Are social media sites evaluated way higher than they should be due to rampant bot usage?
Are social media sites evaluated way higher than they should be due to rampant bot usage?
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?
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.
Yes! On twitter at least.
I have twitter for lurking and following some accounts, I never post anything
Here are my followers:
Just a bunch of bots...
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.
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?
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.
"...So, don't expect this problem to get better anytime soon..."
NFS.
Pitchfoooorks! GETCHA PITCHFORKS HERE FOLKS!
. ⌐----
. -------+---
. ∟----Don't buy stocks of social media companies. And save your pitchforks for some more useful application.
Yes. Musk tried to get Twitter for cheaper and argued there are more bots than management thought.
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.
Check the recent news with the super bowl and Twitter. It's asinine how much bot traffic there is
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.