were visible on the feeds of 454.7 million accounts (2018). The biggest find, however, is the accounts whose tweets were not entirely automated. Although these accounts are fewer, now sitting at 3,814 as of the latest official Twitter blog update on the situation, they were more believable because of their legitimate content (Twitter, 2018). These accounts posed as activist Americans, new outlets, Americans with strong beliefs, and they interacted with (some even harassed) other members of Twitter like journalists and celebrities/politicians (Twitter, 2018). It is entirely possible that an avid political Twitter user came across one of these “trolls” as they are so affectionately called now. They had usernames ranging from BlacktivistDave to March_For_Trump, 30ToMarsFandom to Pati_Cooper (Russia Investigative Task Force, 2017). While many of the names sound valid enough, they give themselves away to the discerning eye often times by their singular focus on one issue, generally not tweeting about anything else outside of the topic range. Their replies are typically interactions with whatever side of the ideological spectrum they intend to represent, but they have also caused a stir with those who oppose their Some of the suspended accounts participated in voter suppression “views”. behaviors such as encouraging voters to send in their votes by text, which was and is not a valid form of voting (Testimony of Sean J. Edgett). Although it is impossible verify without the credentials to access Twitter data, it is possible there are still many more of these trolls out there that have not been caught in the net. It is possible to go through the replies to popular political tweets and find accounts who possess many of the same characteristics the suspended accounts had. Twitter acknowledges that this could be the case. They have downplayed the overall effect of these fake accounts on the overall volume of election tweets, but they have acknowledged publicly that their algorithms are not perfect. When it comes to the internet, finding where accounts originate is not always a simple
were visible on the feeds of 454.7 million accounts (2018). The biggest find, however, is the accounts whose tweets were not entirely automated. Although these accounts are fewer, now sitting at 3,814 as of the latest official Twitter blog update on the situation, they were more believable because of their legitimate content (Twitter, 2018). These accounts posed as activist Americans, new outlets, Americans with strong beliefs, and they interacted with (some even harassed) other members of Twitter like journalists and celebrities/politicians (Twitter, 2018). It is entirely possible that an avid political Twitter user came across one of these “trolls” as they are so affectionately called now. They had usernames ranging from BlacktivistDave to March_For_Trump, 30ToMarsFandom to Pati_Cooper (Russia Investigative Task Force, 2017). While many of the names sound valid enough, they give themselves away to the discerning eye often times by their singular focus on one issue, generally not tweeting about anything else outside of the topic range. Their replies are typically interactions with whatever side of the ideological spectrum they intend to represent, but they have also caused a stir with those who oppose their “views”. Some of the suspended accounts participated in voter suppression behaviors such as encouraging voters to send in their votes by text, which was and is not a valid form of voting (Testimony of Sean J. Edgett). Although it is impossible verify without the credentials to access Twitter data, it is possible there are still many more of these trolls out there that have not been caught in the net. It is possible to go through the replies to popular political tweets and find accounts who possess many of the same characteristics the suspended accounts had. Twitter acknowledges that this could be the case. They have downplayed the overall effect of these fake accounts on the overall volume of election tweets, but they have acknowledged publicly that their algorithms are not perfect. When it comes to the internet, finding where accounts originate is not always a simple
Olson_FinalDraft.docx