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

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

#571

Post by _djo_ » Sun, Aug 07, 2022, 3:17 PM UTC

loceng wrote: post #570

_djo_ wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it is, because Twitter has no close analogues. There’s nothing to base an industry-wide standard on. All company figures involve some level of trust that they’re based on correct processes as signed off by audit firms. For areas of material interest you’re supposed to do due diligence before signing final offers, but Musk explicitly waived that for some bizarre reason.

If you can't with 100% certainty determine the number of real users you have you shouldn't be putting out any number, and second to that, you have to be open to challenges that "your"/their analysis isn't reasonable; from what it sounds like, based on what Elon had said or alluded to, the way Twitter determined bot % was they had staff manually and "randomly" select literally just 100 accounts, and based on their own…

You have not done enough work to understand this issue before picking a side, and it shows.

For one, this is not about what percentage of Twitter users are bots.

Nor have you accurately or fairly described Twitter’s methodology for verifying their mDAU figures.

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

#572

Post by Kaze404 » Sun, Aug 07, 2022, 4:05 PM UTC

Banana699 wrote: post #563

Kaze404 wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter, the platform where trans people are routinely called pedophiles and groomers by prominent figures and nobodies alike, has a censorship problem? I can't imagine the kind of vitriol you have to spew to get banned off Twitter that's not just tripping the automatic ban for telling someone to die (which everyone is aware of at this point).

Here we go with that bullshit again. Do you have a link of an example of what you say ? Were the people in those linked example not banned at the time? On average, how many people calling your precious "trans people" pedophiles and groomers are banned vs. how many of the trans people themselves get banned when they say things equivalent or far worse ? It's mindblowing to me how the most coddled and put-on-a-pedestal…

I am one of those people. Last March one person went down on my profile and replied to multiple tweets calling me a groomer and a pedophile, with those exact words, and was not banned after I reported them.

I'm not going to acknowledge the second paragraph because it's just hilariously out of touch with reality.

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

#573

Post by Banana699 » Sun, Aug 07, 2022, 5:22 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #569

Banana699 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic of this entire HN discussion thread is, indeed, nominally about the legal minutia. But the topic of the super comment we're both arguing in reply to is "Who could possibly be on the side of Musk", i.e. a question about the relative sympathy both sides of the legal dispute evoke. My reply to that, the one this entire sub-thread is a reply to, is that Musk evokes greater sympathy, because of how twatter abuse…

So are you on Elon Musk's side on this case, and what evidence points you on Musk's side? It's fine to have your own personal bias here. We all do. But at a minimum, discussing why we hold those views is beneficial for both of us. If you are just anti-twitter then that's good that you are admitting that. It at least gives me something to work with from a discussion point of view. But ideally, you should be discussing…

>So are you on Elon Musk's side on this case, and what evidence points you on Musk's side?

That would imply I want him to win, when in reality I just want twitter to lose. I don't particularly care what happens to Musk, I just want him to deal maximum damage to twitter, at whatever cost to him it takes.

>It's fine to have your own personal bias here. We all do. But at a minimum, discussing why we hold those views is beneficial for both of us.

I did say why I hate twitter and want them to lose this case: they are a bunch dumb anti-free-speechers who coddle certain groups and ban others arbitarily, and on top of that their terrible poisonous platform is not conducive to intelligent speech.

>why Twitters argument here is wrong and why you think they'd lose this court battle.

I don't have a particulary strong expectation that they will lose, indeed if anything their legal position is stronger than Musk, as the experts are fond of saying. My hope is that they will underestimate Musk and do something dumb that will hurt their position and force a favorable concession that will hurt them more. Even if they win, that might anger or humiliate Musk so much that he destroys twitter out of anger, this is still fine by me.

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

#574

Post by kukx » Sun, Aug 07, 2022, 5:26 PM UTC

nocoiner wrote: post #556

kukx wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically making a claim that he is a bad businessman without mentioning that he is one of the richest people in the world. Why should anyone take your arguments seriously?

He signed a binding acquisition agreement in a $44 billion dollar deal without doing any due diligence. Bigger deals have been struck on similar timeframes, but rarely has the purchaser evidenced such obvious buyer’s remorse so quickly afterward, or embarked on the venture with as little thought as he put toward it. That’s a pretty weighty fact on the scale of “Musk - canny businessperson, or remarkable streak of bei…

So you suggest he is a bad businessman and his success is only attributable to luck. To understand how ridiculous this claim is you first need to realize that there are infinite ways to fail and very very little ways to succeed. Good and bad decisions are not symmetric, it is not 50:50, it is more like infinite:1. But even if it was 50:50, for the thought experiment sake, if you make random decisions you quickly make a bad one, and to be successful you need to make way, way more good decisions than bad ones. Sure luck is obviously always a factor, but thinking that he created a car that he later sent to space on his own rocket is not a sign of extraordinary competence, well, to me you can as well claim that the Earth is flat.

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

#575

Post by Consultant32452 » Sun, Aug 07, 2022, 7:43 PM UTC

root_axis wrote: post #438

Consultant32452 wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What personal consequences do you think should come to the members of the administration that sent lists of accounts to Twitter and other social media companies requesting bans?

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, could you please provide a link?

Here's the first article that popped up. Easy to find from a simple google search. https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for...

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

#576

Post by snovv_crash » Sun, Aug 07, 2022, 10:44 PM UTC

kevingadd wrote: post #496

snovv_crash wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is relevant. When the curtain is pulled back and it is revealed that all of the accounts are bots, advertisers will stop spending money with Twitter.

If the ads are converting all the way through the chain, they don't really have any reason to care whether it's "bots" making those purchases and service sign-ups or not.

That's a big if. Bots don't typically spend money.

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

#577

Post by eru » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 2:37 AM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #542

eru wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's more complicated. The incumbent management of Twitter are not the owners of Twitter. Initially, Musk bought shares of Twitter on the open market from willing sellers (previous homeowners in your analogy). Because of various regulations he could not just keep doing that, and instea…

I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property. The janitors at Twitter HQ are like the janitor that cleans a property.

> I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property.

Are you referring to Twitter management also holding shares? Or some other aspect?

For my argument, it's perfectly fine if some shareholders are also employees. In their role as shareholders, they would still be selling voluntarily (or not selling, as the case may be).

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

#578

Post by antifa » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 12:24 PM UTC

jollybean wrote: post #555

antifa wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Conservative voices are a bit suppressed in some places, like on Campus. I think it's a bit misleading though. Who would goto college and listen to somebody repeat ad nauseum their parent's conservative talking points they've already heard their entire lifes? Or listen to someone even more radically conservative than their parents? Also a lot of those "suppressed" people were just openly bigoted and claiming to feel…

Well you've proved my point for me. Your assumption that 'conservative' voices lack in legitimacy and are merely repetitious of their parents views, and worse, that they are trying to 'persecute' people is itself obviously bigoted, and gives us a crystal clear example of the problem. Even views such as 'people ought to be treated for who they are and not their intersecting identities' is oddly 'conservative' in 2022.…

> Even views such as 'people ought to be treated for who they are and not their intersecting identities' is oddly 'conservative' in 2022.

Claiming to do this while doing the opposite is a popular "conservative" position in 2022.

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

#579

Post by iLoveOncall » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 4:24 PM UTC

bambax wrote: post #143

ncallaway wrote: post #80

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…

But is there a world where Musk would rather pay $15B and not get anything in return rather than pay $50B and get Twitter in return?

Short term he would fork out a lot more money, but long term he has a company that can grow...

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

#580

Post by matwood » Mon, Aug 08, 2022, 4:59 PM UTC

metadat wrote: post #130

matwood wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree there won't be any meet in the middle. Neither Musk nor Twitter want Musk to own Twitter now though. What's happening today is negotiating the break up fee which starts at the difference between current market cap and 54B (~22B today). The accelerated trial date put Musk on notice. The SEC may not take enforcing the rules seriously, but Delaware has made it their business to enforce the rules that make it att…

Why settle for only $10B? Musk's shenanigans have resulted in significant long-term damage to Twitter in the form uncertainty and distracting Twitter from focusing on operating and growing the business (because they've changed internal policies / direction, and shared a lot of information with Musk, as per the acquisition agreement). It's only fair for mullosk to be on the hook for the full purchase or at the very le…

There's value in ending it sooner than 2 mos. for the reasons you bring up. I'm sure the court is also encouraging them to settle. While the court has forced transactions to complete before, I'm not so sure they want to be forcing a 54B transaction to go through. 10B would be ~$13/share that Twitter could 1-time dividend if they chose.