But in true Twitter form, many vapers responded with dry
wit and sarcasm, including tongue-in-cheek comments like
‘bleep, bloop, vape bot checking in!’
One user also shared a screenshot of bots that had retweeted
the WSJ article. The irony.
Vapers are often accused of being shills or bots on social
media. The ‘shill gambit’ is an easy way to shut down an
opponent’s argument. It implies a conflict of interest, alluding
to a cover up or the account’s apparent fi nancial motivations.
The fact that vaping may have helped the users in question to
stop inhaling carcinogens every 20 minutes isn’t motivation
enough for some detractors.
PGP was forced to respond to the #NotABot hashtag with a
series of tweets that appeared to reframe the original story.
They explained that bots were defi ned on a 1-100 scale. 100
percent robots post no original content and just auto-retweet,
for example. But there is some overlap with these accounts
and some human-run accounts that schedule or amplify
posts.
Far from being an army of bots, PGP noted that vape
advocates are just better at marketing and are more tech-
savvy than the anti-vape accounts and pro-vape messages
are easier to fi nd ‘because of a united front.’
PGP shared a chart that showed the increase in hashtags
“None are full bots.
Some use a degree
of automation”
that followed the original story.
“Notice #notabot jumps after our report was released on
10/14.
“We took the fi rst few dozen accounts that referenced our
account after the release, and used the same methods used
in our report.
“None are full bots. Some use a degree of automation.”
What began as a story about an automated army ‘promoting
misinformation about nicotine and e-cigarettes’ actually said
more about the tech-savvy community of human advocates
defending the health innovation that has changed their lives.
Not for the fi rst time, it seems that the government and
mainstream media are out-of-step with technology and the
wants and motivations of people using it.
VM26 61