Misplaced Pages

Ghost followers: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:54, 18 November 2024 editBonadea (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers150,872 edits Reverted 2 edits by Rush4thk (talk): Since the improvements don't seem to be forthcoming, and the tone and source issues are still there, reverting this again. Please don't restore it and wait for other editors to fix issues that have been pointed out to you.Tags: Twinkle Undo← Previous edit Revision as of 13:25, 21 December 2024 edit undo2407:d000:506:b96c:1843:5945:619b:d5cd (talk) →ReferencesTags: Reverted Visual editNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:


==Ghost follower scams== ==Ghost follower scams==
Many ghost followers are accounts created by scammers who create fictional ]s and use them to target and scam others.<ref> N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2014. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140402063033/http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/829402 |date=April 2, 2014 }}</ref> Many ghost followers are accounts created by scammers who create fictional ]s and use them to target and scam others.<ref> N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2014. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140402063033/http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/829402|date=April 2, 2014}}</ref>


Commercial services provide the ability to buy Instagram followers, most of which are ghosts. These individuals are paid to follow accounts but are not required to engage with them. This allows those seeking ] to quickly increase their number of followers and appear to be popular, or "]". For example, ] (formerly "SocialVEVO" and "Swenzy") was able to increase the number of ]'s Twitter followers from 48,000 followers to 122,000 in only four days.<ref> The Daily Dot. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.</ref> This faux-popularity may still attract "volunteer" users. However, this technique may backfire if its use becomes known. According to ], unless the objective is just to appear popular, purchased ghosts do not help meet business objectives,<ref name="Blanchard2011">{{cite book|first=Olivier |last=Blanchard|title=Social Media ROI: Managing and Measuring Social Media Efforts in Your Organization|url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=EwVK4G5bkBwC}}|date=22 February 2011|publisher=]|isbn=978-0-13-267802-5|oclc=740435584 }}</ref> other than possibly a form of brand marketing.<ref name="Marwick2014">{{cite book|first=Alice E. |last=Marwick|title=Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age|chapter-url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=RV3FoAEACAAJ}}|date=28 November 2014|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-20938-9 |chapter =4}}</ref> Commercial services provide the ability to buy Instagram followers, most of which are ghosts. These individuals are paid to follow accounts but are not required to engage with them. This allows those seeking ] to quickly increase their number of followers and appear to be popular, or "]". For example, ] (formerly "SocialVEVO" and "Swenzy") was able to increase the number of ]'s Twitter followers from 48,000 followers to 122,000 in only four days.<ref> The Daily Dot. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.</ref> This faux-popularity may still attract "volunteer" users. However, this technique may backfire if its use becomes known. According to ], unless the objective is just to appear popular, purchased ghosts do not help meet business objectives,<ref name="Blanchard2011">{{cite book |last=Blanchard |first=Olivier |url=https://toppfollowapk.com/ |title=Social Media ROI: Managing and Measuring Social Media Efforts in Your Organization |date=22 February 2011 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-13-267802-5 |oclc=740435584}}</ref> other than possibly a form of brand marketing.<ref name="Marwick2014">{{cite book|first=Alice E. |last=Marwick|title=Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age|chapter-url={{google books |plainurl=y |id=RV3FoAEACAAJ}}|date=28 November 2014|publisher=Yale University Press|isbn=978-0-300-20938-9 |chapter =4}}</ref>


An article in the '']'' in 2014 featured an interview with an anonymous provider of ghost followers, who claimed that he had sold fake followers to celebrities and politicians.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bilton |first=Nick |date=2014-04-20 |title=Friends, and Influence, for Sale Online |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/friends-and-influence-for-sale-online/ |access-date=2023-04-19 |website=Bits Blog |language=en}}</ref> Another article in the ''NYT'', from January 2018, discussed the economics of selling ghost followers on ] and other platforms.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Confessore|first1=Nicholas|title=The Follower Factory|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html|work=The New York Times|date=2018}}</ref> An article in the '']'' in 2014 featured an interview with an anonymous provider of ghost followers, who claimed that he had sold fake followers to celebrities and politicians.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bilton |first=Nick |date=2014-04-20 |title=Friends, and Influence, for Sale Online |url=https://toppfollowapk.com/ |url-status=dead |access-date=2023-04-19 |website=Bits Blog |language=en}}</ref> Another article in the ''NYT'', from January 2018, discussed the economics of selling ghost followers on ] and other platforms.<ref>{{cite news|last1=Confessore|first1=Nicholas|title=The Follower Factory|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/27/technology/social-media-bots.html|work=The New York Times|date=2018}}</ref>


The social media company ] has been identified as a provider of ghost followers, generating Instagram accounts via ]s.<ref> The New York Times Web. 20 April 2014.</ref> The ''International Business Times'' reported in 2014 that Rantic was selling fake, bot generated followers and likes, in a manner violating Instagram's terms of service.<ref> International Business Times Web. 11 December 2014.</ref> The social media company ] has been identified as a provider of ghost followers, generating Instagram accounts via ]s.<ref> The New York Times Web. 20 April 2014.</ref> The ''International Business Times'' reported in 2014 that Rantic was selling fake, bot generated followers and likes, in a manner violating Instagram's terms of service.<ref> International Business Times Web. 11 December 2014.</ref>


At the time, the practice of selling ghost followers was a multimillion-dollar online business.<ref> New York Times Web. 05 April 2013.</ref> At the time, the practice of selling ghost followers was a multimillion-dollar online business.<ref> New York Times Web. 05 April 2013.</ref>

Revision as of 13:25, 21 December 2024

Users on social media platforms who remain inactive

Ghost followers, also referred to as ghosts and ghost accounts or lurkers, are users on social media platforms who remain inactive or do not engage in activity. They register on platforms such as Twitter and Instagram. These users follow active members, but do not partake in liking, commenting, messaging, and posting. These accounts may be created by people or by social bots.

Ghost follower scams

Many ghost followers are accounts created by scammers who create fictional profiles and use them to target and scam others.

Commercial services provide the ability to buy Instagram followers, most of which are ghosts. These individuals are paid to follow accounts but are not required to engage with them. This allows those seeking publicity to quickly increase their number of followers and appear to be popular, or "trending". For example, Rantic (formerly "SocialVEVO" and "Swenzy") was able to increase the number of Daily Dot's Twitter followers from 48,000 followers to 122,000 in only four days. This faux-popularity may still attract "volunteer" users. However, this technique may backfire if its use becomes known. According to Olivier Blanchard, unless the objective is just to appear popular, purchased ghosts do not help meet business objectives, other than possibly a form of brand marketing.

An article in the New York Times in 2014 featured an interview with an anonymous provider of ghost followers, who claimed that he had sold fake followers to celebrities and politicians. Another article in the NYT, from January 2018, discussed the economics of selling ghost followers on Twitter and other platforms.

The social media company Rantic has been identified as a provider of ghost followers, generating Instagram accounts via bots. The International Business Times reported in 2014 that Rantic was selling fake, bot generated followers and likes, in a manner violating Instagram's terms of service.

At the time, the practice of selling ghost followers was a multimillion-dollar online business.

See also

References

  1. "Social Networking Scams" N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2014. Archived April 2, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
  2. "Hoaxsters Bought Us 75,000 Fake Followers in a New Kind of Twitter Attack." The Daily Dot. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.
  3. Blanchard, Olivier (February 22, 2011). Social Media ROI: Managing and Measuring Social Media Efforts in Your Organization. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-13-267802-5. OCLC 740435584.
  4. Marwick, Alice E. (November 28, 2014). "4". Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20938-9.
  5. Bilton, Nick (April 20, 2014). "Friends, and Influence, for Sale Online". Bits Blog. Retrieved April 19, 2023.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. Confessore, Nicholas (2018). "The Follower Factory". The New York Times.
  7. "Friends, and Influence, for Sale Online" The New York Times Web. 20 April 2014.
  8. "Instagram could delete up to 10 million accounts" International Business Times Web. 11 December 2014.
  9. "Fake Twitter Followers Become Multimillion-Dollar Business" New York Times Web. 05 April 2013.
Categories: