Do you mean the bots? Who in your opinion wants to sew seeds of hate? What is their goal and purpose?
Joe I respect you greatly but you’ve never heard of this before??
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

I have a friend who posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago about how he thought he nearly fell for an Apple ID phishing scam. Within a few hours, he had more than 150 comments, all from spambots that referenced the same "cybersecurity expert" who was very likely a scammer. It's insane scrolling through and seeing all the responses from the bots. Never seen anything like it before (though I try to stay off FB as much as possible).
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

I have a friend who posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago about how he thought he nearly fell for an Apple ID phishing scam. Within a few hours, he had more than 150 comments, all from spambots that referenced the same "cybersecurity expert" who was very likely a scammer. It's insane scrolling through and seeing all the responses from the bots. Never seen anything like it before (though I try to stay off FB as much as possible).

I guess all his posts on FB are set to “public”?
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

I have a friend who posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago about how he thought he nearly fell for an Apple ID phishing scam. Within a few hours, he had more than 150 comments, all from spambots that referenced the same "cybersecurity expert" who was very likely a scammer. It's insane scrolling through and seeing all the responses from the bots. Never seen anything like it before (though I try to stay off FB as much as possible).

I guess all his posts on FB are set to “public”?

Guess so. I just clicked "Who can see" his post, and it says, "Anyone on or off Facebook."
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
Yeah it’s all meant to make money or sow seeds of hate.
Do you mean the bots? Who in your opinion wants to sew seeds of hate? What is their goal and purpose?
Joe I respect you greatly but you’ve never heard of this before??

Yes, I know about this. I was asking for opinions here from people for discussion.

I haven’t heard nearly as much about the generic type posting bots that we have here. They are interesting to me as they’re different than the other types.
 
So after I read all the hot takes from my favorite follows I can jump to For You and I’ve got some have free porn feed to me. Media genius.
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

I have a friend who posted on Facebook a couple weeks ago about how he thought he nearly fell for an Apple ID phishing scam. Within a few hours, he had more than 150 comments, all from spambots that referenced the same "cybersecurity expert" who was very likely a scammer. It's insane scrolling through and seeing all the responses from the bots. Never seen anything like it before (though I try to stay off FB as much as possible).

I guess all his posts on FB are set to “public”?

Guess so. I just clicked "Who can see" his post, and it says, "Anyone on or off Facebook."

I thought most people used facebook for sharing things with a limited audience that you approved.
 
I've noticed a lot more bots in the comments on Facebook lately too, fwiw.

Thanks. Are they like the ones we sometimes get with a generic comment?
Sometimes generic but usually it's inflammatory, extremely politically bias, a link to porn or a link to some kind of scam. The comments used to be full of interesting discussion like you might see here but now it's just a dumpster fire.

Interesting. So it's a different plan than the bots we have that do the lame generic stuff.
Yeah it’s all meant to make money or sow seeds of hate.
Do you mean the bots? Who in your opinion wants to sew seeds of hate? What is their goal and purpose?
I have no idea who is behind the bots. I assume it's like GroveDiesel posted.
 
It’s funny how we talked about the porn bots early in this thread a while ago and now there are 15x as many, easily. Spread like fleas.
No no no you need to curate
lol yea I remember that one. Just block 50M accounts and you’ll be all set!
Twitter is opt-in, so you don't need to block anybody as long as you're under the Following tab.

For You tends to be a dumpster fire. If you're having a negative experience under that tab, I 100% believe you.
I've found the For You has algorithm has been picking up my behavior pretty quickly and then showing me the appropriate content. Purdue in the final four, fantasy baseball, and a few other subjects have been pretty quick to update in that feed.
 
It’s funny how we talked about the porn bots early in this thread a while ago and now there are 15x as many, easily. Spread like fleas.
No no no you need to curate
lol yea I remember that one. Just block 50M accounts and you’ll be all set!
Twitter is opt-in, so you don't need to block anybody as long as you're under the Following tab.

For You tends to be a dumpster fire. If you're having a negative experience under that tab, I 100% believe you.
I've found the For You has algorithm has been picking up my behavior pretty quickly and then showing me the appropriate content. Purdue in the final four, fantasy baseball, and a few other subjects have been pretty quick to update in that feed.
Yes, this is my experience too. The way it goes off the rails is that if you click on one political thread (doesn't matter what the topic is), the algorithm starts feeding you related content like a fire hose. And the content under "For You" is selected because it's getting engagement on the platform, which is often a negative indicator of quality. So For You feels like a funhouse mirror version of Following, where it's the same topics only dialed up to 11 and with more stupidity than usual.

I imagine that in a few days, that tab will be dominated by really dumb NFL draft takes, because that's where my attention is wandering.
 
I've found the For You has algorithm has been picking up my behavior pretty quickly and then showing me the appropriate content. Purdue in the final four, fantasy baseball, and a few other subjects have been pretty quick to update in that feed.

I think it's been a little overzealous. I clicked on one thread about that Kate Middleton photo thing happening a few weeks back, and all of a sudden my timeline was filled with all kinds of crazy conspiracy crap.
 
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

It was, but also filled with inaccuracies and untruths, like the speculation on the pictures and videos from the bleachers. “Twitter” doesn’t have to verify anything, traditional media does. That’s the trade-off. That, and you have to weed through so much BS to find anything noteworthy and factual. I spent the first hour or so scrolling and searching before deciding it just wasn’t worth it anymore.
 
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

It was, but also filled with inaccuracies and untruths, like the speculation on the pictures and videos from the bleachers. “Twitter” doesn’t have to verify anything, traditional media does. That’s the trade-off. That, and you have to weed through so much BS to find anything noteworthy and factual. I spent the first hour or so scrolling and searching before deciding it just wasn’t worth it anymore.
So it wasn't a space laser?
 
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

It was, but also filled with inaccuracies and untruths, like the speculation on the pictures and videos from the bleachers. “Twitter” doesn’t have to verify anything, traditional media does. That’s the trade-off. That, and you have to weed through so much BS to find anything noteworthy and factual. I spent the first hour or so scrolling and searching before deciding it just wasn’t worth it anymore.
I think it depends where you are looking. The “For You” tab was a mess, is still a mess, and will always be a mess (as well as just doing rando searches and looking at trending topics). But my “following” timeline was pretty on point, as mostly filled with journalists from reputable newspapers and media. I remember sharing some stuff from Twitter in the thread before it got shut down last night that was based on reporting from places like the Washington Post and BBC, and that was all accurate at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

It was, but also filled with inaccuracies and untruths, like the speculation on the pictures and videos from the bleachers. “Twitter” doesn’t have to verify anything, traditional media does. That’s the trade-off. That, and you have to weed through so much BS to find anything noteworthy and factual. I spent the first hour or so scrolling and searching before deciding it just wasn’t worth it anymore.
I think it depends where you are looking. The “For You” tab was a mess, is still a mess, and will always be a mess (as well as just doing rando searches and looking at trending topics). But my “follow” timeline was pretty on point, as mostly filled with journalists from reputable newspapers and media. I remember sharing some stuff from Twitter in the thread before it got shut down last night that was based on reporting from places like the Washington Post and BBC, and that was all accurate at the end of the day.
Same. My TL performed better than CNN, NBC, etc.
 
Twitter was the only ones calling it an assassination attempt. Other outlets including on Twitter still maintaining it was just an incident.

This tweet by the AP is still up.

That tweet is still up, but waited for more facts before declaring it. AP also has this subsequent tweet where they referred to it that way.

 
To be fair, Twitter isn't a source. Twitter is a platform where sources/people/journalists/sites post the information they post.

Twitter isn't right or wrong. Twitter gives the content creators a place to offer their content.

It's an excellent place to see how different sites cover the same story. Some like CNN are exposed. https://x.com/Codie_Sanchez/status/1812257825571147916 with a headline "Secret Service Rushes Trump Offstage After He Falls At Rally".

Like any platform, it gives the accounts that post there a chance to prove their value.
 
Twitter was the only ones calling it an assassination attempt. Other outlets including on Twitter still maintaining it was just an incident.

This tweet by the AP is still up.

That tweet is still up, but waited for more facts before declaring it. AP also has this subsequent tweet where they referred to it that way.

Media accounts have the ability to update a previous tweet. They chose to leave this one out there.

In addition, everyone has the ability to reply to their own posts and goes right underneath the top post.
 
Last edited:
Twitter was the only ones calling it an assassination attempt. Other outlets including on Twitter still maintaining it was just an incident.

This tweet by the AP is still up.

That tweet is still up, but waited for more facts before declaring it. AP also has this subsequent tweet where they referred to it that way.

Media accounts have the ability to update a previous tweet. They chose to leave this one out there.

In addition, everyone has the ability to reply to their own posts and goes right underneath the top post.
And if they updated the tweet people would be complaining about them trying to hide their initial tweet. Go to AP timeline and you can see chronologically how they updated their take on the incident as more information came out
 
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

This is a good example of how legacy media can't win.

If they're fast and occasionally get something wrong, everyone will zero in on the thing they got wrong (even if they eventually correct it) and lambast them for trying to be the first one to the story instead of waiting to get the story right.

If they wait to confirm things, those same people will lambast them for being too slow.

It's just a no-win situation. People have decided they want to hate them, and will find fault with either direction and contradict what they themselves complained about prior.

Meanwhile these mysterious perfect Twitter sources can put stuff out there, and change or delete whatever they missed on with no accountability because there's not a bunch of people sitting at their keyboards just waiting for them to slip up so they can publish an article about it and everyone can pile on. If they get something wrong, they can just delete it, and no one will even remember they posted it in the first place.

We're not even privy to who these mysterious perfect and fast Twitter sources are, most likely because some random FBG that barely pays attention to them might accidentally stumble into some of their inaccuracies and see that they're not as perfect as claimed, much less if they had entire companies employing dozens of people whose entire job it is to follow them and record and publish every mistake that they made like the actual news outlets have to deal with. I would gander that if someone were to employ a team of people to sit around all day just monitoring what instantperfecttwitternewsguy69 posted they would find a huge amount of issues. But that kind of accountability doesn't exist for them.
 
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

This is a good example of how legacy media can't win.

If they're fast and occasionally get something wrong, everyone will zero in on the thing they got wrong (even if they eventually correct it) and lambast them for trying to be the first one to the story instead of waiting to get the story right.

If they wait to confirm things, those same people will lambast them for being too slow.

I don't agree it's a "no win" situation.

We have the exact same situation on the much less serious topic of Football.

We publish what we believe to be true. Finding that right balance of what we feel good about being true sometimes does cause us to be a few minutes later than other sources who don't want to go for the same level of certainty we do. That's ok. They're ok.

They get the cheers when they're first. They get the boos when they post something too early that turns out completely wrong or biased. It's a balance and the content creator / media gets to make those decisions.

CNN making the headline "Secret Service Rushes Trump Offstage After He Falls At Rally" was a conscious decision. They could have waited 90 more seconds to see it was obviously shots fired and Trump was hit and bleeding. But they made a decision. And that decision affects how people view them going forward. It's up to them.
 
Last edited:
Once again, Twitter was about 60 minutes ahead of the legacy media in covering a breaking-news story.

This is a good example of how legacy media can't win.

If they're fast and occasionally get something wrong, everyone will zero in on the thing they got wrong (even if they eventually correct it) and lambast them for trying to be the first one to the story instead of waiting to get the story right.

If they wait to confirm things, those same people will lambast them for being too slow.

I don't agree it's a "no win" situation.

We have the exact same situation on the much less serious topic of Football.

We publish what we believe to be true. Finding that right balance of what we feel good about being true sometimes does cause us to be a few minutes later than other sources who don't want to go for the same level of certainty we do. That's ok. They're ok.

They get the cheers when they're first. They get the boos when they post something too early that turns out completely wrong or biased. It's a balance and the content creator / media gets to make those decisions.

CNN making the headline "Secret Service Rushes Trump Offstage After He Falls At Rally" was a conscious decision. They could have waited 90 more seconds to see it was obviously shots fired and Trump was hit and bleeding. But they made a decision. And that decision affects how people view them going forward. It's up to them.

But you're kind of proving my point here. Because doing what you're suggesting they should have done is what the post I was quoting was finding fault over other outlets for doing. One outlet waits until information is clear, and is criticized for being too slow. Another posts what they have and update it as they get more, and is criticized for posting info that was incomplete.

If someone's objective is to criticize legacy media outlets, they just criticize them either way. That's where we are at. Sure they've had plenty of legitimate issues before, as any source has. But once people have decided and been propagandized into hating them, they will just criticize either side of it. And they do. Every time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top