The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[Azure]

Wonder what part this will play.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1562020176278716416

[Azure]

Limited information available from the initial disclosure that the Washington Post got their hands on, but I'd imagine we'll learn more as time goes on.

SAN FRANCISCO — Elon Musk alleges Twitter is vastly undercounting the number of spam and bot accounts on its platform. A new whistleblower complaint from a recently fired top Twitter executive could add ammunition to that argument, though it provides little hard evidence to back up a key assertion.

Former head of security Peiter Zatko accuses Twitter of “Lying about Bots to Elon Musk” in a whistleblower complaint filed in July with regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. Musk’s team is expected to use the complaint as a basis to argue for wider discovery into Twitter’s internal practices and data, something it could raise as soon as a hearing Wednesday, according to individuals with knowledge of the matter and legal experts who described the implications of such revelations.

Zatko, a well-known figure in the security community, alleges Twitter is not incentivized to tally the true number of bots and spammy accounts on the service, which counts 238 million daily users. And he lays out another argument that could give Musk a potential boost in his fight to prove Twitter broke its contract when he agreed to acquire the company for $44 billion: that Twitter deceived regulators regarding its defenses against hackers.

Importantly, however, Zatko provides limited hard documentary evidence in his complaint regarding spam and bots, so the potential impact of those allegations is difficult to initially gauge. Musk’s lawyers scheduled a deposition with Zatko before the publication of the whistleblower complaint, according to one of the people familiar with the matter, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing legal matter.

The complaint alleges that Twitter misled regulators from the Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission on security issues. Twitter’s Hahn said Zatko’s allegations were “riddled with inaccuracies.”

The true number of bots and spam accounts on Twitter is likely to be “meaningfully higher” than the figure Twitter claims, the complaint alleges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...whistleblower/

[Wormius]

Wonder how much Elon Musk paid him for that. Kidding… maybe.

[photon]

Sounds like Musk shouldn't have waived due diligence.

[Azure]

No idea who this guy is, but this is hilarious.

Dan Woods, Global Head of Intelligence at cybersecurity company F5, who spent more than 20 years with the US federal law enforcement and intelligence organisations, told The Australian that more than 80 per cent of Twitter accounts are probably bots -- a massive claim as Twitter says only 5 per cent of its users are bots/spams.

https://www.business-standard.com/ar...0100268_1.html

[photon]

It's also wrong; Twitter doesn't claim that only 5% of its users are bots/spammers.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by photon

It's also wrong; Twitter doesn't claim that only 5% of its users are bots/spammers.

True, they usually say "less than 5%" but never actually pin down a percent that isn't "less than 5%".

[photon]

They don't claim anything about the % of users that are spammers or bots; that's what Musk wants everyone to think but Twitter's less than 5% applies to monetizable daily active users, not total accounts.

So when Musk talks about % of spam accounts it's irrelevant to his case and just PR noise.

Musk is either mistakenly or intentionally conflating spam/bots on the platform with spam/bots in the monetizable daily active users. In public anyway, it's easy to conflate those and get away with it in PR.

But in court it's about Twitter's SEC filings which are about monetizable daily active users and Mudge confirms that's the metric.

Which is why Azure's link is nonsense and Azure is being foolish to buy it.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by photon

They don't claim anything about the % of users that are spammers or bots; that's what Musk wants everyone to think but Twitter's less than 5% applies to monetizable daily active users, not total accounts.

So when Musk talks about % of spam accounts it's irrelevant to his case and just PR noise.

Musk is either mistakenly or intentionally conflating spam/bots on the platform with spam/bots in the monetizable daily active users. In public anyway, it's easy to conflate those and get away with it in PR.

But in court it's about Twitter's SEC filings which are about monetizable daily active users and Mudge confirms that's the metric.

Which is why Azure's link is nonsense and Azure is being foolish to buy it.

I have read this forum for a while before making an account and I don’t think I ever saw such an .. let’s say passionate post from you in regards to another poster.

I like it!

[opendoor]

Yeah, monetizable daily active users are the number of unique visitors on the average day who view ads; basically Twitter is using that number to say "if you advertise with us, your potential audience is x number of mDAUs". And the 5% bot estimate is out of that number, not the total number of accounts that exist; advertisers don't care how many accounts there are, they want their ads to be seen by users. And of course, users who don't post don't even necessarily need accounts to be counted as one of the mDAUs.

So if someone is running a bot using Python scripts and Twitter's API to produce tweets, they're likely not going to be served ads and are thus not counted as part of the mDAU. So it's totally possible that a significant number of accounts are bots, but that Twitter's filings are accurate at the same time.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Mull

I have read this forum for a while before making an account and I don’t think I ever saw such an .. let’s say passionate post from you in regards to another poster.

I like it!

Azure tends to get "had" with a lot with his sources, so I can see the frustration. But yeah, that stuck out to me too as I don't know if
i've ever seen photon post like that, lol.

[Fuzz]

I like this new sassy Photon. I say we keep them around.

[Azure]

Ohhhh, yeah Photon really got me.

You guys are hilarious. Keep on being keyboard warriors.

BTW, I never said I believed what the guy said. I said it was 'hilarious.' Reading comprehension must be tough these days.

[Wormius]

If you’re going to post and use ambiguous language, then expect to be called out on the more egregious interpretation.

You can’t just use the, “i said it was ‘hilarious’” defence, like you’re peter or something.

[BlackArcher101]

Originally Posted by Azure

BTW, I never said I believed what the guy said. I said it was 'hilarious.' Reading comprehension must be tough these days.

I read it as you thinking it was hilarious that twitter was so wrong with their numbers or something.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ohhhh, yeah Photon really got me.

You guys are hilarious. Keep on being keyboard warriors.

BTW, I never said I believed what the guy said. I said it was 'hilarious.' Reading comprehension must be tough these days.

Well if you're going to post absurd sources and claim them to be hilarious then maybe you need to be more clear in what you think of the article/source.

Is it hilarious because it's absurd or hilarious because you also agree that 8 of 10 twitter accounts is fake? And btw, just for posterity, what is the reason for saying it's hilarious?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ohhhh, yeah Photon really got me.

You guys are hilarious. Keep on being keyboard warriors.

BTW, I never said I believed what the guy said. I said it was 'hilarious.' Reading comprehension must be tough these days.

When you post something without clearly stating you disagree with parts of it it’s assumed that you agree with the entire thing.

It’s just basic forum posting.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

I read it as you thinking it was hilarious that twitter was so wrong with their numbers or something.

To be honest I thought it was hilarious that whoever did the reporting actually found someone with some credentials come out and say that 80% of Twitter accounts are bots, or a form of automated posting because of how ridiculous it sounds.

I don't believe for a second that Twitter is being truthful in their reporting, but I certainly don't think 80% of users are bots.

So yeah, hilarious. The reaction here is even more hilarious.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

When you post something without clearly stating you disagree with parts of it it’s assumed that you agree with the entire thing.

It’s just basic forum posting.

Or rather it is assumed because of me being skeptical of whatever Twitter has come out and said, and the fact that people here love to pile on and cheerlead when they don't like a poster, and Photon gets worked up for reasons nobody understands, which by itself is rather hilarious because it also leads to subsequent cheerleading.

Basically everything that has gone wrong with CP the last few years since COVID started, and everything and everyone has turned into black and white sides of each issue by the usual gang.

So yes, that has become basic forum posting these days.

[photon]

Pointing out when something is foolish is hardly getting "worked up", I'm foolish all the time, if someone points it out I'll accept that; I wouldn't tell them they're getting worked up.

Doesn't change the fact that people are widely misrepresenting what Twitter says about their users.