It's not about whether or not accounts are real (real accounts can and do engage in platform manipulation)

It's not about whether or not accounts are bots (not all bots are bad)

It's not about making an assessment on the quality of content (determining good vs. bad content is subjective)

It's about mitigating against behavioral tactics – independent of the content itself – that seek to disrupt the information integrity of social platforms/protocols

It's not about whether or not accounts are real (real accounts can and do engage in platform manipulation)

It's not about whether or not accounts are bots (not all bots are bad)

It's not about making an assessment on the quality of content (determining good vs. bad content is subjective)

It's about mitigating against behavioral tactics – independent of the content itself – that seek to disrupt the information integrity of social platforms/protocols https://canvas.stanford.edu/files/5717559/download

I like running, poker and oysters | Founder, Social Forensics (SocialForensics.com) | Berkeley & UPenn | Learning to listen

Great point. There's so much talk rn about "real vs fake", "human vs bot"... while it neatly sorts out a majority, there's so much more that needs to be unpicked here. Especially when we're assessing the efficacy of MAU/DAU stats.

No easy task.

250 $WILD