The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

Bubbaclaus

Interesting level of social media followers for SF in comparison to other parties. I wonder how many are "anonymous" for each party

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/sinn-fein-eclipses-rivals-with-251000-facebook-and-140000-twitter-followers-39904744.html

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Interesting level of social media followers for SF in comparison to other parties. I wonder how many are "anonymous" for each party

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/sinn-fein-eclipses-rivals-with-251000-facebook-and-140000-twitter-followers-39904744.html

Hard to be anonymous on FB. Would be interesting if somebody had a close look at anonymous accounts on twitter alright.

RandomViewer

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Interesting level of social media followers for SF in comparison to other parties. I wonder how many are "anonymous" for each party

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/politics/sinn-fein-eclipses-rivals-with-251000-facebook-and-140000-twitter-followers-39904744.html

Wouldnt there be a crossover, I'd be fairly certain that Varadkar follows MaryLou and vice versa,

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hard to be anonymous on FB. Would be interesting if somebody had a close look at anonymous accounts on twitter alright.

Really? If you read the comments on facebook on any article at all you will notice that a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Really? If you read the comments on facebook on any article at all you will notice that a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts.

Thought you needed to verify yourself. No expert on FB mind you.

FrancieBrady

RandomViewer wrote: »

Wouldnt there be a crossover, I'd be fairly certain that Varadkar follows MaryLou and vice versa,

I follow all the parties on Twitter and a crosssection of TD's.

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Thought you needed to verify yourself. No expert on FB mind you.

Just need a working email address same as twitter. And it's much more misleading as they'll have real sounding names compared to "Francie123" with 20 followers on twitter. Like yourself people assume they're verified real people with real friends etc.

RandomViewer

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I follow all the parties on Twitter and a crosssection of TD's.

That's what I'm getting at, followers doesn't equate to actual supporters

FrancieBrady

RandomViewer wrote: »

That's what I'm getting at, followers doesn't equate to actual supporters

Yes, I agree. Even putting down that you are a member of a particular party doesn't mean you are either.

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Just need a working email address same as twitter. And it's much more misleading as they'll have real sounding names compared to "Francie123" with 20 followers on twitter. Like yourself people assume they're verified real people with real friends etc.

I think you are wrong about just needing a working email address. It's a lot more difficult than that.
Have to say, I haven't ever been aware of them posting on political party FB pages...any data on how big a problem it is here?

McMurphy

Facebook have been known to, and will shut down accounts where you pretend to be someone else.

In fact, I'm pretty sure one of their policies is that your profile page contains "the name you use in real life" though I'm open to correction on this, it's been a while since i looked on there.

That's not within an asses roar of any other social media platform so far as I'm aware anyway.

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think you are wrong about just needing a working email address. It's a lot more difficult than that.
Have to say, I haven't ever been aware of them posting on political party FB pages...any data on how big a problem it is here?

We've already established that you think a lot of things that are just untrue. Here's another example. Quick Google will show you what you need to create a Facebook account. It's the same as twitter.

Kraftwerk

McMurphy wrote: »

Facebook have been known to, and will shut down accounts where you pretend to be someone else.

In fact, I'm pretty sure one of their policies is that your profile page contains "the name you use in real life" though I'm open to correction on this, it's been a while since i looked on there.

That's not within an asses roar of any other social media platform so far as I'm aware anyway.

The same stuff is in the policies off all social media platforms. And they all remove fake accounts but their detection is usually based on detecting automated or patterned behaviour.

They've no way of knowing that Michael McMurphy posting about SF isn't real.

As for the "not within an asses roars of other social media platforms" political parties have more presence on facebook than any other social media platform and as the article states.

"Facebook is widely regarded as the most important social media platform because of the shareability of posts.

Unlike Twitter, which tends to attract more highly politicised individuals, Facebook reaches more ordinary voters."

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

We've already established that you think a lot of things that are just untrue. Here's another example. Quick Google will show you what you need to create a Facebook account. It's the same as twitter.

It may be all you need to set up an account but what I said was 'it was harder to create an 'anonymous' account because of hoops FB makes you jump through...hoops that are easy to jump through if you are genuine and not so easy if you aren't i.e. 'Harder'.

If you would just read posts you might not be so angry all the time.

I have been looking through party accounts on FB to find one of these anonymous accounts and haven't succeeded....could you point to one or several to show the level of the problem?

Kraftwerk

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It may be all you need to set up an account but what I said was 'it was harder to create an 'anonymous' account because of hoops FB makes you jump through...hoops that are easy to jump through if you are genuine and not so easy if you aren't i.e. 'Harder'.

If you would just read posts you might not be so angry all the time.

I have been looking through party accounts on FB to find one of these anonymous accounts and haven't succeeded....could you point to one or several to show the level of the problem?

What hoops? It's the same as twitter. The only verification needed is verifying an email address. If you just made the briefest of attempts to educate yourself before telling everyone else they're wrong you wouldn't have to make such a meal of every argument trying to weasel out of whatever stupid statement you made.

And I have neither the time nor interest in going searching Facebook for fake accounts.

FrancieBrady

Kraftwerk wrote: »

What hoops? It's the same as twitter. The only verification needed is verifying an email address. If you just made the briefest of attempts to educate yourself before telling everyone else they're wrong you wouldn't have to make such a meal of every argument trying to weasel out of whatever stupid statement you made.

And I have neither the time nor interest in going searching Facebook for fake accounts.

So you know it happens...but you can't show it happening on any party accounts on FB? I still haven't found one BTW doing the 'research' you claim I don't do.

What I said was it is not as simple as verifying an email address if you are trying to be anonymous. PLEASE read what is being said. Maybe read about how 'Hard' it is here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/eqzr0v/my_attempt_at_creating_an_anonymous_facebook/

McMurphy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

The same stuff is in the policies off all social media platforms. And they all remove fake accounts but their detection is usually based on detecting automated or patterned behaviour.

They've no way of knowing that Michael McMurphy posting about SF isn't real.

As for the "not within an asses roars of other social media platforms" political parties have more presence on facebook than any other social media platform and as the article states.

"Facebook is widely regarded as the most important social media platform because of the shareability of posts.

Unlike Twitter, which tends to attract more highly politicised individuals, Facebook reaches more ordinary voters."

Do the rest of them have a policy dictating that your profile must be the name you use in real life?

In fairness, I don't use it much, I use a pseudonym on twitter, but definitely don't recall any policy stating I couldn't.


Edit, no it actively states using a pseudonym is fine, whereas Facebook says the opposite.

Bubbaclaus

I don't even know why it's being debated, it's well known that Facebook has a fake profile issue and they fully admit to this themselves.

It's difficult for them to prove that 'John Murphy' isnt who he claims to be. Facebook themselves believe that 1 in 20 profiles on facebook are fake with someone claiming to be someone they are not. Given they are likely being kind to themselves there, the reality is probably far worse.

They also have a major issue with bot accounts, they need to delete about 6 billion accounts created by bots every single year. That is not a typo, 6 billion.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I don't even know why it's being debated, it's well known that Facebook has a fake profile issue and they fully admit to this themselves.

It's difficult for them to prove that 'John Murphy' isnt who he claims to be. Facebook themselves believe that 1 in 20 profiles on facebook are fake with someone claiming to be someone they are not. Given they are likely being kind to themselves there, the reality is probably far worse.

They also have a major issue with bot accounts, they need to delete about 6 billion accounts created by bots every single year. That is not a typo, 6 billion.

Can you point to one posting in Irish political party accounts? Any data on the prevalence of the problem there specifically.

I know the problem with bot accounts and fake accounts trying to sell stuff.

You guys are making the claims...can you back them up is the question.

McMurphy

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I don't even know why it's being debated, it's well known that Facebook has a fake profile issue and they fully admit to this themselves.

It's difficult for them to prove that 'John Murphy' isnt who he claims to be. Facebook themselves believe that 1 in 20 profiles on facebook are fake with someone claiming to be someone they are not. Given they are likely being kind to themselves there, the reality is probably far worse.

They also have a major issue with bot accounts, they need to delete about 6 billion accounts created by bots every single year. That is not a typo, 6 billion.

No-one is trying to deny there are obviously fake profile accounts, I'm a personal friend with a very famous sportsperson who uses a pseudonym on Facebook for obvious reasons.

The point is - you're not supposed to on Facebook, but that isn't the case on most other social media platforms where pseudonyms are encouraged.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Can you point to one posting in Irish political party accounts? Any data on the prevalence of the problem there specifically.

I know the problem with bot accounts and fake accounts trying to sell stuff.

You guys are making the claims...can you back them up is the question.

Sorry, are you claiming that Facebook are lying about a fake account problem on their platform? I'm not sure what your end game is on that?

It's well known they have a problem. So much so that they admit to it themselves.

smurgen

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I don't even know why it's being debated, it's well known that Facebook has a fake profile issue and they fully admit to this themselves.

It's difficult for them to prove that 'John Murphy' isnt who he claims to be. Facebook themselves believe that 1 in 20 profiles on facebook are fake with someone claiming to be someone they are not. Given they are likely being kind to themselves there, the reality is probably far worse.

They also have a major issue with bot accounts, they need to delete about 6 billion accounts created by bots every single year. That is not a typo, 6 billion.

Has nothing to do with SF.

Bubbaclaus

smurgen wrote: »

Has nothing to do with SF.

Go point smurg. Might be useful if you posted that to the people pulling this off topic

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Sorry, are you claiming that Facebook are lying about a fake account problem on their platform? I'm not sure what your end game is on that?

It's well known they have a problem. So much so that they admit to it themselves.

No.
The discussion is about anonymous accounts posting on Irish political party pages.

I can find none, nor any data on how big an issue it is on Facebook.

I have claimed and shown at least some back up that it is 'harder' to set up an anonymous account on FB than it is on Twitter (where anonymous accounts are a known issue and some even think them a good idea)

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No.
The discussion is about anonymous accounts posting on Irish political party pages.

I can find none, nor any data on how big an issue it is on Facebook.

I have claimed and shown at least some back up that it is 'harder' to set up an anonymous account on FB than it is on Twitter (where anonymous accounts are a known issue and some even think them a good idea)

"The discussion is about anonymous accounts posting on Irish political party pages."

I don't follow political party facebook pages and never made the above claim, so you will need to do your own research on that.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

"The discussion is about anonymous accounts posting on Irish political party pages."

I don't follow political party facebook pages and never made the above claim, so you will need to do your own research on that.

You did make this claim though.

Really? If you read the comments on facebook on any article at all you will notice that a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts.

And my answer is, 'No I have never noticed a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts'

So far that seems to be a feeling in your water as you haven't as yet posted an example of this happening in an Irish political context...of which thread is concerned..

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You did make this claim though.



And my answer is, 'No I have never noticed a large chunk of the comments are coming from anonymous accounts'

So far that seems to be a feeling in your water as you haven't as yet posted an example of this happening in an Irish political context...of which thread is concerned..

I stand by my point that if you read the comments on anything on facebook, you will see a large amount of fake accounts trying to rile people up/spreading conspiracy stuff. Facebook agree they have an issue with fake accounts.

If you haven't noticed that then you must not be on facebook.

We have gone off topic anyway, so let's leave it there.

FrancieBrady

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I stand by my point that if you read the comments on anything on facebook, you will see a large amount of fake accounts trying to rile people up/spreading conspiracy stuff. Facebook agree they have an issue with fake accounts.

If you haven't noticed that then you must not be on facebook.

We have gone off topic anyway, so let's leave it there.

Nothing to back up your claim...happy to leave it there if you wish.

James Brown

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Who said there are none? There's clearly SF and FG shills on here who spend every waking moment promoting and defending their chosen party while pretending to be impartial voters.

But to suggest that 6 new accounts on twitter is evidence of a FG recruitment for nefarious activities because these new accounts have no followers is complete conspiracy theory nonsense. The village idiots are slapping up stupidity wrapped as conspiracy and gullible people like Francie are eating it up and regurgitating it on here as fact. Then you have other posters compounding the conspiracy nonsense by saying that everything bad thing you hear about FG is probably true.

Like I said this is freemen of the land level stuff.

No idea. I was pointing out its likely is all.

I've never promoted SF myself. Feel free to check my long posting history. I praised the housing element pre election.
That said I'd take them head and shoulders above FG but that's more on FG. FG do get up to some amount of shenanigans and their attitude is abysmal.

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing to back up your claim...happy to leave it there if you wish.

I have Facebook's own comments to back up my claim, saying at least 1 in 20 profiles on their website are fake. Pretty clear cut and straight from the horses mouth.

Feel free to ignore that though and claim I have "nothing to back it up". Trumpian logic on show. I don't even know what you have to gain from defending facebook here.

Enjoy the rest of your evening.