How fake Twitter follower bots work



Contributing Writer

Photo: Head Credit: Diego Medrano


One of my most popular posts in the past week was a piece on StatusPeople’s faker tool.  Many of the comments had to do with how accurately the tool represents the percentage of fake and inactive followers in a Twitter stream and why celebrities seem to have a disparate proportion of fake accounts.

It occurred to me that for all of the discussion generated around purchased followers that I didn’t understand the exact mechanism by which fake accounts were generated and how vendors on Fiverr and other sites could offer thousands of Twitter followers for a negligible amount of money.  I assumed that there is little set-up cost and that there is little labor necessary to generate and maintain these accounts, but beyond that had no idea.  As it turns out, this information is hidden in plain sight.

What constitutes a fake Twitter account?

Before I get ahead of myself, let’s examine what constitutes a “fake” Twitter account.  StatusPeople and other agencies have specific criteria but it’s in no way infallible.  If it were, Twitter could simply apply those filters to its accounts and all spam would be gone.  That said (for reasons that are evident below), some of these criteria are typically used to determine that a profile may be fake:

  • Low follower / followed ratio
  • No profile picture
  • No headline
  • No URL
  • Diversity of access point (are they using more than one means to access Twitter be it mobile or third-party apps)
  • Tweets within a certain threshold number

How fake Twitter profiles are generated

Software to generate thousands of Twitter accounts is widely available.  Just search on YouTube.  These programs send data to Twitter through proxy IP addresses, generate names and user names without the user going through Twitter at all (some will even scrape the information and pictures from random accounts and replicate profiles with a couple of random misspellings).  So, when I talk about the ingeniousness of many developers using the Twitter API, I have to include the developers who devised these programs…. even though they diminish the Twitter experience and are using their genius for dark purposes.

Here is a random YouTube clip of one of these programs in action:


After the account is created, there are other software solutions that will help to manager followers and messages all from this third party interface.  Software like this fuels the market for both Twitter followers and retweets on YouTube, eBay, Fiverr and other websites.

Why do Celebrities on Twitter have so many fake followers?

One thing that many commenters on my post noted was the prevalence of spam on celebrity accounts.  Adam Justice of Social Media Sun made the observation that following some celebrities is a tactic used in attempt to legitimize the bot account.  Jason Ding of Barracuda Labs substantiated Adam’s point in research that he did by buying followers and then analyzing the accounts that followed him.

Ding went on to point out that there was a qualitative difference in how sophisticated the follower accounts are created which justifies different pricepoints.  For example a thousand accounts with random generated names, no headlines and picture of an egg would cost much less than a thousand accounts with profiles, headlines and a picture.  There is software for either.

What we can reasonably determine

So if a tool like StatusPeople’s Faker app finds followers within the range that they consider “fake” – is that indicative that someone purchased followers?  You can’t definitively say that.  Antony Francis of Head of Lettuce sent me a blog post explaining how their site was hit with a surplus of 10K spammish Twitter followers, and how they analysed these accounts with the great SocialBro.  So, just because they are present doesn’t mean they were bought.

For celebrities, since they are high-value targets of Twitterbots – their presence probably signals that the celebrity’s audience isn’t nearly as large as their Twitter following would indicate.

I almost think we should make a tacit assumption that politicians on a national stage buy Twitter followers.  Gawker ran a piece during the Republican primary analyzing the Twitter following of all of the candidates, and found that all of them had a population that fell within a criteria indicating that they are likely fake (for Newt Gingrich it was about 92%) .  And for all of the people who have given me the business for saying that Barack Obama bought Twitter followers, you can read in the article how his following breaks out as well.

In Gawker’s article they also make a really shrewd point that Sarah Palin was (and I’m sure still is) the most popular person when compared to Republican candidates in the primary.  Her Twitter following was about 600K when they wrote that piece, much less than the candidates.  She also had the least number of fake accounts associated with hers.  In high school, I had braces and played in the band.  While the popular kids had an entourage at lunch, I tagged along with whoever stuck around campus.  Social media is same way.  If you’re a celebrity you should have more followers than the average person.  If you’re an average person and you have a humongous Twitter following – you must be really popular.

But if you’re an average person with a huge following for no apparent reason, someone may discover that you are more popular with bots than people and question why.

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

Writer and chief of miscellany at leaderswest.com

I aspire to give people something to think about rather than tell them what to do. My favorite Google Alert is “social media research,” I am increasingly compelled by Gen Z, and I appreciate good writers agnostic of where they write. At one time I was Kred’s 12th most influential social media blogger and Klout’s most influential person on the topic of David Hasselhoff. Transplant from Seattle living in Cincinnati. Haven’t entirely adopted the local sports teams yet.

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

Jim Dougherty

Related posts

  • http://twitter.com/RtMixMktg Tom Treanor

    Really nice article Jim. Great research and it was a nice touch to include the video of the Twitter maker to make it real!

  • http://twitter.com/Antony511 Antony Francis

    Excellent follow up article Jim, “two thumbs up” :)  

  • Harold Gardner

    Interesting.  I had not thought about twitter bots that much, but what you say makes a lot of sense.

  • http://twitter.com/martinrockwellf Martin Rockwell Farr

    Interesting article Jim, I’ve noticed 2-3 accounts following me that I suspect could be fake, I also periodically get accounts of scantily-clad women with a link to “their” website on too. Does twitter have an estimate for how many “fake” accounts there are like Facebook recently did?

  • http://keepupwiththeweb.com Sherryl Perry

    Excellent article Jim. I would never (knowingly) be associated with someone who sells or condones buying followers. It just seems dishonest to me.

  • iancleary

    Hi Jim, I was wondering about fake followers recently and I was wondering what the point was.   Manage flitter is a good tool for identifying the fake followers!

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks Tom – I appreciate you reading and commenting!  I have to get the soundtrack to that video.  It’s quite a racket, and with tools that can create thousands of bots per day, it’s not out of the realm of possibility that bots outnumber users on Twitter!

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks Antony!  I appreciate your insight to help inform the article.  Thanks for reading and commenting!

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks, Harold.  I appreciate you reading and commenting.  Seems that some of the best things about Twitter have left it vulnerable to some bad stuff!

  • jimdougherty

    Hi Martin!   Thanks for reading and commenting – there is a term someone coined for those women with the lovely pictures, scant profiles and crude websites: bimbots!  There was a study a few months back (not Twitter’s official numbers) that estimated that the number was 40% spam.  After seeing how effectively these more elaborate programs create profiles, I suspect it could be higher? 

  • jimdougherty

    Hi Sherry!  Thanks so much for reading and commenting!  I agree with you somewhat but suspect that you probably do already (I know I do).  Truth told I don’t think that people’s opinions are more or less valid because they chose to buy followers, but I take issue with people speaking with implied authority on marketing with social media when they’ve employed such a worthless tactic.  Cheers!

  • http://twitter.com/WilliamLang Will Lang

    Thank you for this follow-up article. While it’s obvious the Fake Follower tool has its flaws, I think it’s safe to say non-celebrities with above-average numbers of followers and more than 25% or so fakes is quite suspicious. Another method is following people on the lists floating around of hundreds of people that follow everyone back and then later unfollowing them en masse. I mentioned this disingenuous technique here – http://mammothmedia.org/digital-snake-oil-profile-of-a-social-media-guru/

  • jimdougherty

    Thanks Ian! A lot of people are high on manageflitter – I’m going to have to check it out! Cheers!

  • jimdougherty

    Appreciate the note, Will. Great post by the way – love the analysis of the guru at the end. Nice touch! Appreciate you reading and commenting!

  • http://twitter.com/jsncruz Jason Cruz

    Such a helpful article! I was tasked to provide Twitter celebrities (‘high influence’ ones) for a client, and I refrained from going the usual route and tossed out big-name celebrities to spend money on. The risk of burning cash to influence bots is really not my thing (plus it’s an inefficient way to use my time!). I do hope there are more free fake follower analytic tools available though, especially in my region.

  • http://twitter.com/UkiishiiAnn Ann Rin

    Hello, follow me maybe? http://twitter.com/UkiishiiAnn :)

Top