16 ms·

Parag apparently lost his patience with superficial and misleading claims about Twitter spam (like this analysis) and posted about it today. You can see it her

by j4pe 4y ago

Parag apparently lost his patience with superficial and misleading claims about Twitter spam (like this analysis) and posted about it today. You can see it here (https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1526237578843672576 https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1526237578843672576). Noteworthy highlights: * Twitter estimates its <5% number from human analysis of multi-thousand user random samplings of mDAU * Twitter allows that number to remain so high to avoid introducing friction like captcha into real users' experiences * Twitter uses all sorts of internal private data in its analysis * Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data Having just finished building a Twitter analysis tool, I agree with Parag that the Twitter API doesn't provide sufficient clarity to make decisions about spam. This article's analysis doesn't hold up - just because you can name several features you're going to use to generate a spam confidence score about an account does not mean that spam confidence score will have any precision.

seydor 4y ago
It makes sense. The bots are just loud and tend to all follow the most famous people, so their numbers look larger when people look there
modeless 4y ago
"But you don't know which ones we count as mDAUs" and "accounts that look like spam are actually real" are not as good a defense as he thinks. The product is still affected by spam and fraud even if it's excluded from advertising metrics, and accounts that look like spam are not good for the product either even if they happen to be real people for whatever reason.
bobsmooth 4y ago
I think Elon's response reflects what a lot of us are thinking about the "<5%" number.
dang 4y ago
Related thread: Twitter CEO: “Let’s talk about spam, with the benefit of data, context” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31399913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31399913 - May 2022 (13 comments)
thewebcount 4y ago
> * Twitter allows that number to remain so high to avoid introducing friction like captcha into real users' experiences This doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion. Given that everyone who tries to create an account without a phone number has to go through the friction of getting their account locked immediately, they clearly don't care about this sort of friction. Not to mention the friction of just trying to view a tweet which has been discussed at length on HN before.
- throwmeawayy 4y ago
  I have a Twitter account with > 10k followers that is a few years old. Created without a phone number, and of course, immediately locked. Somehow, managed get it unlocked and still going on a few years later without a phone number. Though, I'm always in fear of the ban hammer.
  - google234123 4y ago
    How about you add a phone number if you are living in constant fear?
- thecleaner 4y ago
  The difference is between posting a tweet everytime and going through the friction once. That's what he's talking about. You are comparing different things.
- shapefrog 4y ago
  > Given that everyone who tries to create an account without a phone number has to go through the friction Yes > Not to mention the friction of just trying to view a tweet which has been discussed at length on HN before. Yes Now imagine filling out 3 captchas every time you open the twitter app on your phone, 1 for ever time you tweet and 1 for every person you follow. Most users of twitter, use either an app on their phone or the cookies in their browser suffer the friction of forgetting their password (likely password1 btw) because they have to log in so infrequently.
- ASalazarMX 4y ago
alaricus 4y ago
> Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data That's convenient isn't it? This report made headlines because it aligns with everyone's experience with Twitter: almost everyone on Twitter is either a bot or a corporate managed account.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  That doesn't align with my experience. The vast majority of what I see in my feed is real people. I do know, however, that if I look at the replies to any viral tweet that a large percentage of them will be through fake accounts.
wonderwonder 4y ago
Musk responded to Parag's thread with a poop emoji. Not going to lie if I worked at twitter I would be a little nervous about my career at this point. For several reasons including what appears to be the potential for a very hostile work culture in the near term. Musk is being openly antagonistic towards twitter leadership and denigrating the people that work there. Although it does seem more and more like the deal is not going to close. I don't think Musk wants it anymore and is seizing on anything to get out of it.
- diob 4y ago
  I don't think he wanted it in the first place. This is all performative bs for him to make another quick buck / get pr.
  - plausibledeny 4y ago
    How is Elon going to make a quick buck from a failed deal? If anything he'll have to pay out significantly.
    - pavlov 4y ago
      He got an excuse to sell lots of Tesla stock at a price 40% higher than today. Selling the stock without this charade would have sent a negative message about how little he believes in Tesla’s stock price and sunk the price further. Even accounting for the breakup fee he comes ahead financially by many billions in cash, while also building his image as the free speech edgelord. Win-win.
      - camjw 4y ago
        I remember reading on here that the breakup fee is only applicable in very narrow cases, basically only if the US govt blocks the deal. If it's not applicable then he's on the hook for the whole ~40billy. Does he still come out ahead financially in that case if, for instance, the Twitter board take him to court? Genuine question.
c7DJTLrn 4y ago
>Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data Riiiight, and Craig Wright claims to have proof of being Satoshi Nakamoto but won't show anybody. I don't know how good of a CEO Parag is, but he's not a very good bullshitter.
christkv 4y ago
If they believe the claim to be false they can open the data they used to calculate the 5% so it can be verified by a third party.
- berkut 4y ago
  So you want them to publicly list / make download-able any phone numbers of the people in that 5%, and their full names and email addresses?
- ahahahahah 4y ago
  Absolutely not. No social media company should take a set of user's private data and "open the data" (especially just because some blowhard is trying to find any reason to back out of a deal). Even without the "open" bit, they shouldn't be providing that data to a third party.
ramblerman 4y ago
But we were talking about bots. You and Parag are shifting the dialogue to spam > The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially – are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous – and cause the most harm to our users – can look totally legitimate on the surface. He's not talking about detecting bots. I.e. fake and automated accounts. He's talking about twitter users/bots that cause what they perceive to be harmful content. Which is a very different thing, and was the whole point of Musk's intended involvement in the first place.
- 8note 4y ago
  And? Only advertisers see the harm from bots - being charged for bot impressions. Outside of that, bots cause the same problems that real people do, making twitter a place people don't want to spend time on/view ads on. The advertisers need both bad groups removed
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>* Twitter uses all sorts of internal private data in its analysis >* Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data "I have secret information so trust me" is an excellent reason to reject an assertion every time, whether it is made by an individual, a corporation, or a government. It doesn't mean it isn't true, but it means that absolutely nobody should put any credence in the assertion at all.

by j4pe 4y ago

seydor 4y ago

It makes sense. The bots are just loud and tend to all follow the most famous people, so their numbers look larger when people look there

modeless 4y ago

"But you don't know which ones we count as mDAUs" and "accounts that look like spam are actually real" are not as good a defense as he thinks. The product is still affected by spam and fraud even if it's excluded from advertising metrics, and accounts that look like spam are not good for the product either even if they happen to be real people for whatever reason.

bobsmooth 4y ago

I think Elon's response reflects what a lot of us are thinking about the "<5%" number.

dang 4y ago

Related thread: Twitter CEO: “Let’s talk about spam, with the benefit of data, context” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31399913 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31399913 - May 2022 (13 comments)

thewebcount 4y ago

> * Twitter allows that number to remain so high to avoid introducing friction like captcha into real users' experiences This doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion. Given that everyone who tries to create an account without a phone number has to go through the friction of getting their account locked immediately, they clearly don't care about this sort of friction. Not to mention the friction of just trying to view a tweet which has been discussed at length on HN before.

throwmeawayy 4y ago
I have a Twitter account with > 10k followers that is a few years old. Created without a phone number, and of course, immediately locked. Somehow, managed get it unlocked and still going on a few years later without a phone number. Though, I'm always in fear of the ban hammer.
- google234123 4y ago
  How about you add a phone number if you are living in constant fear?
thecleaner 4y ago
The difference is between posting a tweet everytime and going through the friction once. That's what he's talking about. You are comparing different things.
shapefrog 4y ago
> Given that everyone who tries to create an account without a phone number has to go through the friction Yes > Not to mention the friction of just trying to view a tweet which has been discussed at length on HN before. Yes Now imagine filling out 3 captchas every time you open the twitter app on your phone, 1 for ever time you tweet and 1 for every person you follow. Most users of twitter, use either an app on their phone or the cookies in their browser suffer the friction of forgetting their password (likely password1 btw) because they have to log in so infrequently.
ASalazarMX 4y ago

alaricus 4y ago

> Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data That's convenient isn't it? This report made headlines because it aligns with everyone's experience with Twitter: almost everyone on Twitter is either a bot or a corporate managed account.

ryan_lane 4y ago
That doesn't align with my experience. The vast majority of what I see in my feed is real people. I do know, however, that if I look at the replies to any viral tweet that a large percentage of them will be through fake accounts.

wonderwonder 4y ago

Musk responded to Parag's thread with a poop emoji. Not going to lie if I worked at twitter I would be a little nervous about my career at this point. For several reasons including what appears to be the potential for a very hostile work culture in the near term. Musk is being openly antagonistic towards twitter leadership and denigrating the people that work there. Although it does seem more and more like the deal is not going to close. I don't think Musk wants it anymore and is seizing on anything to get out of it.

diob 4y ago
I don't think he wanted it in the first place. This is all performative bs for him to make another quick buck / get pr.
- plausibledeny 4y ago
  How is Elon going to make a quick buck from a failed deal? If anything he'll have to pay out significantly.
  - pavlov 4y ago
    He got an excuse to sell lots of Tesla stock at a price 40% higher than today. Selling the stock without this charade would have sent a negative message about how little he believes in Tesla’s stock price and sunk the price further. Even accounting for the breakup fee he comes ahead financially by many billions in cash, while also building his image as the free speech edgelord. Win-win.
    - camjw 4y ago
      I remember reading on here that the breakup fee is only applicable in very narrow cases, basically only if the US govt blocks the deal. If it's not applicable then he's on the hook for the whole ~40billy. Does he still come out ahead financially in that case if, for instance, the Twitter board take him to court? Genuine question.

c7DJTLrn 4y ago

>Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data Riiiight, and Craig Wright claims to have proof of being Satoshi Nakamoto but won't show anybody. I don't know how good of a CEO Parag is, but he's not a very good bullshitter.

christkv 4y ago

If they believe the claim to be false they can open the data they used to calculate the 5% so it can be verified by a third party.

berkut 4y ago
So you want them to publicly list / make download-able any phone numbers of the people in that 5%, and their full names and email addresses?
ahahahahah 4y ago
Absolutely not. No social media company should take a set of user's private data and "open the data" (especially just because some blowhard is trying to find any reason to back out of a deal). Even without the "open" bit, they shouldn't be providing that data to a third party.

ramblerman 4y ago

But we were talking about bots. You and Parag are shifting the dialogue to spam > The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially – are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous – and cause the most harm to our users – can look totally legitimate on the surface. He's not talking about detecting bots. I.e. fake and automated accounts. He's talking about twitter users/bots that cause what they perceive to be harmful content. Which is a very different thing, and was the whole point of Musk's intended involvement in the first place.

8note 4y ago
And? Only advertisers see the harm from bots - being charged for bot impressions. Outside of that, bots cause the same problems that real people do, making twitter a place people don't want to spend time on/view ads on. The advertisers need both bad groups removed

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>* Twitter uses all sorts of internal private data in its analysis >* Parag says you cannot get a reliable indication of bot/not bot without this internal private data "I have secret information so trust me" is an excellent reason to reject an assertion every time, whether it is made by an individual, a corporation, or a government. It doesn't mean it isn't true, but it means that absolutely nobody should put any credence in the assertion at all.