Less than 30 days ago article, hope thats ok. It will be interesting to see the effects of the myriad of websites that are de-listing twitter.

  • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Very odd though, no? Why would they use a Trump bot as the public example?

    We already have hard proof for most of the other stuff, I guess someone could’ve seen the example and fabricated the article based on our shared knowledge. But I think that falls into the ‘nothing ever happens’ box

    • HarryOru@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Very odd though, no? Why would they use a Trump bot as the public example?

      If I wanted to assume bad faith, and at this point I will every time a claim is made with no verifiable proof, I could very easily interpret that post and the presence of a Trump character file as an advertisement basically telling potential users “hey look, this is what he used to steal the election, it’s possible, it’s simple, it’s relatively cheap and you can do it too.” And if you look through the GitHub Issues for the project you’ll see that quite a few people are already currently using it for who knows what purposes.

      As someone who works in the field I also believe there are several red flags in the way the article is written and a bunch of contradictions. For example, “hiding crumbs in the code” would generally imply something slightly more sophisticated than a public file that the author himself tells you how to find in the repository with even a screenshot of it.

      The main issue for me though is that it is highly unlikely that the owner of X would need to use an external tool that establishes a finicky integration with X from the outside to generate fake content when he obviously has control over the internal private code and data of X itself. It’s beyond naive to think that if they wanted to create fake accounts, fake posts or manipulate the content users see, they would need this Eliza thing to do it effectively. This tool is clearly aimed at people who don’t own the platforms they intend to use it on.

      Ultimately though, while I don’t believe this source and story are to be trusted, I still think everyone should know that tools like this actually exist and that something resembling the proposed narrative is extremely plausible regardless.

      • Glasgow@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        41 minutes ago

        Look who is behind Eliza too. A crackpot who flipped to MAGA to accelerate us to ‘network states’. More info here

        As someone who works in the field I also believe there are several red flags in the way the article is written and a bunch of contradictions. For example, “hiding crumbs in the code” would generally imply something slightly more sophisticated than a public file that the author himself tells you how to find in the repository with even a screenshot of it.

        Maybe there is, doesn’t seem like anyone else is bothering to look.

        The main issue for me though is that it is highly unlikely that the owner of X would need to use an external tool that establishes a finicky integration with X from the outside to generate fake content when he obviously has control over the internal private code and data of X itself. It’s beyond naive to think that if they wanted to create fake accounts, fake posts or manipulate the content users see, they would need this Eliza thing to do it effectively. This tool is clearly aimed at people who don’t own the platforms they intend to use it on.

        Could still acces that through the API all the same? Sure there’s plenty of other frameworks they use they didnt build themselves.