251–260 of 585 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. -- EDI…
People keep trying to explain to you why you're wrong and you keep on ignoring them and persisting with your original false statement. The 5% number claimed by Twitter is not the percentage of all accounts that are bots . That has never been the claim. Twitter separates its accounts into "mDAU"s and "other", and they are claiming 5% of the mDAUs are bots. You cannot falsify this claim with "bot experiences on Twitter…
3rd party estimations range from 10-20% for mDAU bots, Twitter's is 5%.
Others were defending it by saying "well the number doesn't have to be accurate legally" or "well Musk should have known it's not really accurate".
My counter is that weasel legal wording and logic doesn't give much confidence in Twitter's number at all for FUTURE buyers, advertisers, investors, etc.
They should show their work and prove their number or investors / advertisers / buyers should lower their valuations to reflect somewhere in the middle.
But Twitter hasn't really ever been about the money so the status quo will stay the same.
- edit -
@blitzar: https://sparktoro.com/blog/sparktoro-followerwonk-joint-twit... you can see their methodology here.
Despite two different mDAU classifications, both of the datasets from SparkToro and Followerwonk were about 20% mDAU bots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musk has no legal standing to use any of that to back out of the merger. The claim is that Twitters SEC filings had bots at ~5%, and Musk made the investment based on that. From the leaked recordings of staff, everyone knew that the percentage was much higher.
Nope, Twitter has been very clear in their filings: > 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 by third parties or from similarly titled metrics of our c…
Not to mention that some of Musk's publicly stated reasons for the purchase are to reduce the bot problem to improve Twitter's value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, academic research has questioned the 5% number for years. USC and IU put out a report 5 years ago that believed the upper bound for fake accounts was 15%[0]. This isn't a new allegation. 0: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-ac...
From your source: > our estimates suggest that between 9% and 15% of active Twitter accounts are bots From Twitter: “roughly 5% of our monetizable daily users are bots”. Both can be true at the same time, and it does not mean that Twitter lied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> allows some opinions while banning others Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes? Con: LOL no...no not those views Me: So....deregulation? Con: Haha no not those views either Me: Which views, exactly? Con: Oh, you know the ones https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355267174...
Quoted post unavailable.
And you really need to explain how that proves your point about twitter. In general, if someone makes a really dumb response to you, that doesn't prove you right about anything. And if your argument is "twitter has bad comments" then a bad comment on HN doesn't prove that right.
" The merger agreement contained no references to false or spam accounts, and Musk didn't ask Twitter for any information to verify the number of spam accounts before signing the merger deal, Twitter said. "To the contrary, Musk forwent all due diligence—giving Twitter twenty-four hours to accept his take-it-or-leave-it offer before he would present it directly to Twitter's stockholders," Twitter wrote. " If that's t…
Not entirely moot. If Musk could demonstrate that the 5% number was actually a fraud (that is, not just wrong, but people were lying about it) and show that the true number is so different that it would cause a material adverse effect, then he’d have an argument to escape the contract even with the DD waiver. I don’t think he has a shot in hell at demonstrating fraud, given the various disclaimers around the quoted f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think there’s any world where that happens. I think a judge would either order specific performance (e.g. do the thing the contract says, as specified in the contract), or we’re talking about damages (e.g. pay Twitter $X, but you don’t get anything in return). I think a purchase at a lower price would probably only come from a settlement between the parties, and… I think that’s likely. Twitter didn’t want to…
> I think Twitter is going to use the threat of specific performance to try and extract a damages settlement greater than the contractual $1B from Musk. Yeah that's what makes the most sense. Musk doesn't want to buy Twitter anymore, forcing him to buy it is not a very good solution. It's possible to do, and certainly enforceable, but not a desirable outcome for anyone. But, having him pay $10 or even $15 billions as…
Similarly, if the fine is smaller, Twitter share-holders would be better off just forcing him to buy and forgoing the fine.
So a settlement number seems kinda hard to agree on, unless they have differing opinions on what the company is currently worth.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
FWIW, academic research has questioned the 5% number for years. USC and IU put out a report 5 years ago that believed the upper bound for fake accounts was 15%[0]. This isn't a new allegation. 0: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-ac...
5% of users is not a claim that Twitter made.