The Echoes Of The Coof

[EndtheMadnessNow]

Just a bot amalgamation...







“Researchers culled through more than 200 million tweets discussing the virus since January and found that about 45% were sent by accounts that behave more like computerized robots than humans.”

So in May 2020 it was known that America was under a massive attack and everyone still...


Researchers: Nearly Half Of Accounts Tweeting About Coronavirus Are Likely Bots

Bots and the COVID-19 Infodemic

Especially in recent years, such widespread contentions in the digital sphere do not often erupt entirely organically but are instead subject to a variety of inorganic influences (Freelon & Wells, 2020; Starbird, 2019). Automated accounts, also known as social bots, have played a significant role in this context (Ferrara et al., 2016). Due to their automated nature, social bots may be coordinated to engage in “computational propaganda” through large-scale information operations to influence public discourse (Beskow & Carley, 2019; Woolley & Howard, 2016). K. M. Carley (2020) succinctly summarizes such actions as narrative maneuvers, or actions which positively or negatively impact the framing of an issue; and network maneuvers, or actions which positively or negatively impact information flow in large-scale conversations, such as who talks to whom and receives information from each other.

A range of such bot activities have been documented in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ferrara (2020), for instance, highlights the outsize role played by bots in the spread of conspiracy theories early in the pandemic, especially those linked to QAnon and elaborate narratives of the coronavirus as originating from a Wuhan lab. Moffitt et al. (2021) reaffirm these findings, showing that Twitter accounts sharing such stories are typically more likely to be bots, and that bots potentially attempt to boost the reach of such conspiracy theories by linking their messages to more influential accounts in the online conversation. Xu and Sasahara (2022) similarly show that, besides conspiracy theories, bots are involved in sharing a wide range of low-credibility information around the pandemic, such as fake cures, though their influence in the overall conversation may be relatively small. Himelein-Wachowiak et al. (2021), however, nuance this observation by indicating that even if bots are on average not the central voices in an online conversation, a small proportion of bots may still become superspreaders of low-credibility information and despite their small numbers may still achieve large-scale impact.

.....

Conclusion

This article examined Twitter discussions of racism during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. By combining social scientific theory about identities with computational tools for hate speech and social bot detection, we empirically characterized bot-fueled amplification and redirection of hate from focusing on Asian and Chinese populations in March to targeting political discourse surrounding US political figures in August. This work advances research on how hate speech targets particular social groups and, in turn, how bot-driven information operations can take advantage of societal divisions to achieve strategic objectives during times of crisis.

Bots Amplify and Redirect Hate Speech in Online Discourse About Racism During the COVID-19 Pandemic

A new canvassing of experts in technology, communications and social change by Pew Research Center and Elon University’s Imagining the Internet Center finds that many expect similar impacts to emerge from the COVID-19 outbreak.

Asked to consider what life will be like in 2025 in the wake of the outbreak of the global pandemic and other crises in 2020, some 915 innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers and activists responded. Their broad and nearly universal view is that people’s relationship with technology will deepen as larger segments of the population come to rely more on digital connections for work, education, health care, daily commercial transactions and essential social interactions. A number describe this as a “tele-everything” world.

Notable shares of these respondents foresee significant change that will:

• worsen economic inequality as those who are highly connected and the tech-savvy pull further ahead of those who have less access to digital tools and less training or aptitude for exploiting them and as technological change eliminates some jobs;
  
• enhance the power of big technology firms as they exploit their market advantages and mechanisms such as artificial intelligence (AI) in ways that seem likely to further erode the privacy and autonomy of their users;
  
• multiply the spread of misinformation as authoritarians and polarized populations wage warring information campaigns with their foes. Many respondents said their deepest worry is over the seemingly unstoppable manipulation of public perception, emotion and action via online disinformation – lies and hate speech deliberately weaponized in order to propagate destructive biases and fears. They worry about significant damage to social stability and cohesion and the reduced likelihood of rational deliberation and evidence-based policymaking.
  

At the same time, a portion of these experts express hope that changes spawned by the pandemic will make things better for significant portions of the population because of changes that:

• inaugurate new reforms aimed at racial justice and social equity as critiques of current economic arrangements – and capitalism itself – gain support and policymaker attention;
  
• enhance the quality of life for many families and workers as more flexible-workplace arrangements become permanent and communities adjust to them;   
  
• produce technology enhancements in virtual and augmented reality and AI that allow people to live smarter, safer and more productive lives, enabled in many cases by “smart systems” in such key areas as health care, education and community living.
  

These six themes were commonly expressed by these experts in their responses to a question that asked them to consider the changes that were set in motion in 2020 by the COVID-19 outbreak and describe what the “new normal” might look like in 2025.

Some 47% of these respondents said life will be mostly worse for most people in 2025 than it was before the pandemic, while 39% said life will be mostly better for most people in 2025 than it was pre-pandemic. Another 14% said most people’s lives in 2025 will not be much different from the way things would have turned out if there had been no pandemic.

Among the 86% who said the pandemic will bring about some kind of change, most said they expect that the evolution of digital life will continue to feature both positives and negatives. These expert views link in interesting ways with public attitudes. A Pew Research survey in August 2020 found that 51% of U.S. adults said they expected their lives to remain changed in major ways even after the pandemic is over.

This is a nonscientific canvassing, based on a nonrandom sample. The results represent only the opinions of the individuals who responded to the queries and are not projectable to any other population.

The bulk of this report covers these experts’ written answers explaining their responses. They sounded many broad themes about the ways in which individuals and groups are adjusting in the face of the global crisis, describing the most likely opportunities and challenges emerging as humans accelerate their uses and applications of digital technologies in response. It is important to note that the responses were gathered in the summer of 2020, before the completion of the presidential election in the United States and before COVID-19 vaccines had been approved.

As these experts pondered what was happening in mid-2020 and the likely changes ahead, they used words like “inflection point,” “punctuated equilibrium,” “unthinkable scale,” “exponential process,” “massive disruption” and “unprecedented challenge.” They wrote about changes that could reconfigure fundamental realities such as people’s physical “presence” with others and people’s conceptions of trust and truth.

They wondered, too, if humans can cope effectively with such far-reaching changes, given that they are required to function with “paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and god-like technology,” in the words of biologist E.O. Wilson.

Among the scores of changes they see is the emergence of: an “Internet of Medical Things” with sensors and devices that allow for new kinds of patient health monitoring; smart millimeter wave machines to diagnose people with disease symptoms; advances in synthetic biology and computational virology that improve drug testing and targeted disease therapies; diagnostic screenings that cover a person’s diet, genes and microbiome; handheld detection devices that citizen swarms use to address environmental problems; and a new class of tele-care workers.

Additionally, these experts forecast the creation of 3-D social media systems that allow for richer human interaction (sometimes via hologram avatars); mediated digital agents (interdigital agents) gradually taking over significantly more repetitive or time-consuming tasks; a “flying Internet of Things” as drones become more prolific in surveillance, exploration and delivery tasks; ubiquitous augmented reality; an expanded gig economy built around work-from-home free agents; urban farming that reaches industrial scale; advances in trusted cryptocurrency that enable greater numbers of peer-to-peer collaborations; locally based, on-demand manufacturing; “local in spirit and local in practice” supply chains; a robust marketplace of education choices that allow students to create personalized schooling menus; “tele-justice” advances that allow courts to handle large numbers of cases remotely; “truth valuation” protocols that diminish the appeal of disinformation; and small, safer nuclear reactors for energy production.

Pages more if interested: Pew Research Center