How does one find bot/sock networks? One technique that sometimes bears fruit is to gather a bunch of tweets with some common characteristic (in this example, Turkish tweet sent with TweetDeck), plot the account creation dates, and look for spikes.
Two of the creation date spikes (Jan 1 and Mar 15, 2021) are batches of accounts that are part of the same botnet: a 32-account porn network whose members tweet at the same times each day via TweetDeck and occasionally via the Twitter Web App. Most were created in 2020 or 2021.
The botnet also contains three accounts created in 2009. It is possible that these were purchased/hacked/otherwise repurposed, as all three have changed their display name significantly and one has changed its @-name as well.
This network posts two types of tweets: original tweets sent mostly via TweetDeck, and retweets sent via the Twitter Web App. The original tweets are repetitive porn tweets with images, while the retweets are mostly of other accounts in the network.
The scheduling features of both TweetDeck and the Twitter website (usually) post scheduled tweets in the first second of the minute for which they are scheduled. Based on this, this pornbot network's TweetDeck tweets appear to be scheduled, while its web tweets do not.
(thread with more background on the timing of scheduled TweetDeck tweets)
Every account in this botnet follows or is followed by every other account in the botnet. (Some follows are mutual, some are not.) The bots follow very few accounts outside the network, mostly large Turkish accounts and porn accounts.
As is popular with pornbot networks, these accounts use stolen profile pics. TinEye proved to be more effective than Google or Yandex at finding other uses of these images on the internet. Most are cropped versions of larger photographs.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some thoughts on perennial pitfalls in news coverage of social media manipulation that frequently result in reporting on fake accounts/bots/etc being far less accurate and informative than it ought to be...
The most common problem with news articles about fake accounts: failure to include any examples of fake accounts or evidence of their inauthenticity. Any or all of these headlines might be accurate, but you can't tell from the articles, due to absence of evidence.
A related issue: articles like the "Nearly Half of Biden/Trump's Followers Are Fake" and "Nearly Half Of Accounts Tweeting About Coronavirus Are Bots" pieces base their numbers on closed-source third party tools, which may or may not actually be detecting anything useful.
Does thanking, praising, or insulting an LLM-based chatbot affect the speed or accuracy of its responses to questions involving basic arithmetic? Let's find out!
For this experiment, Meta’s Llama 3.1 model was asked to add and multiply random numbers between 10 and 100, with six different wordings: polite, rude, obsequious, urgent, and short and long neutral forms. Each combination of math operation and wording was tested 1000 times.
Results: asking the questions neutrally yielded a faster response than asking politely, rudely, obsequiously, or urgently, even if the neutral prompt was longer. Overall, obsequious math questions took the longest to process, followed by urgent, rude, and polite questions.
Just for fun, I decided to search Amazon for books about cryptocurrency a couple days ago. The first result that popped up was a sponsored listing for a book series by an "author" with a GAN-generated face, "Scott Jenkins".
cc: @ZellaQuixote
Alleged author "Scott Jenkins" is allegedly published by publishing company Tigress Publishing, which also publishes two other authors with GAN-generated faces, "Morgan Reid" and "Susan Jeffries". (A fourth author uses a photo of unknown origin.)
As is the case with all unmodified StyleGAN-generated faces, the facial feature positioning is extremely consistent between the three alleged author images. This becomes obvious when the images are blended together.
The people in these Facebook posts have been carving intricate wooden sculptures and baking massive loaves of bread shaped like bunnies, but nobody appreciates their work. That's not surprising, since both the "people" and their "work" are AI-generated images.
cc: @ZellaQuixote
In the last several days, Facebook's algorithm has served me posts of this sort from 18 different accounts that recycle many of the same AI-generated images. Six of these accounts have been renamed at least once.
The AI-generated images posted by these accounts include the aforementioned sculptures, sad birthdays, soldiers holding up cardboard signs with spelling errors, and farm scenes.
The common element: some sort of emotional appeal to real humans viewing the content.
As Bluesky approaches 30 million users, people who run spam-for-hire operations are taking note. Here's a look at a network of fake Bluesky accounts associated with a spam operation that provides fake followers for multiple platforms.
cc: @ZellaQuixote
This fake follower network consists of 8070 Bluesky accounts created between Nov 30 and Dec 30, 2024. None has posted, although some have reposted here and there. Almost all of their biographies are in Portuguese, with the exception of a few whose biographies only contain emoji.
The accounts in this fake follower network use a variety of repeated or otherwise formulaic biographies, some of which are repeated dozens or hundred of times. Some of the biographies begin with unnecessary leading commas, and a few consist entirely of punctuation.
It's presently unclear why, but over the past year someone has created a network of fake Facebook accounts pretending to be employees of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Many of the accounts in this network have GAN-generated faces.
cc: @ZellaQuixote
This network consists of (at least) 80 Facebook accounts, 48 of which use StyleGAN-generated faces as profile images. The remaining 32 all use the same image, a real photograph of a random person sitting in an office.
As is the case with all unmodified StyleGAN-generated faces, the main facial features (especially the eyes) are in the same position on all 48 AI-generated faces used by the network. This anomaly becomes obvious when the faces are blended together.