Evidence of automation raises additional questions in Twitter ‘bot’ surge


After a week of intense scrutiny and speculation about the origins of faceless Twitter accounts that recently began following journalists in Southeast Asia by the hundreds, the company declined to acknowledge anything foul or unusual afoot. Instead, users were left with the impression that Twitter believes the swell in strange accounts to be an expression of the natural ebbs and flows in membership in what the company considers to be a growth region.

While this explanation has been largely dismissed by users who have been bombarded by the bot-like accounts, there are some voices in the Twittersphere who call for more consideration of the company’s explanation. Then again, there are those who believe it’s only a matter of time before Twitter is forced to acknowledge the so-called bots’ artificiality.

READ: Why is Twitter silent on the mysterious Southeast Asian ‘bot’ following?

One piece of evidence that seems to justify Twitter’s lack of urgency about the phenomenon is that fact that some of the accounts in question have actually proven themselves to be human. The exchange below is one example.

But if the accounts do belong to real people, why do they all exhibit the same lack of personalization? Why do they follow the same constellations of well-known users in each other their areas?

Below is one theory.

However, to others who have been affected by the great following, these theories pale in comparison to the hidden truth in the DNA of the strange accounts.

When social entrepreneur Maya Gilliss-Chapman, who has been a leading voice in the call for transparency on this issue, decided to investigate three bot-like accounts that had similar profile photos and the same URL in their bios, she found identical timestamps in their source code, revealing that they all tweeted at exactly the same time.

“Bot 1” tweeted at 1:16am on April 22, 2018.
“Bot 2” tweeted at 1:16am on April 22, 2018.
“Bot 3” tweeted at 1:16am on April 22, 2018.

“[Twitter] should acknowledge that there is at least some layer of automation with these accounts. They should look into these accounts, at least,” she told Coconuts.

Despite the fact that the source code for any Twitter account is accessible to the public, a company spokesperson declined to comment on the individual accounts “for privacy and security reasons” but reiterated that “Twitter takes fighting spam seriously.”

Malicious behavior from the bot-like Twitter users remains to be seen, but, more pertinently, so does a thorough explanation from the company as to which of the above theories, if any, is true.

Our primary mission at Coconuts is to inform and entertain our audience. To do that, we need the support of our readers. If you read Coconuts often, perhaps you might consider joining our COCO+ Membership program? You’ll be supporting local news and joining a community of like-minded individuals across Southeast Asia, Hong Kong, and beyond. And in addition to unlimited Coconuts content, you’ll get an ad-free experience, exclusive giveaways and discounts, free access to events, and a stylish tote bag. Become a COCO+ Member for less than US$1 per week. Thanks for reading!

Leave a Reply