Social Media Breed Imaginary Friends

Scary stuff, eh, Ramon? My suspicion is that some of these phantoms do pass the Turing test, at least once in a while.

The Beatles had it right with this song and it has long been a "classic" for generations following. The real issue now is that, as Mike points out, technology is approaching or even surpassing human ability to create something imaginary.

I have been commenting in IE, somewhat repetitiously, on the broad issues posed by legal entities that humans have created (corporations) and their impact on human and culture evolution. These entities have existence, own things, buy and sell things, create capital and fortunes, get broke, etc. These paper creations exist as real counterparts of "real" human organizations such as family businesses and cooperatives. 

Now Mike Moran points out that an even stranger entity is beginning to act by itself, an imaginary someone that can write (post) opinions, interact with real or imaginary entities such as itself, etc. all within the boundaries of the web without being detected. But the problem these new entities pose is that they are STEALTH. Where a corporation is registered somewhere and somewhat accountable, the new breed of imaginary entities described by Mike are authentic phantoms, in fact, almost paranormal entities. And this is indeed a big problem because "real" persons don't know that they are dealing with them.

Now I come back with the Turing Test, the legendary exercise developed to detect if a created entity such as a computer could enter into a "conversation of sorts" with a real person and a third observer could not detect which one was a real person and which one a computer or sorts. As Mike tells us now, we are already being fooled by imaginary persons which are already interacting with "real" persons and nobody can really detect which one in the exchange is a real person. Now then, mix these unreal entities and we get... voilá! An UNREALITY SHOW!

Recently, the US government opened the door for corporations to make legal contributions to politics. Are we really far from seeing something like that movie where Al Pacino  masked to the public that the spokeperson for an ad campaign was a non existent female beauty? Then I ask, will a sufficiently funded corporation (an unreal but legal entity) be able to "create" an imaginary person such as the ones Mike says, (also unreal but stealth and dubiously legal entities) register it as if it were a real existing person ( almost an Avatar of itself), make it run for office through the web and affect an election, all with their own money which is now legal, just to alter the real voting tendencies of real people? This is not actually a figment of my imagination, is a logical extension of known facts.

Well Mike, thanks, and as I said in an earlier post, I can use a drink really fast! Cheers!

It's about respect

your PC is as private as your billfold. I have got no business snooping in your billfold -- any way shape or form

none of us will get respect though when we connect to the 'Net, that much is clear. as a result we must provide for defense

it's a different game though: the enemy is invisible, silent, and operates at say 2 GHZ or faster

the defense must be able to operate in that venue. we are getting better at this but it is time to pull it up tight: establish control over software updates. novel concept, if you think about it.

True, Mike, but I think that they need to do more and more because what they "could" yesterady than "can't" today.

Remember: there is only one rule in spamming & malware: "Because I can"

Mike! I know it sounds funny (and it is funny) but may be some programs of help for spammers should be created:))))Some groups of Anonymous Spammers- Hi, my name is Bill and I am a Spammer-  Hi Bill:)))  I mean, there are some programs that help  people who came out the prison to adapt.So there should be some programs that help  spammers ( who are basically criminals) to find  some socially  approved jobs:) They definitely have skills.

That makes sense, Michael. I also think that as social media becomes more commonplace, that most of us won't be stars at all. We'll just get some attention from folks using this media just as we get some attention for speaking or writing a magazine article.

Oh, I'm sure most people would side with you, smkinoshita, but the older I get, the more I feel sorry for people who are missing out on the important things and leading sad, scared lives. Spammers are always living on the edge, waiting to get caught. It can't be that much fun.

I've been using social media for a few years now and have had conversations with the readers on this site and others.

My assessment is that there are a rew paths to greatness in content. The first would be what I call the "Rocket of moon rocks to the Moon."

You create a content site you think is stellar. You put rocket fuel in viral marketing the content with the hope that this thing will blast to the top of the heap and keep orbit long enough for you to gain noteriety or break even or better in your spend. This approach works for projects that are hip and sexy. Think RocketBoom, the Amanda years. Think of that Star Wars Lightsaber app you put on your iPhone and you get the picture. The problem here is when everyone else decides to do what you to better, faster, and less out of control.

The other path would be the "Took my lumps but look at me now" approach.

We've all been at startups that failed miserably or had employers that failed to understand our greatness. So we move on. Along the way, we hopefully gather enough wisdom and contacts to help us build our own brands. Examples here are numerous, but the run is always stronger than the rise until it becomes so fashionable that it can't be ignored.

Imaginary fans only help Rockets. Lump takers know that a true fan base is more valuable.

I don't feel sorry for them at all.  They're selfish beyond the norm, short-sighted and repugnant. 

Worse, they break the system by attempting to cheat it.  The more trust that's eroded, the worse things become.

Plus, the techniques they use are also used by scum who spread malware.

The way I see it, the best approach -- as mentioned by Mike -- is moderation.  It's time consuming, but it also means the publisher engages their audience more.  The engagement, besides reducing spam, also filters out empty comments left by real people, improves feedback, and creates loyalty through familiarity.

Not just comments should be moderated though.  A website needs to be particular about the advertising it allows, not allowing scammish or spammish ads to be displayed.  Not only does it reduce spammer clients, but it also means a site's advertising is that much safer to click.