4 ms·

> At best, an argument can be made that at some point there are some perverse incentives where allowing spam bots could inflate numbers to make the company look

> At best, an argument can be made that at some point there are some perverse incentives where allowing spam bots could inflate numbers to make the company look successful. But even if that argument were convincing, which it isn't, Agrawal clearly doesn't believe it. It is clear to me that Argrawal is trying to obfuscate and confuse. Every time he is asked about the total number of bots on Twitter, Argrawal subtlety changes the subject to mDAU. He knows this is not the same as total users, but he chooses to change the subject and pretend he's answering the question. This is very shady in my book, and his attempt at subterfuge and lack of transparency is very troubling. I've seen other CEOs do similar things when they don't want to talk about something potentially damaging. The fact that Argrawal artlessly tried to smear Mudge earlier in the week does not make me trust that he has good and forthright intentions. Argawal seems very shady, and I wonder how you can trust him?

danielmarkbruce 4y ago
It's not shady because it's the thing they report to shareholders. He knows it isn't the same thing, but so do the people asking the question. He isn't obliged to engage on every question in the exact way the questioner asks.
SilverBirch 4y ago
It's not some subtle sleight of hand, the number of bots on twitter is not what is claimed in the legally required filings. We can argue till the cows come home about how many bots they are, but it's not relevant to the legal wranglings that are going on around Musk buying twitter. Musk is saying "The bot number is higher than you're saying" and Agrawal is saying "I've never made any claim on the bot number", and Musk might be right that there are lots of bots, but if he is right, it just highlights how dumb it was to make an unsolicited bid to buy the company with no due diligence. And this isn't just some arbitrary thing that Agrawal has made up either, there's one very specific reason why you would care about mDAUs not bots. mDAUs are the number of people you can advertise to, and Twitter's revenue is advertising. It's like saying Twitter has an army of 10,000 cats in it's basement. It might be true, but it's not relevant to the value of the business.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

It's not shady because it's the thing they report to shareholders. He knows it isn't the same thing, but so do the people asking the question. He isn't obliged to engage on every question in the exact way the questioner asks.

SilverBirch 4y ago

It's not some subtle sleight of hand, the number of bots on twitter is not what is claimed in the legally required filings. We can argue till the cows come home about how many bots they are, but it's not relevant to the legal wranglings that are going on around Musk buying twitter. Musk is saying "The bot number is higher than you're saying" and Agrawal is saying "I've never made any claim on the bot number", and Musk might be right that there are lots of bots, but if he is right, it just highlights how dumb it was to make an unsolicited bid to buy the company with no due diligence. And this isn't just some arbitrary thing that Agrawal has made up either, there's one very specific reason why you would care about mDAUs not bots. mDAUs are the number of people you can advertise to, and Twitter's revenue is advertising. It's like saying Twitter has an army of 10,000 cats in it's basement. It might be true, but it's not relevant to the value of the business.