4 ms·

> I imagine this hurts Twitter's defense against Musk from pulling out of the takeover deal Not really because they have consistently said "this is what we do,

> I imagine this hurts Twitter's defense against Musk from pulling out of the takeover deal Not really because they have consistently said "this is what we do, it's a finger in the air estimate based on sampling, it might be right, it might be wildly wrong, there's no agreed methodology for this". For someone to then go "they don't fully understand the true number of bots! GOTCHA!" is dumb because it's literally just pointing out exactly what they've said in their SEC filings since 2013.

dd36 4y ago
So many people don’t understand this. It’s not even clear if Musk does.
- Cederfjard 4y ago
  Of course he does. He's just grasping at straws to get out of the mess he's created for himself.
  - dd36 4y ago
    I don't know. If he did, I feel like he wouldn't have acted so impulsively in his solicitation and outlined that in his contract.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Musk has problems with impulse control. That's why he publicly called a literal hero of dying children a "pedophile". If he didn't have money he would likely not be able to keep friendships functional, because he doesn't know how to interact with other people in a healthy way. I don't understand how you can look at his public behavior and think anything else. The only alternative is that he thought doing shitty things was a rational way to improve his situation, and I personally think that's a worse option
lapcat 4y ago
The really damning part of the whistleblower's statements isn't about the bots, it's about Twitter executives misleading the board of directors and stockholders. That's what could aid Musk at trial.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bpodgursky 4y ago
If the executives did not make a meaningful effort to count them, that is fairly damning, given how much the stock price swings on the count. Nobody said it was easy, but it's certainly harder if you don't try.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > If the executives did not make a meaningful effort to count them They've been filing their methodology for bot counting with the SEC since 2013. If they're not making a "meaningful effort" and it materially affected the stock price in some way, either the SEC or a shareholder would have gone "HOLD ON SHENANIGANS O'CLOCK", surely? It can't be that the entire world was A-OK with Twitter's bot counting until June 2022 when a man claiming to want to buy Twitter to fix the bot problem got cold feet on a market drop...
  - frumper 4y ago
    Shenanigans can go on for a lot longer than 9 years without anyone noticing.
  - bpodgursky 4y ago
    The "methodology" is that people look at 100 accounts a day and determine whether they are bots. They have never disclosed any of the signals that go into this determination. You have a lot of faith in the immediately efficient market here.
    - Cederfjard 4y ago
      The point is that they have not claimed anything regarding this in their filings that isn't true, not whether or not you think they've been clear and detailed enough to answer the question properly. And to give Musk an out, which is what this tangent is about, not only do they need to have actually lied, the lies need to have had a VERY substantial effect on the price of the company. The bot thing simply does not help Musk get out of the deal he's made. That is not the same thing as "Twitter are great at dealing with bots and have been very transparent about how they do it", but that's not the bar that has to be cleared here.
_null_ 4y ago
Also, Musk repeatedly said publicly that he wanted to buy the platform specifically to address the issue of bot accounts.
jfoster 4y ago
The problem I have in assigning credibility to Twitter's position on bots is that they seem to have held multiple seemingly inconsistent positions (all paraphrased): 1. "Finger in the air estimate based on sampling", aka. "don't read too much into it" 2. "Not more than 5%" 3. "Methodology can't be understood externally"
- Sebb767 4y ago
  They are completely consistent. They have always said 'no more than 5% according to their sampling' plus a long row of disclaimers and that they sampled based on things like activity and only from monetizeable users, neither of which can be tracked without Twitters internal data on the user.

dd36 4y ago

So many people don’t understand this. It’s not even clear if Musk does.

Cederfjard 4y ago
Of course he does. He's just grasping at straws to get out of the mess he's created for himself.
- dd36 4y ago
  I don't know. If he did, I feel like he wouldn't have acted so impulsively in his solicitation and outlined that in his contract.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Musk has problems with impulse control. That's why he publicly called a literal hero of dying children a "pedophile". If he didn't have money he would likely not be able to keep friendships functional, because he doesn't know how to interact with other people in a healthy way. I don't understand how you can look at his public behavior and think anything else. The only alternative is that he thought doing shitty things was a rational way to improve his situation, and I personally think that's a worse option

lapcat 4y ago

The really damning part of the whistleblower's statements isn't about the bots, it's about Twitter executives misleading the board of directors and stockholders. That's what could aid Musk at trial.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bpodgursky 4y ago

If the executives did not make a meaningful effort to count them, that is fairly damning, given how much the stock price swings on the count. Nobody said it was easy, but it's certainly harder if you don't try.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> If the executives did not make a meaningful effort to count them They've been filing their methodology for bot counting with the SEC since 2013. If they're not making a "meaningful effort" and it materially affected the stock price in some way, either the SEC or a shareholder would have gone "HOLD ON SHENANIGANS O'CLOCK", surely? It can't be that the entire world was A-OK with Twitter's bot counting until June 2022 when a man claiming to want to buy Twitter to fix the bot problem got cold feet on a market drop...
- frumper 4y ago
  Shenanigans can go on for a lot longer than 9 years without anyone noticing.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  The "methodology" is that people look at 100 accounts a day and determine whether they are bots. They have never disclosed any of the signals that go into this determination. You have a lot of faith in the immediately efficient market here.
  - Cederfjard 4y ago
    The point is that they have not claimed anything regarding this in their filings that isn't true, not whether or not you think they've been clear and detailed enough to answer the question properly. And to give Musk an out, which is what this tangent is about, not only do they need to have actually lied, the lies need to have had a VERY substantial effect on the price of the company. The bot thing simply does not help Musk get out of the deal he's made. That is not the same thing as "Twitter are great at dealing with bots and have been very transparent about how they do it", but that's not the bar that has to be cleared here.

_null_ 4y ago

Also, Musk repeatedly said publicly that he wanted to buy the platform specifically to address the issue of bot accounts.

jfoster 4y ago

The problem I have in assigning credibility to Twitter's position on bots is that they seem to have held multiple seemingly inconsistent positions (all paraphrased): 1. "Finger in the air estimate based on sampling", aka. "don't read too much into it" 2. "Not more than 5%" 3. "Methodology can't be understood externally"

Sebb767 4y ago
They are completely consistent. They have always said 'no more than 5% according to their sampling' plus a long row of disclaimers and that they sampled based on things like activity and only from monetizeable users, neither of which can be tracked without Twitters internal data on the user.