New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Celebrities Tweet Like Bots

Celebrity Twitter accounts look a lot like Twitter bots: They tweet regularly, follow relatively few people, and upload a lot of content. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Getty Images

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Twitter has more than 300 million monthly active users. But researchers have estimated that between about 30 million and 50 million of those are Twitter bots—automated accounts that do the bidding of their code-writing creators. 

"There could newsbots, and there could be spam bots." Zafar Gilani, a PhD student at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. "Or there could be bots doing political infiltration, which is obviously bad. Or social infiltration which could be bad."

Not all bots are bad. Some are just geeky, like a bot that describes imaginary exoplanets. Or another that tweets only prime numbers. "It really depends on who the botmaster is and what are the intentions and what are the motivations."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Gilani and his colleagues built an algorithm to single out bots from human accounts, using factors like tweet frequency or content, and how much users interacted with other users. And the system was able to tell bot from human 86 percent of the time. 

But in the case of celebrity accounts—people with more than 10 million followers—the bots and humans were harder to tell apart. Because both tend to tweet with more scheduled regularity than the average human. Both follow relatively few people. And both upload a lot of content. 

They differ in the details: celebrities don't post as many URLs luring people off Twitter. And they don't retweet as often as bots do.

The researchers presented the findings at the International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining in Sydney, Australia. [Zafar Gilani, Ekaterina Kochmar, Jon Crowcroft: Classification of Twitter Accounts into Automated Agents and Human Users]

As bots get smarter and more pervasive online, we humans can still console ourselves with a different discovery by Gilani: that tweets penned by humans get 19 times more likes than tweets by bots. And 10 times more retweets. So, at least in Twitter popularity, humans still beat the bots…for now.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

 

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe