Bot or Not?

Back in January my friend Tim and the folks at Web Ecology Project started an interesting competition to see who could create a bot that influenced the most people: "Teams will program bots to control user accounts on Twitter in a brutal, two-week, all-out, no-holds-barred battle to influence an unsuspecting cluster of 500 online users to do their bidding. Points will be given for connections created by the bots and the social behaviors they are able to elicit among the targets." The competition has ended and The Atlantic has picked up the story. Their thoughts on the implications:

Can one person controlling an identity, or a group of identities, really shape social architecture? Actually, yes. The Web Ecology Project's analysis of 2009's post-election protests in Iran revealed that only a handful of people accounted for most of the Twitter activity there. The attempt to steer large social groups toward a particular behavior or cause has long been the province of lobbyists, whose "astroturfing" seeks to camouflage their campaigns as genuine grassroots efforts, and company employees who pose on Internet message boards as unbiased consumers to tout their products. But social bots introduce new scale: they run off a server at practically no cost, and can reach thousands of people. The details that people reveal about their lives, in freely searchable tweets and blogs, offer bots a trove of personal information to work with. "The data coming off social networks allows for more-targeted social 'hacks' than ever before," says Tim Hwang, the director emeritus of the Web Ecology Project. And these hacks use "not just your interests, but your behavior."