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

241–250 of 585 posts

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

#241

Post by 1270018080 »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #221
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…

Well this analogy leaves out Twitter censorship, which makes Twitter unlikeable.

Adding to the analogy: The current owners of the home regularly remove swastikas spraypainted on their house by vandals, and some people call this a violation of free speech.

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

#242

Post by orlp »

qq66 wrote: post #228

All of this is just a theatrical farce by business guys. The market went down, Elon doesn't want to pay, Twitter has a pretty good negotiating position, the parties will settle out of court for $3-5 billion.

Why would Twitter settle?

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

#243

Post by loceng »

jcranmer wrote: post #34
nomel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still can't get over the banana-pants insanity of the first count As someone who's unfamiliar with this, could you explain what's banana-pants insane about a company inflating their hard-to-discover numbers, for profit? I thought that was, unfortunately, banana-pants standard? For example, the fiction that is Twitter or Reddit's user count.

Twitter is a public company (and has been for 9 years), and has maintained the 5% mDAU disclaimer in its required annual reports for years. I don't know off-hand how long it's been doing so, but probably at least 4 or 5 years. The allegation is saying not only that Twitter has been lying about that number--for years, on documents that land it in legal hot water if it's been lying--but that it was doing so specificall…

... "but that it was doing so specifically so that Musk would buy Twitter at an inflated price."

The insanity is people being perfectionistic in that it was specific intent to target him to buy it - even if it says "him" - it's absurd that people are taking that literally, and not simply to "make it seem valuable for someone to buy."

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

#244

Post by shapefrog »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #183
moralestapia wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it is actually worse than that, I think he was buying it in good faith.

He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone.

I know, if I buy 44bn worth then at this rate I will make many many billions ...

Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancelled. Best guess is he is down 10bn on where he bid so his loss-porn on this one is pretty sexy.

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

#245

Post by joenot443 »

dragontamer wrote: post #118
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…

> 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)…

> Musk's popularity is largely BECAUSE of his Twitter antics

I don't really buy this. I knew loads of Musk fanboys who were crazy about him before Teslas even become available. The 50+ folks that I'm friends with have mostly never used Twitter or read a Musk tweet, but they think Teslas are cool and are reminded that StarLink brought rural Ontario better internet than our own government tried to do for decades. Obviously Musk is an ass on Twitter (and probably in person), but like a lot of neuroatypicals, their talent seemingly makes up for their abrasiveness.

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

#246

Post by shapefrog »

1270018080 wrote: post #241
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this analogy leaves out Twitter censorship, which makes Twitter unlikeable.

Adding to the analogy: The current owners of the home regularly remove swastikas spraypainted on their house by vandals, and some people call this a violation of free speech.

Removing swastikas graffitied all over the place, political correctness gone mad.

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

#247

Post by ryantgtg »

fooey wrote: post #151
nomel wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still can't get over the banana-pants insanity of the first count As someone who's unfamiliar with this, could you explain what's banana-pants insane about a company inflating their hard-to-discover numbers, for profit? I thought that was, unfortunately, banana-pants standard? For example, the fiction that is Twitter or Reddit's user count.

There's a whole assumption that bots are a net negative to the platforms value besides any arguments over how many of them there are. As a human, it's annoying to get get a reply notification only to discover it was bot spam, but from the platform perspective that bot just created user activity and content for you for free. I have a theory that the most embarrassing thing to come out of this might be that Twitter doe…

I have like 9 twitter bots and they’re all cool and interesting. I wonder if Musk’s tool differentiates between cool and uncool bots.

In the past I tried to write bots that do things like reply to people, but that is a violation of the TOS and twitter would immediately identify and ban the account.

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

#248

Post by threeseed »

kennxfl wrote: post #174
8ytecoder wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He claimed to buy Twitter, specifically, to clean it up; to get rid of bots. That was his stated goal. "If our twitter bid succeeds, we will defeat the spam bots or die trying!" https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1517215066550116354

Apparently Twitter subpoenaed Musk's friends and colleagues who were actively tweeting about the deal with what is believed to be an attempt to prove he encouraged his posse tweet negatively to force a lower price.

David Sachs, prominent VC was one of those subpoenaed and he definitely seemed a little sensitive about it:

https://twitter.com/DavidSacks/status/1554258141876932608

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

#249

Post by breakfastduck »

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…

Except it's kinda funny because the 'homeowner' has spent 10 years developing the primordial cesspool that the buyer has evolved out of and it's kinda funny that some famous rich narcissist they've built an entire social network around empowering is now fucking them over.

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

#250

Post by breakfastduck »

throwawayacc2 wrote: post #179
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…

I am, not because I think “the buyer is right” but because I hate the seller with a passion. Twitter has done terrible harm to society and whatever and whoever does it harm, it’s doing a good job in my book.

Quite funny than the person doing twitter 'harm' is exactly the kind of famous, pompous narcissistic asshole their entire platform has been built around enabling.
Post reply on HN