That would make sense. I had a feeling most leftists would try to flood the site with bots and fake accounts. I think the trickle makes it very hard for the Leftists to flood the site with shills.
That's one thing that bothered me about many of the sites like Twitter, facebook and all is why they would even expose the API to allow people to create posting bots in the first place.
Less trivial, but it should also be possible to detect arrays of phones like above.
Especially when considering that those platforms stock values are partially derived by the numbers of active users, it seems that allowing bots could be construed as fraudulent.
Probably not the best choice of companies to bring up as examples, since everyone knows that a significant segment are not real people posting. I was on steemit for a time, and there it was even more flagrant where people would have multiple accounts and some powered by bots who would just upvote their own posts, then with that money earned would fund the bot to have more voting power, etc. (That was around the point where I started confronting people on that site that if the cryptos were viewed as securities that a good portion of that platform would be getting 20 years a piece for securities fraud)
As for the money as an illusion, I've been aware of that for quite some time, which was what got me started buying metals. Convincing my wife to take that view has been the greater challenge and counter balance.
I read once that without bots twitter would have no growth. I think many of the sites rely on bots to create the illusion that they are still growing and to keep liking and tweeting people. If someone posted and no one liked or interacted most of the time then people would quickly get bored of social media.
That would make sense. I had a feeling most leftists would try to flood the site with bots and fake accounts. I think the trickle makes it very hard for the Leftists to flood the site with shills.
That's one thing that bothered me about many of the sites like Twitter, facebook and all is why they would even expose the API to allow people to create posting bots in the first place.
Less trivial, but it should also be possible to detect arrays of phones like above.
Especially when considering that those platforms stock values are partially derived by the numbers of active users, it seems that allowing bots could be construed as fraudulent.
They wouldn't have a company if facef*ck and Twatter didn't bot. Rush went into detail about this.
Their business model is an illusion. What's really going to poop your duke is when you find out that your money is also, an illusion.
Probably not the best choice of companies to bring up as examples, since everyone knows that a significant segment are not real people posting. I was on steemit for a time, and there it was even more flagrant where people would have multiple accounts and some powered by bots who would just upvote their own posts, then with that money earned would fund the bot to have more voting power, etc. (That was around the point where I started confronting people on that site that if the cryptos were viewed as securities that a good portion of that platform would be getting 20 years a piece for securities fraud)
As for the money as an illusion, I've been aware of that for quite some time, which was what got me started buying metals. Convincing my wife to take that view has been the greater challenge and counter balance.
Gotta get over the wife hurdle, huh? Well. I wish you well in your endeavors. That seems like a mighty battle to win. Worth it if you are victorious.
I read once that without bots twitter would have no growth. I think many of the sites rely on bots to create the illusion that they are still growing and to keep liking and tweeting people. If someone posted and no one liked or interacted most of the time then people would quickly get bored of social media.