3 ms·
FWIW, academic research has questioned the 5% number for years. USC and IU put out a report 5 years ago that believed the upper bound for fake accounts was 15%[
by thr0wawayf00 4y ago
FWIW, academic research has questioned the 5% number for years. USC and IU put out a report 5 years ago that believed the upper bound for fake accounts was 15%[0]. This isn't a new allegation.
0: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-accounts-could-be-bots-says-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-ac...
- jcranmer 4y agoAs explained many times by many people, the 5% is not the number of bots on Twitter. It is the false negative rate of Twitter's bot detection algorithms.
- kergonath 4y agoFrom your source: > our estimates suggest that between 9% and 15% of active Twitter accounts are bots From Twitter: “roughly 5% of our monetizable daily users are bots”. Both can be true at the same time, and it does not mean that Twitter lied.
- dahdum 4y agoTwitter's lawsuit mentions this, stating only they know who is monetizable. IIRC Musk's lawyers deliberately push the same false equivalency in their filing.
- sangnoir 4y agoMusks lawyers aren't fans of being disbarred or other legal sanctions, so they carefully couched the language in their filing to say "Musk believes [the intentionally confusing, possibly false narrative about bots]" without providing evidence, which is weak sauce.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jjoonathan 4y ago5% of mDAU is a false negative rate. 5% of users is not a claim that Twitter made.