3 ms·
Odd that they counted in the first place. Maybe this is part of a phased roll out to identify first (refine the models), then take punitive action? The cynic i
by josefresco 8y ago
Odd that they counted in the first place. Maybe this is part of a phased roll out to identify first (refine the models), then take punitive action?
The cynic in me says they counted in the first place because it helped everyone's ego (and wallet)
"Most of the time, according to Twitter, the locked accounts are not included in the monthly active user count it reports to investors each quarter, a critical Wall Street metric for social media companies. But the locked accounts were nevertheless allowed to inflate the follower counts of a large swath of users.
That choice helped propel a large market in fake followers. Dozens of websites openly sell followers and engagement on Twitter, as well as on YouTube, Instagram and other platforms. The Times revealed that one company, Devumi, sold over 200 million Twitter followers, drawing on an estimated stock of at least 3.5 million automated accounts, each sold many times over."
- jf 8y ago> The cynic in me says they counted in the first place because it helped everyone's ego (and wallet) I don't think you're being cynical. They counted in the first place because it helped their _metrics_ – Twitter is in the business of selling advertising and made the decisions they did in service of their advertising metrics.
- throwaway427 8y agoI remember skimming their quarterly report a year or two ago and being shocked that they focused so much on user acquisition as a core KPI given it was clear how goosed those numbers were. I was expecting slightly more complex CLV type numbers but instead they were fawning over a glorified "select count(*) from users".