Crap Detection - Fake Accounts on Twitter

Have you ever received an obvious spam email or blog comment that's trying to look legitimate?  On the surface they might seem okay, but a quick read gives them away.  Here's a snippet from a recent blog comment I received:

Unbreakable & collapsible, multifarious from stock bloom flower vase.
While performs the done gathering as accustomed cheap flower vases one.
Charm vase made of hard-wearing and flexible soft materials.
Absolutely fill it with copiously then it takes show improvement as a flower vase.
Fatiguing davy jones's locker layer helps it continue firmly with sprinkle in it.

Pretty obvious, isn't it?  But spammers and bots aren't always quite so obvious - it takes a bit of crap detection (and skepticism) to spot them before you click on a link that might infect your computer with a nasty virus.

Let's look at an example from Twitter.  Yesterday I was followed by an account that didn't pass the smell test with me.  How many problems can you find in this screen shot?

Gina Randolph looks like a nice enough person.  I don't watch television, but her face seems familiar to me - can't place it though.  Beyond that, there are some things going on with this account that should raise the alarm bells.

• Twitter handle:  @ArangoKryukova - a foreign sounding handle by itself is no problem, but in this case there is nothing about the account that matches a name like this.

• The bio blurb makes no sense:  "The most effective remaining stock promoter is one that I have not yet blogged .... This blog has a terms of use that is incorporated by reference"

Huh?

• Location = Las Vegas, baby!  Kind of cliché, don't you think?

• Every single tweet contains a shortened link through a site called dlvr.it - click on them if you dare!  I didn't.  And the photos often don't have any connection to the topic of the tweet.

Bubble dog is horrified at the economic decline in China!  See how horrified bubble dog is?  Bubble dog weeps for China.

Bubble dog wants a treat.  As long as it's not made in China, because it might kill him.

Somehow, this account has 2,638 followers - who are these people?  How many of them automatically followed our friend Gina when her account followed them, without checking the details?  Quite a few, I imagine.

A little bit of investigation goes a long way.  I'd much rather follow Pogo the Death Clown than Gina.   Research tells me that Pogo is followed by real people that I trust, and his account has a wide variety of posts including original thoughts and retweets.  Pogo may have a strange name, but that's a good indicator there's a real person at work on that account.  I can follow him, and if it turns out I don't like his tweets, I can unfollow him.  No big deal.  I'm going to have to say no to Gina however.

I sure do like bubble dog though...

Can you spot a fake?

Earlier today I was  responding to a comment on my initial post about the definition of digital literacy, and I ended up using the example of digital photography to illustrate how competence with a technology tool does not mean one is digitally literate.  Here's what I wrote, in response to the question...

"Is technology competence the same as digital literacy?"

Technology competence is a crucial aspect of digital literacy, seeing as we're talking about activities that take place in the digital environment which implies the utilization of technology in some manner.  The ability to utilize technology tools in itself does not however indicate that somebody is digitally literate.  I think we're all coming to the conclusion that digital literacy is a spectrum of skills and experience, and competence with the technology is the first step to higher levels.  I'll use digital photography as an example.

The entry level to this set of digital literacy skills would be the ability to operate a camera - turning it on, then taking a photo; perhaps using some of the settings to adjust the output.  A person at this level might only ever print the photos they take.  We would consider them to have basic competence with their camera, but not be digitally literate in this particular interest/skill set (which does not preclude them from being highly digitally literate in another skill set).

So what does it take to be digitally literate?  Our photographer may next learn how to transfer their photos to their computer, which adds a new realm of technical skill.  Soon they may wish to share their photos with friends and family, which might lead to learning to attach files to emails - now they're starting to combine technology tools and learn transferable skills.  At this point   there are two possible paths of increased skill.  The first is photo manipulation using software like Photoshop.  The second path is towards broader sharing on the internet - a person can do either or both, depending on their interests.  Once they make the decision to start sharing online, the 8 elements really come into play - our photographer is no longer operating in isolation.  Say they join Flickr - suddenly they are sharing their photos with the world, and have the ability to give and receive comments, and they may become as much a "consumer" of images as they are a producer.  As they travel the online world, they might use their knowledge of photo manipulation and critical thinking skills to easily identify fakes that frequently fool the masses...

These ARE NOT lemons injected with food coloring, no matter what they say on Pinterest.  This is a stock photo of oranges that has been photoshopped.

Perhaps this is why it's so difficult to come up with a concise definition - digital literacy is a spectrum that includes a wide variety of skills which can vary depending on interests and desired outcomes!