/gamergatehq/ - #GamerGate Headquarters

So those that fake their way fake their audience.

Who is actually surprised?

Twitter continuously refuses to ban fake accounts.You could just set up a script to flag an account that uses a specific avatar and ban it 1d6 hours later to make it look like it's not automated.

Well, that certainly explains a bit as to how her recommendations for games don't result in any sales boosts. I mean, even with the whole SJWs don't play games thing you'd expect more than ONE sale with the amount of people following her.

>>300322

I've seen similar audit reports with close to 50% fake followers for random people who have no reason to buy fake followers, so Breitbart may be making a mountain out of a molehill. On the other hand, aGGs include at least one botting group and probably more, they're all into marketing, and they have no morals so they'd be willing to buy retweets here and there to inflate their numbers.

>>300325

Little something from Kotaku in action on this.

>Anita's latest video got about 70k views in two weeks.

>For reference: Sargon of Akkad's videos routinely get 45k-150k+ views. Shoe0nhead gets 100k+. Thunderf00t gets 100k+. Boogie2988 gets 150-300k. TotalBiscuit and gets 300k+.

>When we said these people were getting a disproportionate amount of media attention, we weren't fucking lying.

>>300326

and another good bit from KIA.

>It does prove however that even if they are 100% legit, they're not exactly interested in her content or in gaming in general. One would think that if one is an "activist" one would be in fact "active". In fact this makes it even worse. I would love if all her subscribers were 100% real. This just proves how lazy they are and how unimportant what they're doing is.

>>300326

>Anita's latest video got about 70k views in two weeks.

Also, a "view" is not an endorsement.

We don't know the percentage-breakdown of those views are from Pro-, Anti-, normies, or miss-clicks (…or more pathetically: botting by "Mr Culture jammer" josh); hell, a double-digit percentage could be run-off from pro-GG Youtube videos from Sargon and Thunderf00t deconstructing those videos.

>>300338

>It is interesting how main stream news will make it look like someone like Anita is popular when she is not liked by many or others simply do not care for her.

The media commited suicide with this one, and Anita and her crew were the bullet. Can you imagine how many people were completely disconnected from their trust in the news by gamergate? And that's not even counting those who aren't really on board with GG, but still couldn't help but see the discrepancy in what was being reported and what was really going on.

>>300327

>This just proves how lazy they are and how unimportant what they're doing is.

They are called slacktivists for a reason

>>300338

>but they try to hide it by taking a small percentage of "mean harassing things" said about them and equating it to all comments.

"You are a liar" and "You suck" count apparently. Most people think that liars suck. Therefore if Anita stopped lying, then maybe, just maybe people will not say that to the FemFreq account.

>SJW say GG is nothing but 3 white guys with thousands of sock puppet accounts

>more then half of their patreonkek saint are fake

Holy shit it's the pedophile projection shit all over again.

>>300346

>Holy shit it's the pedophile projection shit all over again.

Real pedophiles post their threads on image boards like 8chan. Just ask Nyberg. He has all his own screen caps.

>>300346

>Holy shit it's the pedophile projection shit all over again.

With the added bonus in that this one is their oldest accusation towards us. At this point, I'm pretty certain every single thing they've accused us of being could apply more accurately to them.

Makes me wonder how many antis spend their time grumbling about how stupid bitches don't want "nice guys" like them while living in their mother's basement.

>>300360

Oh Bobby. At this point I just feel sorry for you. You're Nintendo's answer to Chris-Chan.

>>300285

Damn. Social justice makes you fat.

>>300385

Considering a lot of the ideals tend to lower the standards, that's not surprising.

>>300388

I think it takes so much fucked up projection, self suppression, and mental gymnastics, that some part deep inside their psyche knows are wrong, that they quickly turn to constant stress eating. And the beauty standards shit rationalizes not doing anything about it. Probably a lot of drinking, too.

>>300385

Funny thing about that is, most of them were fat before social justice

>>300422

More lacking in diversity than a Mormon Orgy.

I don't know what the feminazi is trying to achieve in life (world female domination I bet) but she deserves those fake followers for talking shit about females in video games.

I wonder if the reason twitter doesn't delete bot accounts is because of this?

>>300325

This caused me to have a random thought - I've looked up the follower counts of random nobodies, myself included (I have maybe 90 followers, all of whom are people I know or have met in-person); and there's always one or two people who fall under "fake" in the Twitter audit no matter how small a given sample size is, no matter how "real" every single follower is.

What if, rather than 55% of her followers being purchased, they are of so little value to other Twitter users that they are virtually indistinguishable from bots?

Surely that's just as damning to Anita's reputation - her followers are drones, algorithmically speaking; and provide absolutely zero value to anybody else to associate with.

I'm sure some spinmaster out there can push this further if they want to.

>>300444

inactive twitter accounts might be counted as bots as well, they serve the similar purpose - bloating the actual followship numbers

This is a common thing famous people do, kim kardashain has 103048083547574075 followers but probably 70 percent of them are inactive or bots.

It will be a funny day if twitter ever did a purge of the bots.

>>300435

>I don't know what the feminazi is trying to achieve in life

Money, power, and celebrity access. She wants as much money as possible in exchange for as little effort as possible. She wants the power to make others bow to her and never give her bad feelz, constantly reassuring her that she's wonderful. She wants to hang out with the cool kids of celebrity world and have her ego reinforced by them.

She is willing to do anything except honest hard work to get it, and she's willing to do anything to stop others from getting in her way.

She'll lie. She'll cheat. She'll steal. She's been documented doing all of the above. She has no concept of right and wrong. There is merely "You are giving me what I want and not inconveniencing me to do much in return, so you are good, and you are not giving me what I want or expecting some sort of equivalent exchange for it, so you are bad."

That's all there is. She's got a reptile's organs and a monkey's skin.

This is meaningless, lots of popular twitter account have tons of fake/inactive followers. Bots follow accounts to seem more real, so any account that shows up in twitter's suggested follow lists and the like will end up with lots of fake followers. Milo should have fact-checked now normal this is.

https://www.twitteraudit.com/nytimes

>56%

Someone go do an audit on some ISIS twatter accounts.

>>300471

What was the femfreq parody account again? I'd like to see if the fake one has more followers than the real one (it probably has).

>>300490

Tried to find it with no luck maybe one of the twitterfags might know the handle

>>300505

It's from a year ago.

>>300505

To be fair, as many above already mentioned, popular twatters have a large percentage of "bot" followers purely because they're popular.

Part of that number is bots, both created for that exact purpose and third-party ones using a large following list as a kind of camouflage, like >>300466 already mentioned.

And some are, without a doubt, slacktivists sure that inflating their masters' number of followers counts as them "doing something".

And some are sycophants following a select few of approved PC Celebs and no-one else as to not risk finding themselves out of their safe place. Both of those could be considered "drones", using >>300444's terminology.

Conversely, Josh's followers are mostly considered "real', because he's not a target for either of those three "groups". He's FemFreq's dirty little secret (still, somehow. Brainwashing goes a long way), so neither sycophants nor slacktivists are encouraged to subscribe to him. After all, if he got popular, people would find out that he's the man behind their feminist messiah, and we can't have that.

And because they aren't following him, neither are third-party "camo-bots".

A friend told me that website might be a little bit wrong because the site judges the accounts following the user on how much their followers tweet.

So if they had a bunch of followers that only use twitter to follow people on twitter and not to tweet they might be considered a bot.

>>300547

The word "fake" might not be appropriate, just replace "real/fake" by "relevant/irrelevant". Having someone following you, but paying no attention nor sharing anything doesn't mean shit on a communication platform.

>>300547

>>300586

Yeah this to be honest. However, this would account mostly for small percentages. If 55% of your thousands of followers are eggs, then there is obviously a problem.

>>300547

This makes me assume I could be one of the "bots" of Milo.

>>300505

Tried to see if we could have an updated version but it seems I have to pay for it.

>>300490

@catfreq?

>>300590

Eggs would be better. If you're running a bot, the first thing you do is give it a face.

>Breitbart

>being honest

I know Anita is a Louis Farrakhan-level dirtbag, but I put no faith in them either. This isn't fucking journalism. Hunter S. Thompson was journalism.

>>300285

I'm not buying it at all:

>Each audit takes a random sample of 5000 Twitter followers for a user and calculates a score for each follower. This score is based on number of tweets, date of the last tweet, and ratio of followers to friends. We use these scores to determine whether any given user is real or fake. Of course, this scoring method is not perfect but it is a good way to tell if someone with lots of followers is likely to have increased their follower count by inorganic, fraudulent, or dishonest means.

It simply assumes that there's a typical Twitter user.

>>315608

True. It's fucking sad that we still can crucify Jack Thompson. But Yiannopoulos has been "forgiven" for his eDgY statement about violent video games causes violence because he farted not on us.

That's the battered wife mentality. "My husband is nice when he doesn't beat me." We deserve better than this.

>>315608

>>315621

> It's Breitbart therefore it's bad

Do you have anything substantial to say? Is guilt by association something you're okay with now? If the article is bad, point out why this article is bad. Otherwise, fuck off.

>>300325

The more followers you have the more accurate TAR is.