Weekly ‘What Works?’ Assignment 7

Headline: On Social Media, Lax Enforcement Lets Impostor Accounts Thrive

This New York Times article is about how fake bots are thriving on social media platforms, how their creation is much easier than their destruction, and how these social media platforms allow them to exist.

This article drew me in with its topic. On the home page, the title of this story was “Fake Social Media Accounts Thrive Under Lax Rules” down the left side of the screen The introduction on the home page under the headline was, “Millions of ‘bots’ posing as real users are promoting celebrities, spreading misinformation and sowing discord. And it’s far easier to build a bot than to kill one.”

This little teaser really piqued my attention, and it encompassed the major points of the article in one sentence perfectly. This topic is one that is of interest to me as an avid social media user. I often see this fake bot accounts and have been interested in their creation and maintenance.

The topic is also unique – so far, I haven’t seen any coverage of this issue, but it is quite widespread. Personally, I have had friends who have been affected by fake bots stealing their identity, and it is a topic that has growing relevance in our increasingly technologically-reliant world.

The writer was thorough, accumulating perspectives of those affected, professionals, and politicians. One source it did lack was executives of social media platforms. It did include a Facebook post by Mark Zuckerberg, however.

One of my favorite ways to make an issue interesting for readers is tying it to a person, which is what this article did. The writer found several people who had been personally affected by these bots, personifying this issue and causing an emotional or empathetic reaction from readers. The story also had a timely news angle, including information about a recent Times investigation.

I wish it had more multimedia components. There are several pictures of people who have been affected by these bots, but nothing beyond that. Also, this may or may not be relevant, but I thought it was ironic that the article had a plug for NYT on its page which required readers to check a box signifying that they were not a robot.

Overall, I thought the article was solid. It had good sources, extensive research, both data and personal stories to back it up, and clear writing. More multimedia would have made it a stronger package, but it addressed an important issue that hasn’t had much coverage.