UN Newsflash: Twitter has fake followers - NYT blows lid on story everyone knew anyway

Celebrities and social media influencers are watching their Twitter followers dwindle by the millions after it was revealed that many are guilty of paying for fake accounts to follow them.

Singer Clay Aiken, Baroness Martha Lane-Fox, reality TV star Lisa Rinna, British rowing Olympic champion James Cracknell, as well as actor John Leguziamo were all revealed to have purchased fake followers.

Great British Bake Off judge Paul Hollywood even went so far as to delete his Twitter account in shame after it was discovered that he bought roughly 600,000 of his Twitter followers.

The jaw-dropping revelations were made public as part of a New York Times investigation into the social media black market.

The celebrities are among the 200,000 customers who have signed up for services from a shadowy American company called Devumi, which sells Twitter followers and retweets to models, actors, athletes and businesses, among other people.

In total, Devumi has sold roughly 200 million Twitter followers to more than 39,000 customers, according to the Times. The firm often creates bot accounts using real names, photos and other personal information from real people.

Information from Twitter users in every state had been used to build bots sold by Devumi and other companies like it, the Times said.

Lane-Fox, who is also a Twitter board member, bought at least 65,000 followers. But just 24 hours after Devumi's business practices were revealed, Lane-Fox lost about 46,000 followers.

Lane-Fox has blamed a 'rogue employee' for purchasing followers on at least seven occasions. Officials are looking into fake followers on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Instagram and other platforms, the Times noted.

Twitter said in a tweet last week that fake followers violate the company's terms of service, adding that the tactics are 'unacceptable to us.' As evidenced by celebrities' dwindling follower accounts, the firm is also beefing up its bot detection personnel.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...Twitter-rids-fake-accounts.html#ixzz55wA2ojiB
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 
Why the hell even waste money to get bots to follow you on social media, you're not getting any benefits from followers on twitter. Except for youtube.

It makes you look more popular than you are. Then you can use the fact that you have more followers than others to make it look like your tweets are more valid. Followers mean nothing if you are paying for fakes. But people have deluded themselves into thinking that having a high follower count=relevancy. It doesn't. You paid to look popular. That's like paying your cousin to take you to the prom.
 
Why the hell even waste money to get bots to follow you on social media, you're not getting any benefits from followers on twitter. Except for youtube.
Because then you get to showcase your follower count, engagement etc. to prospective sponsors and employers.

Take someone like Leguizamo (whose work I legitimately enjoy), by buying followers, he gets to show movie studios that he will bring eyeballs to the theater, because each follower has to be a fan, right?

Also, If he wants to be sponsored by some herbal iced tea maker or whatever the fuck, he can tout his engagement numbers (retweets, likes..etc) to argue that he can bring more exposure to them than say, James Woods.

Also, when the NYT says that this news is jaw-dropping, they don't mean that people buying followers is a completely new thing.

What they mean is that the details have eclipsed their expectations, I legitimately didn't expect that actual actors and celebrities are buying followers, I thought that it was mostly random blue checkmarks and people who want to become "influencers".

Also, while a company selling bots or offering the services of a click farm isn't new, the revelation that they are not using stock photos and randomized names, and are instead using data from actual users (photos, names..etc), very likely without consent is possibly huge, class-action lawsuits have probably happened for less. I would be interested in seeing @AnOminous's opinions on this, and any other legally minded individuals here, because I may be optimistic here..
 
I would be interested in seeing @AnOminous's opinions on this, and any other legally minded individuals here, because I may be optimistic here..

It's the sort of thing you'd usually have to pay someone for, even if in the case of a normal person, it wouldn't be worth much. They're still doing it for profit, though, so it's still identity theft. Sounds like a class action if it's really being done that way.
 
Wait, hang on, people buy followers on LinkedIn too? Why? I can understand Twatter, Instagram etc. - the sole purpose of these platforms is to provide fuel for their users' narcissism, and it makes sense that a narcissist would buy followers. But LinkedIn? Nobody goes there except PR drones who post mindless drivel about blockchaining the agile containers and, barely literate tech support Pajeets who share that drivel between themselves. Anyone with two neurons to rub together only uses it as a CV hosting service.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo