Connect with us

SOCIAL

Twitter Defends Fake Account Metrics After Latest Queries from Elon Musk

Published

on

So, how’s Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover going?

Well, not ideal.

Today, in response to public criticism from Musk that Twitter’s methodology in counting spam and fake accounts is clearly wrong, current Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted out a long explanation of the company’s current fake profile detection and removal process.

Over the last week, Musk has questioned whether Twitter’s estimation that 5% of all Twitter accounts are fake could possibly be correct, and has invited his 90m+ followers to conduct their own rudimentary experiments to see what they find.

Of course, any anecdotal test like this is massively flawed, and will ultimately prove nothing.

But as with many aspects of the platform, Musk is seemingly learning about these processes in real time, in the midst of a $44 billion takeover, despite all of his various questions being raised and assessed, in various form, in the past.

So, with chatter around this specific element rising, Agrawal addressed Elon’s criticisms directly.

First off, Agrawal explained that detection of bot accounts is not easy, and likely can’t be done by regular users:

The most advanced spam campaigns use combinations of coordinated humans + automation. They also compromise real accounts, and then use them to advance their campaign. […] The hard challenge is that many accounts which look fake superficially, are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts which are actually the most dangerous – and cause the most harm to our users – can look totally legitimate on the surface. Our team updates our systems and rules constantly to remove as much spam as possible, without inadvertently suspending real people or adding unnecessary friction for real people when they use Twitter: none of us want to solve a captcha every time we use Twitter.

So randomly counting the accounts that you suspect are fake in your own following list won’t be accurate. Which, really, seems obvious.

Note, too, the reference to performing a CAPTCHA verification process every time you use the app is a direct reference to another suggestion by Musk.

“Each human review is based on Twitter rules that define spam and platform manipulation, and uses both public and private data (eg, IP address, phone number, geolocation, client/browser signatures, what the account does when it’s active…) to make a determination on each account. The use of private data is particularly important to avoid misclassifying users who are actually real. FirstnameBunchOfNumbers with no profile pic and odd tweets might seem like a bot or spam to you, but behind the scenes we often see multiple indicators that it’s a real person.”

In other words, there are many elements that go into detecting and determining fake profiles and spam, not just gut feel, or account info that makes a regular user narrow their eyes. Twitter has the back-end insight to support its investigations, and it’s more in-depth than a simple eye test.

“Every quarter, we have estimated that <5% of reported mDAU for the quarter are spam accounts. Our estimate is based on multiple human reviews (in replicate) of thousands of accounts, that are sampled at random, consistently over time, from accounts we count as mDAUs. We do this every quarter, and we have been doing this for many years.”

That’s interesting, because according to Musk, Twitter only samples 100 random accounts for this figure.

As you can see, Musk then further claims that Twitter contacted him over violating the terms of his agreement on this element – so either Musk is making this up, or Agrawal is exaggerating Twitter’s process.

Again, there’s no smooth sailing in the Elon takeover push.

In summing up, Agrawal says that, actually, based on its most recent reporting, its fake account figure is less than 5%.

“Our actual internal estimates for the last four quarters were all well under 5% – based on the methodology outlined above. The error margins on our estimates give us confidence in our public statements each quarter. Unfortunately, we don’t believe that this specific estimation can be performed externally, given the critical need to use both public and private information (which we can’t share). Externally, it’s not even possible to know which accounts are counted as mDAUs on any given day. There are LOTS of details that are very important underneath this high-level description.”

Musk’s response?

Right. Seems like that’s going to go over well – and again, it’s fascinating to see the internal machinations of a multi-billion dollar deal come down to misinterpretations, and technical interpretations versus an individual’s personal view.

At best, the back and forth would have to trigger some level of concern over Musk’s capacity to transform Twitter into a money-making machine, as per his projections, given that he seems unable to grasp even some of the most basic social media metrics.

But then again, many will also say that Musk is right, that it’s not possible for Twitter’s fake profile count to be so low, based on their own, personal experience, but also, based on published external studies which would clearly suggest otherwise.

Indeed, back in 2017, a joint study conducted by researchers from the University of Southern California and Indiana University found that around 15% of Twitter’s user base were bots rather than people, while in 2018, Twitter suspended or removed more than 70 million accounts which it had determined were fake. At that time, Twitter had 330 million monthly active users, which would suggest that around 20% of its user count were not actual, real people.

In response to this latest exchange, SparkToro conducted a fresh analysis of 44,058 active Twitter accounts and determined that 19.42% ‘fit a conservative definition of fake or spam accounts’.

The key may lie, then, in this element identified in Agrawal’s explanation:

What, exactly, is an mDAU according to Twitter?

We define monetizable daily active usage or users (mDAU) as Twitter users who logged in or were otherwise authenticated and accessed Twitter on any given day through Twitter.com or Twitter applications that are able to show ads.

So there could be other users that fall outside of this count – maybe they’re not active every day so they miss the assessment, or they’re not eligible to be shown ads, due to varying system logic. There may be, due to varying parameters, some technical explanations that would address some level of variance between these third-party findings and Twitter’s own data.

But even then, Twitter’s 5% count, on balance, seems like a stretch, and a bending of the actual truth in respect to what people are experiencing in the app.

And as Musk says:

Which, of course, is a fundamental question that’s been raised by every advertiser and every business in digital marketing circles since the inception of the medium, so it’s not like this is breaking new ground, or will come as startling new insight for those in the sector.

But it is, seemingly, fairly new news for Musk himself. Which, again, could raise questions about his massive growth plans for the app.

So what happens now? Can Musk back out of the Twitter deal if, somehow, he can prove Agrawal wrong, and show that Twitter’s fake profile account is actually much higher than it says?

Well, probably not.

Musk, for better or worse, waived a lot of due diligence measures in his Twitter takeover proposal in order to push the deal through faster, which means that, as it stands right now, he’s pretty much locked in, and it would take a significant legal argument for him to walk away from the deal.

It’s feasible, with at least some legal precedent, that if Musk could prove definitively that Twitter had deliberately mislead the SEC in its regular financial statements, via its misreporting of fake profiles, that he could possibly get out of these requirements, with the argument being that the platform is simply not worth what believed, based on its financials. But that seems like a stretch, especially given Agrawal’s explanation.

Maybe, then, Musk is simply pushing to reduce his offer price, in order to get a better deal.

It’s not 100% clear what outcome Musk is seeking, but as it stands, it still looks like Musk will have to go through with the Twitter deal, even if he and his followers think these stats are wrong.

Will we ever find out what Twitter’s actual fake profile count is? Based on Agrawal’s explanation, that also seems unlikely, though the technicalities here seem important, in specifying what’s counted, and what’s not, in Twitter’s user stats.

Either way, the public debate can only be a negative for Twitter, in either reducing advertiser trust in its metrics, or highlighting a long-running issue with its systems.

Is that a good thing for Musk, the future owner of the platform, to be pushing in public? It seems like a flawed approach, especially given the various other options he would have available, in terms of private audits, discussing with Twitter internally, verifying through independent researchers, etc.

Maybe this is just how Musk plans to do things, but it’s not exactly an inspiring origin story for the next stage of the app.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address

SOCIAL

US Judge Blocks Montana’s Effort to Ban TikTok

Published

on

U.S. Judge Blocks Montana’s Effort to Ban TikTok in the State

TikTok has won another reprieve in the U.S., with a district judge blocking Montana’s effort to ban the app for all users in the state.

Back in May, Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signed legislation to ban TikTok outright from operating in the state, in order to protect residents from alleged intelligence gathering by China. There’s no definitive evidence that TikTok is, or has participated in such, but Gianforte opted to move to a full ban, going further than the government device bans issued in other regions.

As explained by Gianforte at the time:

The Chinese Communist Party using TikTok to spy on Americans, violate their privacy, and collect their personal, private, and sensitive information is well-documented. Today, Montana takes the most decisive action of any state to protect Montanans’ private data and sensitive personal information from being harvested by the Chinese Communist Party.”

In response, a collection of TikTok users challenged the proposed ban, arguing that it violated their first amendment rights, which led to this latest court challenge, and District Court Judge Donald Molloy’s decision to stop Montana’s ban effort.

Montana’s TikTok ban had been set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.

In issuing a preliminary injunction to stop Montana from imposing a full ban on the app, Molloy said that Montana’s legislation does indeed violate the Constitution and “oversteps state power.”

Molloy’s judgment is primarily centered on the fact that Montana has essentially sought to exercise foreign policy authority in enacting a TikTok ban, which is only enforceable by federal authorities. Molloy also noted that there was apervasive undertone of anti-Chinese sentiment” within Montana’s proposed legislation.

TikTok has welcomed the ruling, issuing a brief statement in response:

Montana attorney general, meanwhile, has said that it’s considering next steps to advance its proposed TikTok ban.

The news is a win for TikTok, though the Biden Administration is still weighing a full TikTok ban in the U.S., which may still happen, even though the process has been delayed by legal and legislative challenges.

As I’ve noted previously, my sense here would be that TikTok won’t be banned in the U.S. unless there’s a significant shift in U.S.-China relations, and that relationship is always somewhat tense, and volatile to a degree.

If the U.S. government has new reason to be concerned, it may well move to ban the app. But doing so would be a significant step, and would prompt further response from the C.C.P.

Which is why I suspect that the U.S. government won’t act, unless it feels that it has to. And right now, there’s no clear impetus to implement a ban, and stop a Chinese-owned company from operating in the region, purely because of its origin.

Which is the real crux of the issue here. A TikTok ban is not just banning a social media company, it’s blocking cross-border commerce, because the company is owned by China, which will remain the logic unless clear evidence arises that TikTok has been used as a vector for gathering information on U.S. citizens.

Banning a Chinese-owned app because it is Chinese-owned is a statement, beyond concerns about a social app, and the U.S. is right to tread carefully in considering how such a move might impact other industries.

So right now, TikTok is not going to be banned, in Montana, or anywhere else in the U.S. But that could still change, very quickly.



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

EU wants to know how Meta tackles child sex abuse

Published

on

The investigation is the first step in procedures launched under the EU's new online content law known as the Digital Services Act

The investigation is the first step in procedures launched under the EU’s new online content law known as the Digital Services Act – Copyright AFP Kirill KUDRYAVTSEV

The EU on Friday demanded Instagram-owner Meta provide more information about measures taken by the company to address child sexual abuse online.

The request for information focuses on Meta’s risk assessment and mitigation measures “linked to the protection of minors, including regarding the circulation of self-generated child sexual abuse material (SG-CSAM) on Instagram”, the European Commission said.

Meta must also give information about “Instagram’s recommender system and amplification of potentially harmful content”, it added.

The investigation is the first step in procedures launched under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), but does not itself constitute an indication of legal violations or a move towards punishment.

Meta must respond by December 22.

A report by Stanford University and the Wall Street Journal in June this year said Instagram is the main platform used by paedophile networks to promote and sell content showing child sexual abuse.

Meta at the time said it worked “aggressively” to fight child exploitation.

The commission has already started a series of investigations against large digital platforms seeking information about how they are complying with the DSA.

It has sought more information from Meta in October about the spread of disinformation as well as a request for information last month about how the company protects children online.

The DSA is part of the European Union’s powerful regulatory armoury to bring big tech to heel, and requires digital giants take more aggressive action to counter the spread of illegal and harmful content as well as disinformation.

Platforms face fines that can go up to six percent of global turnover for violations.

Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

SOCIAL

The North Face Delivered Jacket Via Helicopter After Viral TikTok Complaint

Published

on

The North Face Delivered Jacket Via Helicopter After Viral TikTok Complaint

  • Popular apparel brand The North Face posted a crazy marketing stunt on TikTok recently. 
  • In a video, they delivered a rain jacket to a woman at the top of a mountain in New Zealand via helicopter. 
  • The woman had complained in a viral TikTok that her waterproof jacket got soaked in the rain. 

The North Face pulled an elaborate marketing stunt on TikTok and delivered some rain gear via helicopter to a woman in New Zealand, whose complaint about the brand went viral on the platform. 

Jenn Jensen posted a TikTok video on November 17 showing herself on a hiking trail in the rain where she’s soaked whilst wearing a rain jacket sporting The North Face logo. 

“I’ve got a bone to pick with North Face,” Jensen says in the video which has racked up over 11 million views. “I bought this ‘rain jacket’ a couple of days ago and the tag for the advertising said that it’s waterproof. Well listen, I’m 100% sure that it’s raining outside and I’m soaking wet.” 

She added: “Listen… I don’t want a refund. I want you to redesign this rain coat to make it waterproof and express deliver it to the top of Hooker Valley Lake in New Zealand where I will be waiting.” 

She tagged The North Face’s TikTok page in her caption. In one comment a user named @timbrodini wrote: “*Northface has left the conversation.” 

The popular outdoor clothes brand made their own TikTok video in response to @timbrodini’s comment in which they said: “We were busy express delivering @Jenn her jacket at the top of mountain.”

In the TikTok video, a North Face employee can be seen grabbing a red jacket from one of its physical stores and then hopping onto a helicopter where he’s flown out to New Zealand. The man then jumps out of the helicopter at the top of the mountain and runs out to throw the jacket to Jensen who is waiting. 

She says “thank you” at the end of the video, which has also gone viral and gained 4.1 million views. 

Jensen then made a follow up video on her page explaining that The North Face’s marketing team saw her video and wanted to make “amends.” She said they flew her out by helicopter to the top of a mountain in New Zealand to give her new rain gear. 

“At this point the ultimate test will be if the new rain gear they gave me at the top of that mountain will hold up to the very high bar that North Face has now set for themselves,” she concluded at the end of the video. 

Some users speculated whether her original video was also a part of the marketing stunt but Jensen responded that she “turned down” the opportunity to be paid for the company’s follow up video. 

“I’m not an influencer, I was just a disappointed customer.” 

The marketing strategy appears to be a new way for brands to connect with customers by showing their care whilst also providing an entertaining video on social media. 

The North Face seems to be following the steps of the Stanley cup brand which recently went viral after gifting a woman a new car. The woman’s own car had burnt down, but in a TikTok video she showed that her insulated Stanley cup had survived the car fire and that the ice inside hadn’t even melted. 



Source link

Keep an eye on what we are doing
Be the first to get latest updates and exclusive content straight to your email inbox.
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Invalid email address
Continue Reading

Trending