Technology

I checked the report, but it seems at no point it seems to clarify what they consider "bot traffic". Is it measured in api calls, page views, or bytes? Generally the term traffic is meant as raw data transported, but in that context those numbers make no sense.

For example, one of the biggest traffic consumers in the Internet is video streaming. There's no way in hell that half, or even a tenth, of that data is fake - it would simply cost too much to waste it on bots. Both for the bot owners as well as the streaming providers.

This level of vagueness and lack of transparency (what do the numbers mean, and where do they come from) does not fill me with confidence on this report.

One quibble: it ain't new. I've been accused of being a bot on /r/conspiracy for well over a decade.

But my response has long since been the same: does it matter? Whether I'm a bot has absolutely zero bearing on the truth of what I'm saying. Don't get me wrong, we should definitely do something to curb botting, but I agree with you: if you find yourself using it as a reason to dismiss an argument you're just relying on a garbage ad hominem.

I'd say it's unpopular because we have a lot of evidence to the contrary. We know for a fact that a large amount of traffic on Twitter and other social media sites are bots. We know for a fact that many political actors are paid. The problem is the people complaining about it most tend to be the ones who use them the most. Casting aspersions against those who don't. All in an effort to confuse and muddy the waters so no one questions their use.

The same for fake news. People crying about the most are the ones who put out the most. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Even if the accusations are often false

Realistically any group would be foolish not to take advantage of something like Bots or AI to help Drive their message. Even if it's true.

We should just never take anyone screaming accusations at face value though.

Nice try, propaganda bot.