3 ms·

I think this is the first time I disagree with you. Bot problem, perhaps not. Spam problem, definitely. https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1487022342630957062?s=

• memish 5y ago
  For those blindly downvoting that, here's what Paul Graham said: "Either (a) Twitter is terribly bad at detecting spam or (b) there's something about Twitter that makes detecting spam difficult or (c) they don't care. Based on my experience detecting spam, I'd guess (c)." "Twitter engineering: If you're going to do such a bad job of catching spam, how about at least giving us a one-click way to report a tweet as spam and block the account, like email providers do? It may even help you get better at filtering, since more reports = more signal."
  • sillysaurusx 5y ago
    They’re likely downvoting my somewhat dubious claim of being able to singlehandedly make a big dent in crypto spam tweets. I appreciate your gesture, but I don’t mind the downvotes. Bold claims warrant skepticism. And talking about votes makes the conversation less interesting for the audience. But you’re right to point out that the problem isn’t nearly as intractable as it seems. There are many ways to deter crypto spammers. Think of it this way: suppose Twitter’s stock price was inversely proportional to the amount of crypto spam (without accidentally removing genuine tweets). Does anyone believe the stock price would go down? It’s why I suspect Twitter simply hasn’t made it a priority.
  • andai 5y ago
    I remember reading several times that the enormous number of bots on Twitter inflates their "active users" stats and therefore their stock price, which is why they aren't fighting it.
  • recuter 5y ago
    Gotta get those engagement KPIs up somehow. This is the simplest and most obvious explanation. Also see reddit, with most small Reddits being spam/porn. These are in many ways Potemkin websites. The emperor is naked.
  • jjfoooo4 5y ago
    An evidence free statement by Paul Graham - why should we consider him an expert, other than his wealth?
• caslon 5y ago
  The problem is false positives. Graham's experience of combating spam involved writing a Bayesian filter for his mailbox. That's fine. Somebody misses a message and one of the two parties feels bad, but they eventually either catch up or get over it. You can't "leave" that platform. Twitter, on the other hand, is pretty sensitive to false positives, and the vernacular is so unique that naive Bayesian filtering would destroy a lot of communities with their own vocabularies and languages. If messages start arbitrarily dropping on it, its users won't stick around. Sure, you could absolutely knock out spam. It wouldn't be that hard. Because fighting spam isn't the hard part. It's dodging the problem of firing on innocent people that the spam is using as body shields that's the hard part. They already get incredible volumes of criticism for what little false positives they already have. Imagine if it was normal to be put in a time-out box by a Bayesian filter that wasn't tailored for your community! Combating spam is something that has very few possible upsides for twitter, and a catastrophic failure case. Right now, spam mostly tends to effect larger accounts, who are going to stay on the platform anyway, because it's where the people are. What little spam small accounts see is manageable, and they won't leave because of it because it's so insignificant. If suddenly they couldn't send messages to others at random and without warning? Why would they stick around, then?
  • newswasboring 5y ago
    I do believe Twitter isn't doing well at fighting spam, also that it's a pretty hard problem. But where do you think people will go after leaving Twitter? Is there an option?
    • caslon 5y ago
      Does it matter where they'll go? People will always find some spot on the internet to have conversations after a given platform hits the friction threshold, and some might not even go anywhere: They might just leave. Where people will go doesn't really matter, because there are a billion places they can, and there's not always a clear migration path. Sometimes, a social platform just dies, and its communities form a diaspora on different platforms, without any "clear" successor (like what happened to Orkut), or just stop doing the whole social media thing (many Google+ contributors no longer post online anywhere).
• onion2k 5y ago
  I’d happily bet you any sum of your choosing that I’d make a pretty big dent in the crypto spam within a few months of full-time effort. Could you do that while also making sure no false positives happen? Elon is making claims that he wants to make Twitter a platform where people are truly free to say what they want, so any spam that gets removed that isn't spam would be seen in a very poor light. Eliminating spam when you're happy to have a few other things end up in the spam folder by mistake is relatively simple. Likewise, eliminating most of the spam but letting some through because it looks real is also quite easy. Eliminating only spam and nothing else is significantly harder.