Use your wits when discussing pro-vaccine/anti-vaccine stances on Voat. This was the original stomping ground of so-called 'Influence Chatbots'. (whatever)

submitted ago by alele-opathic

In 2015, DARPA held an open challenge, where the goal was simply to quickly and accurately identify political chatbots - so called 'influence bots' - from actual users. The battlefield was Twitter, and the corpus comprised 4.1 Million tweets from just over 7000 users, all arguing for and against vaccination. Mixed in with these users was 39 highly evolved influence bots, all of which argued for vaccination.

Every Influence Chatbot represented a pro-vaccine stance.

Here's the whitepaper (read it - it's good): https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.05140

Now, we are starting to see a lot of discussion on Voat about vaccination, in threads like this one, which is bringing out ridiculous numbers of sleeper accounts. Here is my breakdown of 5 sleepers from the previously linked thread, along with a bonus identification of a sleeper controlled opposition account.

Keep your wits about you.

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Volcris ago

If the argument is that we need better medical restrictions on vaccination ingredients, then I agree.

However as a classification of drugs vaccines are essential. Herd immunity is important to surviving at current population densities.

Unless the argument is just that rural communities would largely survive while cities need to be cleaned out. I would entertain that one a bit.

elitch2 ago

Idiot parrot.

SearchVoatBot ago

This comment was linked from this v/whatever comment by @kneo24.

Posted automatically (#21308) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.