Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:30 PM
bluestarone (13,575 posts)
does anybody think we have RUSSIAN
BOTS in America today? I mean like they do in the Ukraine? I'm betting they do, and will cause problems for all of us!
|
8 replies, 1147 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
bluestarone | Jan 2018 | OP |
Eliot Rosewater | Jan 2018 | #1 | |
bluestarone | Jan 2018 | #2 | |
Igel | Jan 2018 | #6 | |
delisen | Jan 2018 | #4 | |
peggysue2 | Jan 2018 | #3 | |
Botany | Jan 2018 | #5 | |
Historic NY | Jan 2018 | #7 | |
Nitram | Jan 2018 | #8 |
Response to bluestarone (Original post)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:33 PM
Eliot Rosewater (28,309 posts)
1. Tons and tons, they are all over our social media.
Primary job is to say stuff like:
"fuck mueller, we need jobs" or "CIA is the real culprit because of past interference with other countries" complete and utter bullshit nonsense like that |
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #1)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:37 PM
bluestarone (13,575 posts)
2. yea this is the kinda shit i'm thinking
Even in our own congress so fucking sad
|
Response to bluestarone (Reply #2)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:53 PM
Igel (32,668 posts)
6. I think you redefined 'bot'.
It's an automated program. It's software. It's a bit of code.
If you don't see it used in enough contexts, if you aren't sensitive to subtle differences in meaning, you can auto-derive the wrong definition. Eventually that may be the common definition if the mistake is common enough and the error spreads widely, as generalizing errors are prone to do ('mergers spread at the expense of distinctions' is an old linguistic slogan, thanks, Bartoli!). The 'logical' process used for figuring out what a new word means stops as soon as the word fits well enough, even if it's wrong. That process is called "abductive reasoning." It's not logic; it is, though, damned useful in producing hypotheses. The problem is when proof is sought for the hypothesis instead of disconfirmation; it's the scientific method flipped upside down and called 'truth seeking'. People should read C.S. Peirce more than they do, but he's too pragmatic for most. The upshot is that when others point out there are bots on Twitter or Facebook, though, they are emphatically not talking about living, breathing people. DU might have bots; that's unlikely, though, it's not a big or important enough concern. Congress can't; Twitter easily does. And I know you'll be sure to point out that it might be the 'bot', as in 'botfly', recycled. But that's only at best a snarky after-the-fact allusion; it's shorted from 'robot', like 'droid' is short for 'android'. |
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #1)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:41 PM
delisen (5,411 posts)
4. or as Trump said when confronted with facts about
Putin's murderous authoritarian regime: do you think we are so pure.
The bots demand that we put on hair shirts, beat our breasts, confess to past sins, ignore the attack on American democracy, and march ourselves off to slaughter because "it's all our own fault." |
Response to bluestarone (Original post)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:37 PM
peggysue2 (8,882 posts)
3. Bots in America?
Yes like cockroaches, they're everywhere. They like the darkness, will scurry around when the lights go on.
They're clever and hardy but not invincible. Suggest, sunlight and bleach. |
Response to bluestarone (Original post)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 03:51 PM
Botany (63,780 posts)
5. Right here in River City too.
e.z. to spot sometimes.
|
Response to bluestarone (Original post)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 04:20 PM
Historic NY (35,369 posts)
7. RT & Sputnik
do their masters bidding too.
|
Response to bluestarone (Original post)
Tue Jan 2, 2018, 04:30 PM
Nitram (18,106 posts)