A telling anecdote: A security researcher friend of mine found a somewhat small botnet of twitter accounts (~7000). Reported it to twitter, a few months passed and he noticed twitter hadn't done anything. So he turned it over to a journalist who eventually poked someone at twitter and... poof all 7000+ accounts were gone 6 hours later.
Maybe simply no dedicated people or team for the problem?
I have no idea what credentials I used to create it so I can't delete it, but it still exists (unlike the person it's pretending to be).
You creating a fake college account and forgetting about it probably passes as human enough, there's no concerted effort or agenda to that account besides existing and adding friends at your college.
I think what makes bots and fake accounts generally detectable is consistently pushing certain messages in ways that exceed normal human behavior, as well as showing patterns across many fake accounts.
It's hard to see a pattern in one fake account, but easy to spot it across many.
Twitter doesn't even take them down if you complain about them. Very annoying.
If your profile is public, and they decide to follow it, in part, to make you aware of their existence, perhaps that's a feature not a bug, given that the main use for the thing is to connect with accounts and follow them and discover content.
I want people to follow me because they're interested in what I post, not because they're looking for me to follow them. Perhaps I'm asking too much of the platform, but... it is what it is.
Except that Facebook knows who is real and who fake. Just like my mail provider knows who sends spam and who doesn't.
Facebook can display ads to fake users and still make the campaigner pay for the impression, or make a group pay for reaching more users, fakes included.
Facebook can easily filter requests from fake profiles, so no, fake users do not necessary worsen the experience for real ones.
You say that so definitively. Have you worked on a product with millions of new users a week? It's an extremely hard, constantly shifting problem.
"Facebook can display ads to fake users and still make the campaigner pay for the impression"
Facebook's entire business relies on user and advertise trust. Why would they sacrifice that for some short term growth that would inevitably kill the business by eroding trust?
Facebook has hundreds of engineers and enough data to do match patterns against. Facebook can largely identify who's who.
> Facebook's entire business relies on user and advertise trust. Why would they sacrifice that for some short term growth that would inevitably kill the business by eroding trust?
Yes, the infamous "they trust me, dumb fucks"?
"Yes, the infamous 'they trust me, dumb fucks'?" You didn't do or say stupid things when you were 19? You don't believe in giving second chances, let alone to a teenager?
For starters, encouraging advertisers to spend money to build up an audience with the assumption they could continue reaching that audience much like email, only to throttle organic reach to zero was pretty bad.
There have been other things such as being extremely...generous...with the definitions of how some ad metrics are defined and what defaults are presented. Even as an experienced advertiser who knows to look for those things, the lengths to which some of it it is buried is astounding to the point of it being hard to trust that it wasn't intentional. And the recent lawsuits around such things shows I'm not alone in that feeling.