Minds and Machines

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 341–347 | Cite as

Delegating Religious Practices to Autonomous Machines, A Reply to “Prayer-Bots and Religious Worship on Twitter: A Call for a Wider Research Agenda”

  • Yaqub ChaudharyEmail author


Öhman et al. (2019) have drawn attention to the phenomenon of Islamic Prayer-Bots and religious worship on Twitter and social media platforms, which, they argue, has gone unnoticed by the research community, despite the significant scale of the activity. In this case, prayers and supplications are automatically posted to the accounts of real people by third party services through the accounts of real users who “creatively automate a facet of their online activity.”

The authors argue that this type of activity has been outside the scope of the prevailing discourse on social media bots, which tends to focus on fully automated accounts, whereas the activity identified in the study is an interpolation of human and bot activity through single accounts. Previous work has described accounts that are operated by both bots and humans as “cyborg” accounts, which were first identified on Twitter by Chu et al. (2010, 2012) . However, such hybrid accounts in general appear to have...



  1. Alarifi, A., Alsaleh, M., & Al-Salman, A. (2016). Twitter turing test: Identifying social machines. Information Sciences, 372, 332–346. Scholar
  2. Campbell, H. (2013). Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in new media worlds. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Chu, Z., et al. (2010). Who is tweeting on Twitter: Human, bot, or cyborg? In Proceedings of the 26th annual computer security applications conference onACSAC’10. The 26th annual computer security applications conference (p. 21). Austin, TX: ACM Press.
  4. Chu, Z., et al. (2012). Detecting automation of twitter accounts: Are you a human, bot, or cyborg? IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 9(6), 811–824. Scholar
  5. Durante, M. (Ed.) (2017) The morality of artificial agents. In Ethics, law and the politics of information: A guide to the philosophy of luciano floridi. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 61–82. (The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology).
  6. Ferrara, E., et al. (2016). The rise of social bots. Communications of the ACM, 59(7), 96–104. Scholar
  7. Floridi, L. (2011). The construction of personal identities online. Minds and Machines, 21(4), 477–479. Scholar
  8. Floridi, L. (2014) The 4th revolution: How the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Accessed February 28, 2019.
  9. Floridi, L. (2015). The ethics of information (Reprint ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Floridi, L. (2018). Artificial intelligence, deepfakes and a future of ectypes. Philosophy & Technology, 31(3), 317–321. Scholar
  11. Hongladarom, S. (2011). Personal identity and the self in the online and offline world. Minds and Machines, 21(4), 533–548. Scholar
  12. Öhman, C., & Floridi, L. (2017). The political economy of death in the age of information: A critical approach to the digital afterlife industry. Minds and Machines, 27(4), 639–662. Scholar
  13. Öhman, C., Gorwa, R., & Floridi, L. (2019). Prayer-bots and religious worship on twitter: A call for a wider research agenda. Minds and Machines Scholar
  14. Stieglitz, S., et al. (2017). Do social bots dream of electric sheep? A categorisation of social media bot accounts. arXiv:1710.04044 [cs]. Accessed February 27, 2019.
  15. Wagner, R. (2012). Godwired: Religion, ritual, and virtual reality. Abingdon, Oxon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Woolley, S. C., & Howard, P. N. (2016). Automation, algorithms, and politics| political communication, computational propaganda, and autonomous agents—Introduction. International Journal of Communication, 10, 9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cambridge Muslim CollegeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations