Corporate Social Media

What are your thoughts on the current state of corporate social media accounts? This is a weird question, but I'll elaborate. In the past, corporate social media presence was almost exclusively professional in nature. Blog updates, announcements, etc. - serious business, befitting of a serious company. Now, however, I am seeing more and more companies adopting a "sassy" social media identity. Memes, smug soykafposts, "roasting" other corporations, occasionally bickering with strangers... how did this begin? Not too long ago, a company breaking their serious presence and making a sneering comment at competition was a newsworthy occurrence (e.g. the Smug Wendy's and Sonic twitter, who I guess are the trendsetters). Why did it change to companies going out of their way to be smug and rude? I don't think it's wrong for a company to represent itself in a silly way, but I think it's odd how that's what everyone is doing now rather than a few outliers.

because they get "engagement", which has been sold to marketeers as a kind of snake oil.

Because it's what the young folks like. People stereotype marketers as being out of touch with their consumers, especially teens and young adults, but the reality is that they know exactly what the hell they're doing. The kids love seeing their favorite e-celebs epically own their detractors with a snarky comment and/or profile screencap, so the companies are doing it too. The kids love it when the latest game/movie/episode in (x) series references a meme that's still hot (but not so hot that mom and dad know of it, of course), so they're just referencing them on social media to get that "oh man they're so in touch with us fans!!" reaction faster and more often. Luckily people are starting to wake up to it, but it's not fast enough and the corporations will soon develop another marketing tactic once it gets clear that this one is failing. Hell, they'd probably make a tactic based on the mentality of "stop falling for marketing and giving corporations free advertising, you idiots" if that sentiment ever got big.

I dont like it nor do I think its funny. I suppose it depends on the corporation but I dont like the idea of humanizing this soykaf. I dont care about chester cheese mans sick diss track of doritos which are made by the same company. one interesting thing is like for some reason i my head it makes sense for these food/snack companies to do this but if I saw like nike or something doing the same thing it would seem so out of place. Maybe its just cause the corporations are already seen as kind of trashy? Its not like I dont get it, sometimes its funny and grats they broke through a very stale period in advertisements. But its still in the back of my mind how fuarrrked up it is kind of always. Its also getting old fast, as most trends do these days. Perhaps why it might have been best to stick to the older very clear straightforward "professional" social media presence. Guess we will find out. >inb4 u must be fun at parties Im not going around in real life telling people to not laugh at this soykaf and if someone shows me it and its funny I smile. I just dont like it in general.

companies today don't know how to get us kids and young adults today to buy their soykaf, so they just try to throw anything at the wall until they find something that works, in a lot of times it even backfires pretty hard.

>>13448 This was on 8chan yeah? How can a company be so fuarrrking dumb holy soykaf.

>>13460 Someone asked them from that site and they said okay -that was all to it as the official story goes. If you want to speculate there's also the chance that they intentionally used the drama to get more media attention themselves. 1. commit ama on "enemy" site 2. feign ignorance and show allegiance with screeching masses 3. rake in attention Also looked through the archive when it happened and the first posts were normal. The lolis could just as well come from hostile boards invading & trying to frame them cause they didn't do the ama on their site. Main reason for that thought is cause their other threads had none of that crap which indicates that this was abnormal behavior on that site.

>>13442 Just my interpretation: Companies are trying to act as "best friends" so customers treat them as friends with all the emotional baggage instead of a pure business relationship that should be doped at the moment they stop delivering a good product. This is giving leeway and enables companies to exploit their followers for more profit. I think some noticed how profitable this is and now increasingly more try to foster it further.

Like what has been previously said before: Companies do this to come off as hip and trendy. It's the same case with "woke capitalism" where marketers couldn't care less about whatever bleeding-heart values they're pushing but still go through with it anyway for the virtue signalling.

Obligatory: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=06yy88tLWlg The video shows a few interesting cases of this kind of marketing.

As our societies become increasingly technologically advanced they also become increasingly socially atomized. There exists no strong underlying unifying culture anymore as people move away from religions and cultural traditions. Many individuals seek to fill this void through various online communities that they filter themselves into according to different interests and passions. Peoples identities primarily used to be constructed around their production (i.e. what occupation they hold) but now they are more often than not built around their consumption (what products and cultures they spend their limited focus and money into). Corporate advertisers are finding all kinds of innovative new ways to reach their ever grasping tendrils out into the internet and attempt to shape peoples identities and online communities around their products.

I want the next al-Qaeda attack to happen at FB headquarters. I want to see that Gen 2 Synth Zuckercunt get dismantled. I want to see his ugly whore wife and their genetically fuarrrked up offspring get blasted in their faces with smuggled former military-owned weapons. I want to see FB headquarters squeal like piggies as they are beheaded and their executions are posted onto the internet for me take pleasure. FB derezzed me for no fuarrrking reason and derezzed me prior for a post they restored but maintain the ban. They permanently derezzed a buddy of mine for no fuarrrking reason other than "White people are not allowed to have nationalism, guys." Take a Zastava to Zuckercunt's face. Twitter should suffer too but to a lesser extent. After all, I always perceived it to be dumbass tech due to severe character limitations. If I ever had a Twitter, it would be to share links or to lost images of full written-out statement. Minds and Gab are decent although Minds needs work for search features. Discord is decent despite some idiocies.

>>13499 i hope all that happens and then they come for you next

>>13499 Hahaha the community kicks you from the fire and now you're mad at them for staying around the fire with their sheep. Is that fire really so important? Or are you just mad about manners (which probably is another fire)?

>>13508 Sadly some of my buddies still use FB and are too stubborn to share email addresses.

>>13499 you realize that your ranting about facebook banning you for all things on an imageboard. It isn't that serious just make a new account and if they ban it use a vpn to make an account

>>13480 I see you are a man of culture as well

>>13499 this, but google instead

>>13499 Solid pasta. I want the next al-Qaeda attack to happen at FB headquarters. I want to see that Gen 2 Synth Zuckercunt get dismantled. I want to see his ugly whore wife and their genetically fuarrrked up offspring get blasted in their faces with smuggled former military-owned weapons. I want to see FB headquarters squeal like piggies as they are beheaded and their executions are posted onto the internet for me take pleasure. FB derezzed me for no fuarrrking reason and derezzed me prior for a post they restored but maintain the ban. They permanently derezzed a buddy of mine for no fuarrrking reason other than "White people are not allowed to have nationalism, guys." Take a Zastava to Zuckercunt's face.

It's just them trying to be cool and hip as an advertising strategy. I don't like it but I don't mind it any more than the usual day-to-day idiocy we all experience daily.

>>13515 protip: if you want to register a google account without providing a phone number, make a new user profile and when it asks you to sign in to your google account, click "create new" or whatever. I think this is the only way.

>>13587 >make a new user profile ...on an android phone*. forgot that important detail.

>13588 >create on phone wont ask for number i bet they collect hardware id if they cant get a number incase you take out sim. The company lives from data gathering and android is their home turf.

It's just capitalism. Capitalism turns people into machines, and branding turns them back into (a simulacra of) people. Pretending to be the disembodied corporate voice of a hamburger is literally nobodies childhood dream. It's not socially useful, spiritually enriching, or ennobling work. It just serves the interests of capital and nothing else. Purge your real personality, and become a zombie persona animated by capitalism, to hawk junk on youtube. This is mental health crisis fuel.

>>13765 what are you on rn?

I don't mind if, I don't even use the sites where they post. It's a smart move by them. They hire some guy to post on their accounts to reach a wide audience. It's much cheaper than billboard posters or ads that most people block. It goes hand in hand with companies making commercials or sponsoring the videos of popular youtube people. They save a lot of money paying some guy that makes videos in his bedroom compared to a popular movie star that expects millions to hold their bottle of pepsi or whatever. I don't see an issue with that, they are not hiding anything. What I do think is silly, are companies pretending to care for social issues that pander to young people that pretend to hate capitalism.

It's programming, like subliminal messages. Implanting recurring themes of brand imagery in the subconscious of viewers by creating powerful emotional associations, using informal communication to bypass internal advertisement-filters. This allows for the brand's signs to be more effectivley implanted in the unconscious, in order to modify behavior through backdoor routes, making you into a soy-toy through unconscious thought-patterns that emerge into the consciousness and make you "of your own free will" act in their behalf.

>>13818 I dont agree, I dont think its subliminal at all really. I think the entire purpose of it is to get followers and views on whatever social media platform its on, I dont think it has anything to do with increasing product sales directly. It allows them to for one compare e peen sizes with other companies (which that may increase sales) as well as look good to investors and stockholders, two it distracts from human rights ot environmental issues, and three possibly some sort of ad revenue scheme. The times it is "subliminal" is when a larger company pits two of its own products against eachother, but thats happened forever and also isnt subliminal or registering in your unconscious but also just deceptive. My larger point or food for thought is I guess, since I know my breakdown isnt the strongest, I really dont think subconscious brainwashing ad technology and psychology is that advanced and it may be in an abandoned idea entirely. For one if any of us recognizes it, its not subconscious anymore, and once we tell other people it usually ceases to be for them. And my other point is that I think its a poor method to actually sell the product and has a different purpose. When professionalism is important its important for a company to be professional, when "clout" and being "savage" is important its important the company has "clout" and is "savage". Its still scummy and stupid and no one should laugh at it but i think its entirely about public image and that affects sales and also maybe more importantly investors. But there is no direct link where its trying to subconsciously make you crave fruity loopy toucanis rainbow cock or something. could be wrong, just proposing an alternative i think is more likely.

>>13818 okay you must remember the word "subliminal" isn't truffle oil, you don't use it for everything.

Out of all the conspiratory soykaf written on this thread, this video >>13480 is the one that makes the most amount of sense. It's as simple as that companies need to find how to sell soykaf to millenials (remember when that term was only a marketting term and had no social value added to it?) and they have no fuarrrking idea about how to do it. Their corporate studies must've shown that most people love #relatable soykaf so brands want people to feel identified with their products, like when assholes debate sony vs nintendo, pc vs mac, etc. Pure marketting and nothing more. They just want to sell you stuff.

>>13480 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6bLq4466LM Personally I think this video is more relevant. I suspect this is the reason why OP made their post.

it makes me really sad, since its the humanization of corporations through social media, which is generally viewed as a "human" form of interaction on the internet. I feel like this will spawn a trend of greater creeping corporatization on the web, and it might not be long before we see companies posting on this very website or in private chats.

It's just some stupid trend. I don't know anyone who like when windows 10 greets them with some stupid hello on installation of the OS. Or when mozilla firefox says 'blarg we are having trouble opening this tab' when the process crashes. I think, or at least I hope, advertisers will look back upon this time as a really dark age in advertising.

It's a natural consequence of advertising dominating a new medium, the search for something unique to make a brand less forgettable than the rest begins. In social media, this is the search for authenticity (or at least, emulating whatever made people love influencers so much)

>>13820 >I dont agree, I dont think its subliminal at all really. I think the entire purpose of it is to get followers and views on whatever social media platform its on, I dont think it has anything to do with increasing product sales directly. considering >>13818 I think the two most likely scenarios are that either 1) the poster wants to show off the brands he buys, but given the context of the thread: 2) it is some kind of quasi-subliminal advertisement, perhaps even untold monetized. The fact that it represents some form of karmawhoring is its own can of worms, but it's most important to be able to recognize that you are looking at perfectly laid out brands.

>>13480 /thread

Social media is poison. fuarrrk I hate it so bad.. Nothing valuable to add.

It's interesting how companies are increasingly rebranding as 'woke' while launching call-out attacks on people who have historically stood up for users rights (the obvious being RMS and Torvalds). The left keeps using these struggle sessions to vilify every internal member who doesn't walk the tightrope but it's appropriation by firms shows how impotent (and capitalist) it really is.

>>13479 You didn't post the superior one.

>>13499 >I want the next al-Qaeda attack to happen at FB headquarters. I can see you glowing in the dark glitterboy. You aren't going to pull another 8chan on us. >>17133 Pretty much this. Something as pointless, impotent and devoid of anything good like social media is bound to attract not only the type of companies to market their brands in the "new, hip and jive" way a 40 year old business man would think kids are into, but it would also attract the suckers that would fall for it hand over fist.

>>17134 Incidentally i just stumbled yesterday about the perfect illustration to that

>>17134 Wokeism is so fuarrrking stupid. Totally co-opted by wealthy white neurotics and advertising. As is the destiny of anything within this system. I also wish Facebook and to be honest most datacenters and network backbones would somehow get hit by a comet or something. The current internet is broken, needs a complete reset.

>>17144 >Totally co-opted by wealthy white neurotics and advertising. As is the destiny of anything within this system. Ironic since the original movement was built on anticapitalism and distrust of the current societal power structures. Its a shame that the new age spiritualism and anti materialism which gave the movement a unique flavor has all but evaporated following its commodification. Now its just a tool used by brands to deescalate the radical potential in society with weak appeasements of "representation."

>>17150 Yeah. The hideous, cynical, craven shapeshifting of corporate PR. They seem to be able to mimick and devour any movement.

>>17144 >>17150 the whole thing started with creating new university degrees. It was always with gov approval & money behind itself. It is the state culture sold as counterculture because that's what the hipsters eat up.

>>17152 Although it's important to keep in mind that it's corporate state culture sold as counterculture. The state is now just a whipping boy and a scapegoat used by corporations who, if you investigate the records of legislation that has passed, obviously have all but total control of it. They get to have the best of both worlds. They get to do terrible soykaf using the state as a proxy and then proceed to demonize it, thus exorcising those transgressions and making themselves look benign.

>>13442 http://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf

>>17153 Both governments and corporations are an illusion to control our minds. Everything is ultimately a grab at authoritarianism in every imaginable way. These structures exist to control people who if not controlled would basically act like wild beasts. Just look in the news and see all of the hysterical men and women, and what they do, especially when they kill over trivial matters like personal disputes. Look at any video that comes out of a Brazilian favella, or homelessness epidemic in Los Angeles. Those are just two examples of a long list, and it extends against race, age, and sex. Now I'm not saying authoritarian control is wrong (it really is) the problem is the mass manipulation we go under on a daily basis. We cannot even properly define reality anymore. The media controls reality.

>>17157 > an illusion to control our minds. K > look in the news and see all of the hysterical lain, stop. You got your own sword and a shield contradicting each other. > the problem is the mass manipulation we go under on a daily basis. Step #1: Stop looking at the "news".

Finally a thread about the changes in social media! Let met share my experience with them when the big ones we know today started: -At first I was using IRC for speaking to strangers, (world of warcraft too) and MSN to speak to people from school. -I had to join facebook to keep contact with most of my real life friends, sadly, because they were leaving MSN. -I joined Twitter in 2007 iirc It was REALLY AN AMAZING WEBSITE at the time. People were kind to each others. Not many users. People were using hashtags as a way to connect to each other when they appeared. I remember the hashtag "Follow Friday" where people were promoting people they think tweets great stuff. NOBODY WAS HERE TO MAKE MONEY (maybe 0,1%) Memes were not really a thing at the time. It was a imageboard/IRC thing. People were just starting to upload them (the old ones like rick rolling) on social media but it wasn't really "accepted" like it is today (I mean... If you want to call they memes... 99% of them are really bad today). -More and more people started joining after press articles. -Twitter turned Ok/meh because of mobile users (then it wasn't just folks with computers but also non-tech savy grandmas) -2014-2016 was the end of it all with the US political war (spam from both sides really), people started joining ONLY TO BE MEAN and spam about politics. -2016-now: The website is so cancerous even big corps are tweeting like mean teenagers. Sorry if my post is garbage, too drunk to see if it make sense or not (I'm not english)

>>17162 Definitely agree re: Twitter, 2007, hardly a super insightful site but lots of fun interacting with random people about whatever, no soykafty memes, politics were there but the important thing was they were never the main topic for most of people. Politics didn't really ruin the site for me in 2010 when things starting getting heated there, it was how people realized they could profit and ran out with it, which turned what were interesting posts into variations of the same soykaf, and eventually boring memes. I also saw something interesting with information overload, now what were whimsical profiles about life experiences are just jaded link sharing sites with some opinions (which sounds worse than it is, but it removes the fun human part) I find it interesting how quickly I found myself bored to tears with Mastodon and the likes, maybe once you discover the rules to a networking site you either follow them and become boring and throw a rebel act, and become boring. Not sure.

>>17162 Going by what you said, I think I might have an idea as to why exactly it was so fun in the start. Before Twitter, most social media sites used what I like to call the "friends" model to form connections between people. In other words, you sent someone a request to be friends, and if they approved the request then you could see each other's stuff and talk to each other. Meanwhile, Twitter popularized the "followers" model, where forming a connection is a one-way deal that's as easy as clicking the follow button, and if they want they can follow you back. What I imagine happened was this: When Twitter first hit the scene, people were still used to the friends model and so only followed people they knew, the same way that they did over on Myspace and Facebook. It wasn't all that different because the potential of the followers model hadn't yet been realized. Then the corporations, governments, ideologues, and other clout-seekers looked at this model and saw nothing but a megaphone, thus gradually turning it into the high-school-tier hellhole it is now. I honestly wish social media sites would have stuck with the whole friends model. I mean, it had its flaws, and not everyone you added would be people you know (I still remember all the Myspace friendwhores), but at least it kept people from getting too big of a voice when they don't need or deserve it. At the very least, it would curb the individuals who do the tired old dance of "post funny/interesting things to gain followers, then start spewing ideological opinions that your impressionable followers will pass on solely because you're the Cool Guy". I'd love to discuss this more, but my beef with this goes beyond corporations and I'm afraid of derailing the thread too much.

>>17164 "Mitnick" here; When I joined Twitter I have no real life friends on the site. So in MY (can be different for others) experience I was just following strangers. So, for me at least, It wasn't because of people reacting like on other websites. I wasn't even on Facebook yet iirc and never really used MySpace (we had a more popular blogging platform in my country at the time, less music related). Strangers followed me... now more than 10years later some of them are really famous/verifed and still follow me/speak to me like "the good old days". Idk man, It was WAY BETTER than today but It was still interacting with strangers for me. Idk the website "energy" was super positive. Now it's all fuarrrked. Like when Google started monetizing Youtube... Went downhill from there too... now people are camwhoring on twitch with 2 viewers for $2 donations.

Corporations endlessly seek to advertise products and make more money. There are even gas stations with televisions attached to the pumps now solely to shove more advertisements onto you and I loathe using them. People around me recount the plots to commercials or jokes contained therein during normal discussion, just as they would do with an actual television program; this is similar to celebrity gossip and the argument could be made corporations cultivate these personalities so that they will appear to be more like humans, despite being entirely unnatural, fictional, and mindless entities. Continuing with the topic of advertising, corporations have purposefully muddied the differences between telling someone about something (word-of-mouth advertising), an advertisement that gives detailed technical information about a product intended for professionals, demonstrations of products at conventions or other locations, and the current most common form of advertising which has no relation to the product and merely exists as a real-life drive-by brainwashing attempt of attrition by virtue of attempting to be everywhere one would look. I once told people that the difference between normal advertising and telling an acquaintance about something was word-of-mouth, but the recent trend of influencers has eroded even that. A related topic is all of the memes that prominently feature branded products. It's horrifying to venture over and look at a 4chan board, littered with memes that are very clearly thinly-veiled advertisements, and then realize that many of the people probably don't recognize that these are actually advertisements. I've reached the point where I don't care if mentioning brand name products in a film, song, or anything else adds verisimilitude, I'd rather not see it, because it's clearly just an advertisement in the end. I've recently come across this video I've attached to my post. It's an AMV (Anime Music Video) and the chorus mentions three brand name snack products about the codemonkey main character. You could interpret this as merely adding verisimilitude to the video, but I'm inclined to the more cynical view that this is an advertisement or should at least be treated as one. Think of how convenient it is for a corporation to hire someone to take other people's work and then weave product mentions in; you don't need to pay for licensing, ask for permission, or any such thing. It's plausibly deniable advertising and further evidence that copyright primarily benefits those in power. Never think corporations have anything resembling human morality. The only reason you don't see Jesus Christ and Muhammad drinking branded soda together is because the corporations have decided it would currently lose them money and they'll do it the second it wouldn't. In closing, I'm a recluse and avoid seeing the supposedly thousands of advertisements that other people see daily and even then I'm still bombarded by them at times. My best advice is to attempt to care and be strict in cutting unnecessary garbage out of your life. Don't want for popular films or music and entirely avoid the poisonous snack food and drink that makes up the bulk of advertising; most of the films are garbage anyway, you can get better music from independent musicians, and you'll genuinely feel better once you stop eating snacks constantly and drinking soda. It will clear your mind, even if only a little, and you'll likely notice you didn't really want those things on your own anyway. I could keep going on or elaborating on my various positions, but I believe this post is long enough and anyone reading it will understand my points.

>>17184 Adtech has certainly devoured the world. The most pathetic thing about it is that it's not even necessary; it's just an arms race. Everyone has to do it to be competitive, but if everybody abstained then things would be about the same. Advertising is a parasite that adds no real value to anything, and now that surveillance advertising has started it will never stop. We better fuarrrking hope that no reliably fidelous BMI is invented anytime soon, because I guarantee you ads are going straight into your brain the millisecond that happens. If I was totalitarian for a day, all of the advertising industry straight to the gulag. March 'em into the sea. Those terrible gas pump commercials definitely make me try to find a different gas station, but soon enough they'll all have 'em. Once I was living in a place where there was really only one station nearby and they put them up one day, so I went there with a hoodie and a coathanger in the night and jammed it through the speaker grilles and at least made the damn things silent.

>>17187 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg02ivYzSs

>>17194 Ugh. This is the color of my nightmares.

>>13901 >it makes me really sad, since its the humanization of corporations through social media The use of "social media" by a corporation doesn't make it human. >which is generally viewed as a "human" form of interaction on the internet. There is nothing about "social media" that limits it to human-use. >I feel like this will spawn a trend of greater creeping corporatization on the web It won't "spawn" anything. What, exactly, has happened in the recent past, e.g. the past decade, that could be characterized, reasonably, as "corporatization of the web"? Hasn't it always been corporate? >it might not be long before we see companies posting on this very website or in private chats. So what? (For all you know, I could be a corporation.) What legitimate reason could there be to restrict persons who are corporations from posting to, lainchan? The only reason of which I am aware is illegitimate: irrational predjudice. If a person of that sort behaves in a manner that is inappropriate for lainchan, it is not the fact that that person is of that sort that is inappropriate for lainchan, it is the inappropriate behaviour. It suffices, then, for lainchan to ban those inappropriate behaviours. And It's just hypertext. What's the difference to the consumer who the producer is? And it shouldn't matter whether the hypertaxt is in a private chat, a small imageboard, wherever. The consumer of that hypertext needs to be wary, or have his computer be wary in his stead, of whatever data he might consume. (Am I a corporation?)

>>17238 The use of social media doesn't make a corporation human, but corporations use it strictly to seem human, and they strictly try to seem human. People started to hate corporations so corporations are trying to seem less like corporations and more like humans. Corporations are even giving the image "hey we hate corporations as much as you do, we want to fight capitalism like you, so buy from us" which is just hypocritical and dirty. Sure this doesn't mean "let's censor corporations and prevent them from posting" that's terrible. If a corporation wrote on lain people would probably just ignore it. Same with chats. It is actually known that companies at times do this both on the internet and in real life. They act like two humans arguing between each other on which Coca Cola drink is better and finding common ground that both are better than Pepsi or something. While this is super soykafty behavior in my opinion you can just ignore it just like the other thousands of soykafposts found everywhere. The only way that it is acceptable to censor posts of corporations is if they are spam or are not quality posts. If there was a company creating a thread every 0.5 seconds in Lain of course that would be censored.

>>17238 sophistry

>>13442 I hate it. I'm actively nostalgic for the soulless consumerist dystopia I thought was coming down the line, where we'd all have to be McLovin it(tm). There's something perverse and dehumanizing about watching this spectacle. But then I hate everything about the modern web, so maybe I'm just a stupid old man attached to the delusional idea that people should act like people. >>13818 >>13820 An interesting effect it has on people that I read about is that it makes you think about the brand as kind of similar to a person, with a personality. This is why you sometimes get the perverse spectacle of people attacking actual human beings for having the cheek to sass their favourite brands after the brand retweets it with a smackdown of their own.

>>17144 Wokeism is when large corporations pretend to care about the idiots that pretend to hate large corporations. Of course it's going to be fuarrrk¡ng stupid. Alienating a large part of your customer base is an incredibly stupid strategy, no matter the reason, because let's accept it, the "SJW intersectional socialists" they cater to, are but a very tiny minority of people.

>>17157 >The media controls reality And it so happens that any person with half a brain knows that already. Big corporations have stopped using the traditional "media" to control the narrative. It's now all about those precious astroturfing campaigns and Twitter bots.