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

The best social media hacks to blow up your following in just a year

Published

on

The best social media hacks to blow up your following in just a year

Storyboard

Get viral fast. Plus more social media hacks to grow your accounts.

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

X Pitches Advertisers on Audience Reach Opportunities in ‘Q5’

Published

on

X Pitches Advertisers on Audience Reach Opportunities in ‘Q5’

X is making a push to win over advertisers in the holiday season, by promoting its opportunities in “Q5”, which covers the post-Christmas to mid-January period.

As explained by X:

During [Q5], we see reduced CPMs and cost-per-conversion as consumers shop for post-holiday deals and products to support their New Year’s ambitions. Last year, X saw a 5% reduction in the average CPM and a 27% reduction in the average cost-per-conversion1.

Which could present new opportunity to reach a larger audience with your promotions, if indeed they are engaging on X over the holiday period.

“Q5 is filled with a wide variety of tent-pole moments, ranging from the holidays to sports, entertainment and more. With a surge of engagement around these conversations, your brand can remain relevant to your audiences while driving maximum ROI.

X says that, based on engagement data from last year, there are a lot of potential topics of interest for brands.

X also notes that sports video views are surging in the app, up almost 25% YoY over the past 6 months, while vertical video is also gaining momentum.

“Vertical video is the fastest growing surface on X. Over 100M people around the world are consuming vertical video daily at an average of over 13 minutes per day. On many days, vertical video accounts for around 20% of all time spent on the platform.

Though I would advise some caution in trusting these data points.

In recent months, various questions have been raised as to what X counts as a video “view” versus an impression, which is when a post is shown in-feed.

Technically, X counts video views like this:

“The main X video view metric is triggered when a user watches a video for at least 2 seconds and sees at least 50% of the video player in-view. This applies to View metrics for both uploaded videos and live broadcasts.

But that’s different to the actual view count that’s displayed on posts:

“Anyone who is logged into X who views a post counts as a view, regardless of where they see the post (e.g. Home, Search, Profiles, etc.) or whether or not they follow the author. If you’re the author, looking at your own post also counts as a view.

Even worse, X counts multiple views from the same person in that count:

“Multiple views may be counted if you view a post more than once, but not all views are unique. For example, you could look at a post on web and then on your phone, and that would count as two views.

So you can see how the public view count on video posts can massively overstate how many people actually watched a clip, which could be why X is reporting such big spikes in engagement. It just depends on which “view” metric it’s referring to here, actual views or exposure in stream.

Which makes all of these numbers a little difficult to determine, while X owner Elon Musk and CEO Linda Yaccarino have also continued to amplify misleading engagement stats via their own X profiles, muddying the waters as to what kind of actual reach and engagement you can expect.

And that’s before you consider the concerns that other advertisers have had with their promotions potentially being displayed alongside harmful or offensive content in the app.

But depending on how you feel about these aspects, and where your target audience is active, it could be worth considering X for your post-holiday promotions, as you look to maximize sales activity over the holiday period.

It’s also worth considering that with fewer big-name brands taking prime spots in the app, there may also be additional opportunity to reach people via X promotions.

There may be value, depending on your strategic thinking, though I would be keeping an eye on actual engagement

You can read more of X’s Q5 insights here.



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

Gaza and Instagram make an explosive mix in Hollywood

Published

on

Gal Gadot regularly posts demands for the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza

Gal Gadot regularly posts demands for the release of hostages held by Hamas in Gaza – Copyright GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP/File Drew Angerer

Audrey Pilon-Topkara

Hollywood celebrities are paying the price for taking sides in the Gaza war — plastering their social media accounts with slogans such as “Free Palestine” or “I stand with Israel”.

Israeli actress Gal Gadot, best known for starring in “Wonder Woman”, has expressed unyielding support for her country since October 7, when Hamas fighters burst out of Gaza, killing about 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking around 240 hostage, according to Israeli officials.

“I stand with Israel, you should too,” she declared to her 109 million Instagram followers.

She has continued to regularly publish or share posts demanding that Hamas release the civilians it is holding — earning her both approval and criticism.

“While you’re at it, can you use your platform to share all the missing and killed innocent Palestinians too?” a user on X, formerly Twitter, wrote in response to one of her posts.

In reprisal for the October 7 attacks, Israel has pounded the Gaza Strip and launched a ground invasion, killing more than 17,000 people, mostly women and children, according to Gaza’s Hamas government.

The Instagram account of American model Gigi Hadid, who is of Palestinian descent and followed by 79 million, has spent less attention on fashion in recent weeks.

She cited the “systemic mistreatment of the Palestinian people by the government of Israel”.

“Stop spreading lies. You and your sisters are antisemitic,” said one comment, with many others expressing similar views.

Famous stars can generate equally strong admiration and repulsion from the public, especially if they comment on divisive issues.

Well before social media, boxer Muhammad Ali, the actor Jane Fonda and singer Bob Dylan were adored or hated over their opposition to the Vietnam War.

More recently the actors Ben Stiller, Angelina Jolie and Sean Penn showed their support for Ukraine by visiting the country, in moves that were approved by most of their Western fans.

– Insults –

But the Israel-Palestinian issue is more divisive than most, exposing celebrities to even fiercer backlashes.

Kylie Jenner, the half-sister of socialite Kim Kardashian, shared a pro-Israeli post with her 399 million Instagram followers shortly after October 7, which according to US media she deleted an hour later after being hit with insults.

The Oscar-winning actor Susan Sarandon was dropped by her talent agency in November for comments she made at a pro-Palestinian rally, for which she later apologised.

Melissa Barrera, star of the fifth and sixth instalments of the “Scream” franchise, was cut from the cast of the seventh by the producers, who said they had “zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and incitement to hatred”.

The Mexican had denounced what she called “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza.

Celebrities who take sides in the conflict have “a lot to lose and little to gain”, said Nicolas Vanderbiest, founder of the public relations firm Saper Vedere in Brussels.

Producers and sponsors have little appetite for mixing geopolitics and business, he said.

In this issue, two “extremely organised” communities are on the lookout, creating a “herd affect”, Vanderbiest added.

Tom Cruise prevented his own agent from losing her job after she had referred to “genocide” on her Instagram account, according to the cinema trade press.

Celebrities could just stay quiet, but with this conflict there is “pressure to pronounce” and no immunity from criticism, said Jamil Jean-Marc Dakhlia, a professor of information and communication at Sorbonne Nouvelle University in Paris.

“Silence is seen as taking a position,” Dakhlia said. “So we are in a situation where you are forced to take sides, and not necessarily with much nuance.”

American singer and actor Selena Gomez, with 429 million Instagram followers, has been criticised for not taking a stronger stance on the issue.

Along with hundreds of others, including Hadid, singer Jennifer Lopez and actor Joaquin Phoenix, she took a middle road, signing a petition calling for a ceasefire and the safe release of hostages.

Earlier, hundreds of celebrities, including Gadot, had signed an open letter thanking US President Joe Biden for supporting “the Jewish people” and calling for the release of all hostages held by Hamas.

Very few signed both.

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