Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 585 posts

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#181

Post by anothernewdude »

762236 wrote: post #140
jjeaff wrote: post #105

Imagine this whole ordeal playing out on a house that was not listed for sale. The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. His antics are hurting the home's value so you relent to selling and give him an as-is sale contract, which he signs and gives you 24 hrs to respond or he will try to force a sale. All the while, this is of co…

[flagged]

So you're an asshole and think others should have to put up with you? I doubt they do in real life, why should it be different online?

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#182

Post by hunterb123 »

pcmoney wrote: post #126
hunterb123 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen credible evidence that they are right about their numbers? Without Twitter providing more context and showing their work, the number can't be trusted, thus it isn't credible. If you claim you have such a low number of bots (5%), you better prove it, otherwise I'll assume the worst and go with 20%. Anyone that goes on Twitter knows it's above 5%. All 3rd party estimations are well above 5%. Prove it Twit…

They literally never claimed this was accurate and even said their methodology could be wrong. Nothing in the contract says anything about bots. They don’t have to prove anything at all.

> They literally never claimed this was accurate

> and even said their methodology could be wrong

Yeah that's my point, their supplied number is unusable for investors, advertisers, etc.

Combine that with the bot experiences on Twitter, the 3rd party estimates of 10-20% if looks way off.

I don't see why NOW anyone would trust 5%. Diligence has NOW been done and that "methodology could be wrong" looks likely.

-- EDIT (post limit) --

> But that's the whole point - Musk waived his right to do due diligence, so he is pointing at this statement being wrong (and not unusable) as his way out.

@suresk, that's not a thing, but it is a talking point, but I'm not debating that. I'm saying NOW that the diligence is done and we know it's probably not accurate. See my first post.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#183

Post by Rebelgecko »

moralestapia wrote: post #135
dragontamer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. Its so ridiculous. Musk's popularity is largely *BECAUSE* of his Twitter antics. So this "buyer" is basically someone who has come to house-parties / benefited from the house in question for the last decade. And the people arguing against the (current owners)…

Quoted post unavailable.

Your comment implies that there was a time when he was actually trying to buy the "house" in good faith. I'm not convinced that is true... It gave him a great excuse to liquidate Tesla stock without the market responding as strongly as it normally would when a CEO unloads billions of dollars of shares in a company

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#184

Post by phailhaus »

bostonsre wrote: post #138
phailhaus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane because Twitter has been very careful to explain that the 5% number is not some sort of "promise". > Additionally, our calculation of mDAU is not based on any standardized industry methodology and is not necessarily calculated in the same manner or comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. Similarly, our measures of mDAU growth and engagement may differ from estimates published…

Twitter added a loop hole saying that their data might be incorrect. It seems disingenuous to absolve them of all sins if their data is hugely incorrect to the point where it's fraudulent just because they added that loop hole.

There's no standard or foolproof way to find bots, otherwise we'd be able to just ban them all. It all requires judgement. Twitter's statement is acknowledging this fact and legally covering themselves from people just like Musk who might go "well I have my own calculation metric and it says there's more."

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#185

Post by bentcorner »

762236 wrote: post #140
jjeaff wrote: post #105

Imagine this whole ordeal playing out on a house that was not listed for sale. The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. His antics are hurting the home's value so you relent to selling and give him an as-is sale contract, which he signs and gives you 24 hrs to respond or he will try to force a sale. All the while, this is of co…

[flagged]

> This gets my curiosity going, so now I'm paying a lot more attention to conservatives than is normal for me (on Substack, YouTube, and Instagram).

This is a phrase right out of this playbook. No thank you.

https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-an...

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#186

Post by percentcer »

iasay wrote: post #123
dragontamer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. Its so ridiculous. Musk's popularity is largely *BECAUSE* of his Twitter antics. So this "buyer" is basically someone who has come to house-parties / benefited from the house in question for the last decade. And the people arguing against the (current owners)…

If his popularity is due to what he posts on twitter it would appear that a large proportion of the human race are deranged morons.

got bad news for you

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#187

Post by 762236 »

muglug wrote: post #167
762236 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The fact you think that Twitter supports "left orthodoxy" just means the conservatives have successfully moved the goalposts to make you believe they're the real victims. Twitter is full of very prominent hard-right voices. Douglas Murray! Charles Murray! Tucker Carlson! Dave Rubin! Ben Shapiro! Edit: Bannon! Paul Joseph Watson! Jack Posobiec!

I see lots of people getting banned for, e.g., being gender critical, or for sharing the actual stats from vaccine trials when those stats make the vaccines look bad. Twitter seems to respond to coordinated complaints against conservatives. My guess is that you can get Twitter to silence a conservative that doesn't have too many followers through these ambushes, but you can't get Twitter to silence established and well-known conservatives such as those you mentioned.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#189

Post by 762236 »

bentcorner wrote: post #185
762236 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> This gets my curiosity going, so now I'm paying a lot more attention to conservatives than is normal for me (on Substack, YouTube, and Instagram). This is a phrase right out of this playbook. No thank you. https://medium.com/@DeoTasDevil/the-rhetoric-tricks-traps-an...

It's called the Streisand effect.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#190

Post by 762236 »

markdown wrote: post #165
762236 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What are your thoughts on TruthSocial, which is also "a company of bullies, with how they ban people from their service that down't conform"?

I haven't used TruthSocial, but if they do the same (but towards liberals), then TruthSocial has already failed.
Post reply on HN