Elon Musk Squeezes A Little Bird

Elon Musk Squeezes A Little Bird

"Twitter deal temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users," Elon Musk tweeted, just before 6 AM in New York on Friday. He linked to a Reuters article dated May 2, which cited a familiar passage from Twitter's 10-Qs. Every quarter (or every recent quarter, anyway), the company includes a "note regarding metrics" which briefly describes "an internal review." Using a sample, Twitter tries to estimate the percentage o
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

9 thoughts on “Elon Musk Squeezes A Little Bird

  1. “I think it’s fair to say a lot of people question the 5% figure, and I’d also note, in Twitter’s defense, that determining the true percentage of active users comprised of spam accounts is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.”

    Have to disagree with you here H. If Twitter were to implement a real ID verification system they could actually be able to determine the percentage of active users comprised of spam accounts, they could also eliminate all spam accounts. The problem with that is, they rely pretty heavily on spam accounts to drive user engagement and thus ad revenue. Spam is a necessary evil in the social media business model. Regular people just aren’t that interesting and not worth logging in to read tweets from all day long.

    1. “If Twitter were to implement a real ID verification system they could actually be able to determine the percentage of active users comprised of spam accounts, they could also eliminate all spam accounts.”

      That is categorically false.

      I personally oversaw the implementation of just such a system on a site with tens of millions of monthly users. People will go to lengths you can’t even imagine to get around those verification systems, including the use of other people’s government-issued IDs, all manner of end-arounds to circumvent IP checks and a dizzying hodgepodge of other shenanigans including, when necessary, dubious Zoom calls and fake phone numbers. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that the best state-sponsored hacking networks and arm’s-length “private” companies (think NSO Group) consistently make a mockery of even the best Silicon Valley minds. Those type of folks run laps around Apple and Google’s engineers all day, every day. The idea that Twitter can sort all of that out when Google and Apple can’t is laughable. Read this: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/04/25/how-democracies-spy-on-their-citizens

      1. I have to ask; are you implying that the techies at the private companies are just plain smarter than those at Google and Apple? OR, are security breaches more about the nature of coding and the open nature of the internet. I guess I’m asking are the immigrants who breach a border wall smarter than the engineers who designed it. Building up is almost always harder than tearing down.

          1. For example:

            “Apple’s investigation took a week and involved several dozen engineers based in the United States and Europe. The company concluded that NSO had injected malicious code into files in Adobe’s PDF format. It then tricked a system in iMessage into accepting and processing the PDFs outside BlastDoor. ‘It’s borderline science fiction,’ the person familiar with Apple’s threat-intelligence capabilities said. ‘When you read the analysis, it’s hard to believe.’ Google’s security-­research team, Project Zero, also studied a copy of the exploit, and later wrote in a blog post, ‘We assess this to be one of the most technically sophisticated exploits we’ve ever seen, further demonstrating that the capabilities NSO provides rival those previously thought to be accessible to only a handful of nation states.'”

            Obviously, this is a bit apples-to-oranges. But the point is just that if the question is whether Twitter has the capability to literally reduce all shenanigans to zero, the answer is unequivocally “no.” If NSO can outwit Apple and Google, any halfway intelligent person is going to be able to beat some half-baked Twitter check, in my opinion.

          2. There’s more than just that. If twitter were to impliment ID verification, their users would drop by 90% or more. I use Twitter. I wouldn’t spend five minutes jumping through hoops for permission to use their platform, and I absolutely wouldn’t send them a scanned copy of my Driver’s License for the privilege of rage-tweeting at strangers.

      2. I’m very aware of the Pegasus spyware produced by the NSO group and how it has been installed on many elite government official’s devices. I agree that Apple and Google pretend their security is undefeatable but rely on advertising to make that argument convincing. I am also aware that our government has done nothing in the way of sanctioning Israel over the use of this malware. Nor over its other issues involving questionable security practices as illustrated in the book “Catch and Kill” by Ronan Farrow.

        I would also suggest if you have the capacity and guts that you install MVT to check if you have Pegasus installed. https://github.com/mvt-project/mvt

        I would also like to point out that you didn’t mention Amazon in this list. AWS has so far been unbreachable (when properly configured) which should say something about the minds of Silicon Valley when security is a priority.

        I don’t know what that has to do with requiring an ID.me type verification system currently leveraged by many government agencies including the IRS. Granted, a very ambitious hacker will eventually be able to get around that verification system, but how many would be willing to go to those lengths to do so? Even hackers employ economics in their thinking, if they have to spend months getting into Twitter to be able to setup a spambot account what’s the benefit? What could they do instead with their time and talent that would be more valuable?

        And to WMD’s point, not very many casual users would be willing to go through this step just to rage tweet or read rage tweets which is kind of my point. Twitter doesn’t provide enough value to justify a lengthy registration process for most users. This probably should be a red flag for anyone interested in purchasing the platform for monetization purposes…

  2. I see this an example of why Elon Musk is so wealthy: he’s not afraid to threaten to renege on a deal (over some dreamed up technicality) in order to get more money out of it. (Business integrity != Real life integrity).
    Do you remember how much he hated on the Tesla Shorts, that they were financial manipulators?

    The current “tech wreck” certainly makes his offer look foolish, and the fact that he’s rapidly pulling in other people’s billions and reducing his exposure tells me he knows it was a mistake and he’s mitigating.

    Absurdly, now the Twitter board has even more incentive to finalize the sale that they at first weren’t too excited about.

  3. Speculation is that Musk may shift TWTR to a subscription model and reduce moderation. Those sound inconsistent, but maybe not? I get value from Twitter, by following a limited number of specialists in specific fields. Unlike FB, TWTR is not aggressive about “showing me” content I didn’t choose to follow. I’d pay a subscription, especially if it got me an ad-free feed and I didn’t have to see the ugly mess that an unmoderated Twitter may become (but maybe not a Twitter that is unmoderated but behind a paywall?).

    I suspect, however, that TWTR cannot be highly profitable as a subscription model, or as an advertising model without moderation. In fact, I question whether it is possible for TWTR to be highly profitable at all.

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints