News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 45%-60% come from bots. Parent comment

Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by mch82 on Saturday May 30, 2020 @12:19PM (#23362203)
This quote from the CMU article lines up with the headline on this HN discussion thread (200M, 62%, bots, COVID-19):

> CMU researchers since January have collected more than 200 million tweets discussing coronavirus or COVID-19. Of the top 50 influential retweeters, 82% are bots, they found. Of the top 1,000 retweeters, 62% are bots.

Fascinating article. Thank you for taking the time to find it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by leereeves on Saturday May 30, 2020 @12:27PM (#23362279)
That suggests an entirely different conclusion: that bots are better at becoming influential on Twitter than people are.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by dmix on Saturday May 30, 2020 @12:52PM (#23362513)
Influential if you want your audience to be entirely made of other bots.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by zaxm on Saturday May 30, 2020 @12:33PM (#23362317)
without peer review or even an arxiv link these numbers might as well be pulled out of thin air
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Analysis of 200M tweets discussing coronavirus suggests 4... by mch82 on Sunday May 31, 2020 @02:13AM (#23367604)
Carnegie Mellon University has credibility and is highly ranked (https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/carnegie-mellon-univers...), so a press release from them is more credible than thin air or a random blog.
[ Parent | on HN ]