• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

The Bot logic thread

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
It's even more so protected as much of what Sky do is in the public domain and they are public figures; meaning the expectation that there will be commentary on what public figures do in public. It's natural and normal and how they earn income. You couldn't have a situation whereby one earned income by being "public" and was immune to criticism.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Interesting.
Basically we can say whatever we want and the most likely situation is to just be asked to apologise and remove the comment? (leaving forum rules out for the time being)

That seems problematic regarding a concerted bot campaign. How do public figures protect themselves?
Maybe there needs to be distinct libel/slander laws to deal with bots?
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Interesting.
Basically we can say whatever we want and the most likely situation is to just be asked to apologise and remove the comment? (leaving forum rules out for the time being)

That seems problematic regarding a concerted bot campaign. How do public figures protect themselves?
Maybe there needs to be distinct libel/slander laws to deal with bots?
You can't say whatever you want but it's has to be in context. For example; if you said Wiggins is a crap bike rider and most likely doping, that is fine. If you said he was a murderer who kills children that is not fine, as it's not true nor in context of his public persona.

Public figures don't need to protect themselves. They do what is known as marketing and PR. The good, the hype washes out the unsanitary. Reference the Kardashians, there's plenty of unsavoury but they work real hard at selling themselves for the better and for income.

To your point, the first step to defamation is to remove or retract the potentially offending remark. Generally it never goes much further than that. Also depends on the number of poeple saw or read the remarks and for how long it remained, if it was to go any further.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
 
Re:

Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
Please show me the evidence that supports that comment in terms of doping. I agree things may have been bullying and misogynistic but I don't remember seeing anything that shows doping from all those investigations ...
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
Good explanation of bot methods. Thought blocking. Standard method in politics, religions, cults etc., and surprisingly effective. Minimising discourse is maybe more pernicious than outright libel/slander too, though I'm not sure about that. Complex as always.

In terms of normal individuals, via social media nowadays, seems that someone could become a popular and very prominent critic of a public figure or organisation, and easily find themselves subject to bot slander/libel or just plain bullying. In which case the legal situation is maybe a bit of a double edged sword for us. The system is maybe swayed in favour of the powerful, in practice rather than necessarily in theory.

You mentioned Digger, I've just recently discovered him on the tweeterzone. It seems as though a bit of this bullying went on, trying to minimise him. Did Fran Millar try and bully him, try to release his identity etc? I might be mistaken. If she did that's pretty shocking from the head of PR. Not a bot, but I think the principle fits.

Not sure how coherent that was, my brain needs oiling.
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
Please show me the evidence that supports that comment in terms of doping. I agree things may have been bullying and misogynistic but I don't remember seeing anything that shows doping from all those investigations ...
Sorry Spud I know you're not asking me. I'm just curious, is your post serious or parody?
Genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever. I'm thinking this is a running joke between yourself and Hog or something?
 
Re:

Irondan said:
Here's some #botlogic in defense of Usain Bolt.

Apparently having injuries and getting older is proof that he's clean. :confused:
Bolt is one of a kind, he is running fast since he was a 15 year old kid, and I don´t think he was doping at the age. Yeah, a lot of jamaican athletes were caught, but if you loke at the way the he is slowing down since 2009, and the injuries he sustained year after year I would say the he is more credible than most of athletes and cyclists, because you see him getting worse year after year, not like other atlhetes that are getting better after their 30´s. And, come on, don´t bring Cipollini to that conversation, because he was fun, but that dude is not credible at all.
Who is the quote attributed to?
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
Please show me the evidence that supports that comment in terms of doping. I agree things may have been bullying and misogynistic but I don't remember seeing anything that shows doping from all those investigations ...
Sorry Spud I know you're not asking me. I'm just curious, is your post serious or parody?
Genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever. I'm thinking this is a running joke between yourself and Hog or something?
Clearly it's parody. Spud was exemplifying the blocking technique executed by bots. He did a very good job of it.
 
Re: Re:

Angliru said:
Irondan said:
Here's some #botlogic in defense of Usain Bolt.

Apparently having injuries and getting older is proof that he's clean. :confused:
Bolt is one of a kind, he is running fast since he was a 15 year old kid, and I don´t think he was doping at the age. Yeah, a lot of jamaican athletes were caught, but if you loke at the way the he is slowing down since 2009, and the injuries he sustained year after year I would say the he is more credible than most of athletes and cyclists, because you see him getting worse year after year, not like other atlhetes that are getting better after their 30´s. And, come on, don´t bring Cipollini to that conversation, because he was fun, but that dude is not credible at all.
Who is the quote attributed to?
It was from a poster in the comments section of the CN website.
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
Please show me the evidence that supports that comment in terms of doping. I agree things may have been bullying and misogynistic but I don't remember seeing anything that shows doping from all those investigations ...
Sorry Spud I know you're not asking me. I'm just curious, is your post serious or parody?
Genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever. I'm thinking this is a running joke between yourself and Hog or something?
It's not so much a running joke between the hog and spud as it is a difference in ideology.... :)
 
Jul 21, 2016
636
0
0
Re: Re:

Irondan said:
Dan2016 said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
(above snipped for brevity)

Please show me the evidence that supports that comment in terms of doping. I agree things may have been bullying and misogynistic but I don't remember seeing anything that shows doping from all those investigations ...
Sorry Spud I know you're not asking me. I'm just curious, is your post serious or parody?
Genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever. I'm thinking this is a running joke between yourself and Hog or something?
It's not so much a running joke between the hog and spud as it is a difference in ideology.... :)
Ah! :) Okay, it's a history thing. I'll stay out of it. Spud is a belieber I assume.
It's a bit hard to tell what Hog thinks. :D
I'd be interested in discussing it intelligently with a belieber, just to 'chew the fat', not to change minds.


Belieber: noun; from Justin Bieber, The Biebs.
Context: inexplicable fandom.
 
Re: Re:

Dan2016 said:
TheSpud said:
thehog said:
Dan2016 said:
Cheers Hog, so that seems like a fair balance between free speech and protections against libel/slander.
It's good to know this stuff. I think there's quite a bit of self-censorship online out of fear of these things.

I am intrigued about the potential bot slander though, in the context of what I've learned from this thread, ie., real person paid bots, as well as intelligent bot programs. I think you're saying effective positive PR is the current antidote, which seems reasonable in our media-spin age, but I do wonder about it from a legal perspective. I think I'm just musing out load now really, not expecting you to directly address my musings, I can't think of any coherent questions to ask you. :)
I find the whole bot thing, fake news stories and it's implications an interesting modern phenomena.
Most bots just use a blocking teqnique, humans and computer driven bots. You can tell the computer driven bots as often the response doesn't follow the previous statment made. Bots go down the line of;

"Armstrong is a doper" -"there is no evidence, he raised over $500m for cancer research".

You see, total block, you can't move forward.

With Sky there has been a similar progression on the botting. It started with "There's no evidence", then in recent events it's gone to "no rules have been broken, it's a grey area", their block will just keep progression without the acknowledgement that the likelyhood of doping is extremely likely. Especially now we know Brailsford and Sutton ran the entire sham on their own using alll the funds how ever they pleased. They also shut a lot of people up with fear and paid of just as many. Now the block is "we had a medalist attitude".

It's terms of libel, I've seen a fair amount of towards a few from human bots. Many became very obsessed by Digger and thought they had to take him down by any means. Most of them were rabid.
Please show me the evidence that supports that comment in terms of doping. I agree things may have been bullying and misogynistic but I don't remember seeing anything that shows doping from all those investigations ...
Sorry Spud I know you're not asking me. I'm just curious, is your post serious or parody?
Genuine question, I'm not trying to be clever. I'm thinking this is a running joke between yourself and Hog or something?
Absolutely serious - Hog makes a claim that the report shows that the doping program was run by Brailsford and Sutton. There is nothing (as far as I am aware) in that report that states that but Hog likes to play it that way. Despite what he says below, its not 'blocking' - its just asking for evidence to back up his claims about something he says has happened. He presents it likes its the truth, and its not. I'm ok with people making allegations / connections based on what has actually happened (eg race results, 'dodgy' staff members, etc.) but this claim is just false.
 
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
Hog making wild un-supported claims? Say it isn't so...
I couldn't possibly comment ...
Thanks Spud, you're absolutely right, I was making wild unsubstantiated claims (that you failed to link) there's nothing to see here. The fact that every possiable piece of potential evidence to clear sky has gone missing is one bizarre coincidence, nothing else. I apologise for completely misreading the situation. Sky are clean and transparent, just like they always told us :cool:

You really can be a total fool at times. But I guess it's par for the course, it's been your MO for sometime now.
 
Re: Re:

thehog said:
TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
Hog making wild un-supported claims? Say it isn't so...
I couldn't possibly comment ...
Thanks Spud, you're absolutely right, I was making wild unsubstantiated claims (that you failed to link) there's nothing to see here. The fact that every possiabke piece of potential evidence to clear sky has gone missing is one bizarre coincidence, nothing else. I apologise for completely misreading the situation. Sky are clean and transparent, just like they always told us :cool:

You really can be a total fool at times. But I guess it's par for the course, it's been your MO for sometime now.
I'm not the fool, you are. You made a claim that the whole doping scam was run by Brailsford and Sutton but you cant back it up.

Post the link or shut up. Nothing has changed ...
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
yes she did release my identity and my work on a public tweet...
as for sky fans, yea it seems they took a bit of a shine to me alright!
the worst though was from a guy running the account journal velo - what he did was off the charts mental
 
Aug 26, 2014
1,218
0
0
Re:

Digger said:
yes she did release my identity and my work on a public tweet...
as for sky fans, yea it seems they took a bit of a shine to me alright!
the worst though was from a guy running the account journal velo - what he did was off the charts mental
You can't leave that hanging there - just what constitutes 'off the charts mental' in Skyworld?
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
Re: Re:

Electress said:
Digger said:
yes she did release my identity and my work on a public tweet...
as for sky fans, yea it seems they took a bit of a shine to me alright!
the worst though was from a guy running the account journal velo - what he did was off the charts mental
You can't leave that hanging there - just what constitutes 'off the charts mental' in Skyworld?
hacked facebook account of who he thought was me - got photos of 'my wife and kids' - both wrong - and said the kids look disabled whilst the wife was fat and ugly...he also tried to hack two other facebook accounts that same weekend...of two guys who are well known sky critics.
It was told back to me that he was the person who did it...

added on to that is that he's on here from time to time

hello euan!
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Re:

TheSpud said:
thehog said:
TheSpud said:
red_flanders said:
Hog making wild un-supported claims? Say it isn't so...
I couldn't possibly comment ...
Thanks Spud, you're absolutely right, I was making wild unsubstantiated claims (that you failed to link) there's nothing to see here. The fact that every possiabke piece of potential evidence to clear sky has gone missing is one bizarre coincidence, nothing else. I apologise for completely misreading the situation. Sky are clean and transparent, just like they always told us :cool:

You really can be a total fool at times. But I guess it's par for the course, it's been your MO for sometime now.
I'm not the fool, you are. You made a claim that the whole doping scam was run by Brailsford and Sutton but you cant back it up.

Post the link or shut up. Nothing has changed ...
You still claiming that Brailsford managed all these gold medals and TdF wins without doping? Really?

Puuleeeaaaseeeee :lol:

There would be no need for a bot thread if that was true :D
 
Aug 26, 2014
1,218
0
0
Re: Re:

Digger said:
Electress said:
Digger said:
yes she did release my identity and my work on a public tweet...
as for sky fans, yea it seems they took a bit of a shine to me alright!
the worst though was from a guy running the account journal velo - what he did was off the charts mental
You can't leave that hanging there - just what constitutes 'off the charts mental' in Skyworld?
hacked facebook account of who he thought was me - got photos of 'my wife and kids' - both wrong - and said the kids look disabled whilst the wife was fat and ugly...he also tried to hack two other facebook accounts that same weekend...of two guys who are well known sky critics.
It was told back to me that he was the person who did it...

added on to that is that he's on here from time to time

hello euan!
Good God!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS