Read the articles, PLEASE!

26  2015-08-12 by snerrymunster

The top post on this subreddit is a disgrace. It is unabashed clickbait shit. Hilary Clinton did not "buy" 2 million followers, she happens to have 544,000 fake ones (ACCORDING TO THE SAME DAMN ARTICLE).

Here is an article that actually shows the percent fake /u/specktech provided in the comment section, way below a bunch of circlejerky comments by people who didn't bother clicking the link.

Browse /new, read stuff other than the comments, and this subreddit will look a lot less stupid.

4 comments

Thank you.

Not really. I've used the service numerous times that they used and its reasonably accurate.

If you include inactive (mostly fake) followers then is the article really that incorrect?

Most accounts at her level have a 1%-2% (bot/fake) following percentage. She has 15% and 41% inactive. That's actually INCREDIBLY high.

Of those 56% of her 3.xx million following. I can certainly see where they got the ~2 million faked estimation from.

It really isn't hard to clear "Good" parameters in their algorithm. The vast majority of Hillary's social media followers are junk.

re: I've been using Twitter longer than just about anyone on the face of the earth.

edit: the math is rough but still they aren't really that far off at least 1.5 million of her followers are completely useless.

I was thanking OP for encouraging newqueue browsing and critical thinking (not just upboating clickbait headlines/posts).

I don't have a stance either way - I avoid Twitter/Fb at all costs and only glommed on here because it was pseudoanonymous.

That is not how bought followers works, I have used those services, you buy 1000, you get them for about 2 weeks, but slowly they dwindle down to around 100. Twitter detects most fake accounts and shuts most down, a small percentage remains. So if that's how many are still active, she probably bought more than 2million

Not really. I've used the service numerous times that they used and its reasonably accurate.

If you include inactive (mostly fake) followers then is the article really that incorrect?

Most accounts at her level have a 1%-2% (bot/fake) following percentage. She has 15% and 41% inactive. That's actually INCREDIBLY high.

Of those 56% of her 3.xx million following. I can certainly see where they got the ~2 million faked estimation from.

It really isn't hard to clear "Good" parameters in their algorithm. The vast majority of Hillary's social media followers are junk.

re: I've been using Twitter longer than just about anyone on the face of the earth.

edit: the math is rough but still they aren't really that far off at least 1.5 million of her followers are completely useless.