[quote=“tempogain, post:62, topic:159640, full:true”]
Exactly. Just because something exists doesn’t mean it has any application here.[quote]
Oh, pardon me, I thought you were saying it doesn’t make sense, that it’s not conceptually possible, not a plausible explanation. If it’s about proof of application, then this is just a political difference, I would of let that go a long time ago.
If matters are as Jotham described, with massive numbers of bots being applied, it should be easy to prove, right?
Depends what your standard of proof is. Even software detectors have trouble identifying them. The bot masters get better and better at escaping detection. Some badly designed bots are easy to spot, and Twitter destroys those easily. It’s a bit like viruses, the self-adapting ones survive and escape detection, very hard to find.
But I think it works like proof, certainly strong evidence, that it’s nearly impossible for humans to generate and keep up with that kind of activity.
I don’t think you have to be a mensa member to figure that out. Typical conspiracy theory type thinking being applied here. Something looks odd–I would like to think something occurred–I have no proof but I’ll say it anyway. The argument you make when you have no proof but would desperately like to think that something happened. Let me know when it can actually be demonstrated in some way.
Well, you’re not gonna get the kind of proof that you require, which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. It’s a bit like global warming, you’re in a courtroom, you look at evidence and weigh it and use ratiocination, and weigh probabilities. Like I said, the dots are provided, which are ample, you can connect or not connect according to your preferences.
Blanket assertions about “Democrats” as if they were some massive block of clones also demonstrate a lack of any form of reasoned analysis being applied to the situation.
Interestingly enough, the New York Times does write an article about Republicans, Trump doing it. They even have researchers studying it, ha. I’m sure you believe this. But if you can’t fathom in the advertising case just because researchers aren’t looking for it, then that’s just politics and not intellectual curiosity or fairness.