5 ms·

The point is that their definition of active is inaccurate. You can be an active user and not tweet.

by nend 4y ago

jquery 4y ago
For most of Twitter’s existence, this was me. I used Twitter a lot but I never tweeted.
chorsestudios 4y ago
Twitter requires users to log in before lurking so their definition of activity is intentionally selective. I'd be surprised if Twitter doesn't know how active their users actually are, even the lurkers.
- dcow 4y ago
  I read lots of tweets and don't have a Twitter account, or at least one that I've logged into in the last 10 years... The philosophical question seems to be, "am I a Twitter user"? You could probably argue that most of the world read Twitter and hence are users, account or none. It's that pervasive. But then there's the next question: "am I a user that reportedly matters to Twitter's business?". What people are trying to land on, in light of Elon's tweet that the deal is on hold pending investigation of Twitter's metrics reporting, seems to be a framework for carving out what exactly constitutes a user that brings the platform revenue that shows up in quarterly reports and hence would directly relate to the tangible value of the enterprise. In reality, nobody knows what numbers are being thrown around behind closed doors. This article is just one framing.
infogulch 4y ago
Look, there are dozens of potentially interesting and valuable questions to ask on this subject. Answers to which may produce a wide range of insights and conclusions. And there's a whole potential conversation about which questions are most important, that may have different answers depending on the context. But there's no reason to pin the whole frame of the conversation to the one question for which Twitter corporate chose to publish an answer, unless the only question we are interested in is "did Twitter technically lie" which is the most uninteresting question in this whole situation. If this is the sole context you are using to frame this issue then maybe you should consider if you're following the current news cycle a little too closely. The idea that there is such a thing as an 'inaccurate definition of active' is silly.
- thfuran 4y ago
  >"did Twitter technically lie" which is the most uninteresting question in this whole situation. I don't know, that seems more interesting than most questions that could be asked about Twitter.
  - webmaven 4y ago
    > I don't know, that seems more interesting than most questions that could be asked about Twitter. Why? Twitter is a for profit corporation. If, on the balance, lying serves their interests (I'm sorry, I meant "is consistent with their fiduciary duty to their shareholders") more than edging up to the line without crossing it, that's what they will do. Even the watchdog organizations such as the FTC and SEC that police the speech of corporations more or less limit themselves to material statements that move markets or influence consumer behavior in ways that can be considered fraudulent. The FTC, FDA, and others are concerned with a fairly narrow reading of consumer harm, the SEC is motivated by the health and trustworthiness of the public market. In any case, there pretty much always has to be some sort of alleged harm. Lying per-se is hardly ever forbidden. So if the advantages of a lie outweigh the (risk adjusted) penalties and reputational risks, that's that.
    - dcow 4y ago
      Sure. But if I'm looking to purchase Twitter, I think I'd be much more interested in and concerned about this "white" lie than you are as a general consumer.
      - webmaven 4y ago
        I'm with you there. But the context here is what would be interesting to us, and not what's potentially interesting to Elon Musk.
    - thfuran 4y ago
      I think a conversation about what ways we expect and permit corporations to lie, either specifically in financial statements or to the general public, is much more interesting than a discussion of exactly how many fake tweets there are and exactly how many accounts are making them, though I guess you could construe that as broadly part of the same conversation.
sigzero 4y ago
They define it in the article as accounts that have tweeted within the previous 9 weeks. If you are lurking and not tweeting you are not "active".

The point is that their definition of active is inaccurate. You can be an active user and not tweet.

by nend 4y ago

The point is that their definition of active is inaccurate. You can be an active user and not tweet.

jquery 4y ago

For most of Twitter’s existence, this was me. I used Twitter a lot but I never tweeted.

chorsestudios 4y ago

Twitter requires users to log in before lurking so their definition of activity is intentionally selective. I'd be surprised if Twitter doesn't know how active their users actually are, even the lurkers.

dcow 4y ago
I read lots of tweets and don't have a Twitter account, or at least one that I've logged into in the last 10 years... The philosophical question seems to be, "am I a Twitter user"? You could probably argue that most of the world read Twitter and hence are users, account or none. It's that pervasive. But then there's the next question: "am I a user that reportedly matters to Twitter's business?". What people are trying to land on, in light of Elon's tweet that the deal is on hold pending investigation of Twitter's metrics reporting, seems to be a framework for carving out what exactly constitutes a user that brings the platform revenue that shows up in quarterly reports and hence would directly relate to the tangible value of the enterprise. In reality, nobody knows what numbers are being thrown around behind closed doors. This article is just one framing.

infogulch 4y ago

Look, there are dozens of potentially interesting and valuable questions to ask on this subject. Answers to which may produce a wide range of insights and conclusions. And there's a whole potential conversation about which questions are most important, that may have different answers depending on the context. But there's no reason to pin the whole frame of the conversation to the one question for which Twitter corporate chose to publish an answer, unless the only question we are interested in is "did Twitter technically lie" which is the most uninteresting question in this whole situation. If this is the sole context you are using to frame this issue then maybe you should consider if you're following the current news cycle a little too closely. The idea that there is such a thing as an 'inaccurate definition of active' is silly.

thfuran 4y ago
>"did Twitter technically lie" which is the most uninteresting question in this whole situation. I don't know, that seems more interesting than most questions that could be asked about Twitter.
- webmaven 4y ago
  > I don't know, that seems more interesting than most questions that could be asked about Twitter. Why? Twitter is a for profit corporation. If, on the balance, lying serves their interests (I'm sorry, I meant "is consistent with their fiduciary duty to their shareholders") more than edging up to the line without crossing it, that's what they will do. Even the watchdog organizations such as the FTC and SEC that police the speech of corporations more or less limit themselves to material statements that move markets or influence consumer behavior in ways that can be considered fraudulent. The FTC, FDA, and others are concerned with a fairly narrow reading of consumer harm, the SEC is motivated by the health and trustworthiness of the public market. In any case, there pretty much always has to be some sort of alleged harm. Lying per-se is hardly ever forbidden. So if the advantages of a lie outweigh the (risk adjusted) penalties and reputational risks, that's that.
  - dcow 4y ago
    Sure. But if I'm looking to purchase Twitter, I think I'd be much more interested in and concerned about this "white" lie than you are as a general consumer.
    - webmaven 4y ago
      I'm with you there. But the context here is what would be interesting to us, and not what's potentially interesting to Elon Musk.
  - thfuran 4y ago
    I think a conversation about what ways we expect and permit corporations to lie, either specifically in financial statements or to the general public, is much more interesting than a discussion of exactly how many fake tweets there are and exactly how many accounts are making them, though I guess you could construe that as broadly part of the same conversation.

sigzero 4y ago

They define it in the article as accounts that have tweeted within the previous 9 weeks. If you are lurking and not tweeting you are not "active".