Official Twitter Thread (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

What is Lists? Microsoft Lists? I'm interested.

How to use Twitter Lists. https://business.twitter.com/en/blog/twitter-101-lists.html

 

[Chaos34]

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

What is Lists? Microsoft Lists? I'm interested.

Well, Sigmund was mentioned above for having good FF lists linked on his homepage. In Shining Path Cup, I mentioned my approach to fantasy this year was filtering the fantasy guys out and sticking with NFL team beat writers. Sig's list of NFL team beat writers was my go to.

Scoutzen is a simple and handy tool. Just enter a topic you'd like a good list for and you'll get pages of lists to follow. That link should show you lists for NBA Basketball, just as an example. As always, avoid politics. Science and Tech lists have made X much more interesting for me.

About a month ago, I said the site is now better than ever for me after spending time blocking content I didn't want. I understand people not wanting to put effort into fixing something they didn't break. The effort comes with a little frustration as blocking one vile account might send others to you a few times. For me it was just a few times, and I still feel the site is better than ever now. Just have to make it the way you want it. My For You has been fine for weeks. No complaints. I have experienced the same as others with Following. Not seeing everything there. But yeah, I tend to focus on one topic at a time, so Lists on topic get my attention every day.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think one thing that interests me on any platform is determining where the "line" is for moderation.

I think most agree there needs to be some line. If not, you get 4chan.

So, while there's nearly universal agreement, there should be some line.

There is much less agreement on where the line should be.

In my opinion, that's the crux of the argument and issue. And it's super interesting.

At the risk of breaking the rules, I'd note there is an interesting US Supreme Court case pending this term involving state laws in Florida and Texas which essentially prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the speaker's viewpoint, and provide for civil damages and other sanctions, private lawsuits, etc. This case is more or less about moderation, banning users, "demonetizing" users, prohibiting certain content, etc. The case is Moody v NetChoice and the docket is here -- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moody-v-netchoice-llc/.

For anyone interested, the sub-Reddits r/law and r/scotus filed an easily digestible and humorous amicus brief that provides a good high-level background and illustrates the moderation problem these large social media companies face these days. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, THE MODERATORS OF R/LAW AND R/SCOTUS

unbiased summary of the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/09/justices-take-major-florida-and-texas-social-media-cases/

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think one thing that interests me on any platform is determining where the "line" is for moderation.

I think most agree there needs to be some line. If not, you get 4chan.

So, while there's nearly universal agreement, there should be some line.

There is much less agreement on where the line should be.

In my opinion, that's the crux of the argument and issue. And it's super interesting.

At the risk of breaking the rules, I'd note there is an interesting US Supreme Court case pending this term involving state laws in Florida and Texas which essentially prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the speaker's viewpoint, and provide for civil damages and other sanctions, private lawsuits, etc. This case is more or less about moderation, banning users, "demonetizing" users, prohibiting certain content, etc. The case is Moody v NetChoice and the docket is here -- https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/moody-v-netchoice-llc/.

For anyone interested, the sub-Reddits r/law and r/scotus filed an easily digestible and humorous amicus brief that provides a good high-level background and illustrates the moderation problem these large social media companies face these days. BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE, THE MODERATORS OF R/LAW AND R/SCOTUS

unbiased summary of the case: https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/09/justices-take-major-florida-and-texas-social-media-cases/

Good thing I don't believe FBG will ever be a large social media platform.

 

[McBokonon]

I doubt I’m alone in this and know that experience has lessened my interaction with X.

Someone mentioned earlier, no ads on Lists (I still cannot believe).

Creating lists, or finding ones you like, is kind of a MUST, far as I am concerned.

Sigmund has a nice group of lists, fantasy related, for example. I have a list of Raider writers, The Athletic writers, NFL News guys.

No ads.

I notice this too as I use mostly lists. And it’s bonkers. We’re literally telling them what products to advertise to us by creating a list. My financial twitter list should have brokerage ads, stock pick ads, ads for Barron’s etc. but there’s nothing. But I’ll absolutely see ads to buy some piece of crap from Temu over and over on Following even though I’ve never indicated any interest in whatever it is at any time.

Maybe none of those places are advertising on Twitter anymore.

Some, sure. But I have a bunch of other lists, too. No ads in any of them. It’s a lists thing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

well it's a $40 billion company they should have a lot of dedicated resources for this. is it easy? no. is it even clear that they're making much of an effort? not really.

Thanks. We'll just disagree on the bolded. Given what little bit I know, it seems clear, at least to me, they're making way more than "much of an effort".

My point, and what I said was, I tend to give a platform a good bit of grace and not assume I know things I coudln't possibly know about their effort as it seems like an incredibly difficult task.

But zero worries as it's fine for us to disagree.

Musk famously fired much of the content watchdogs, both in house and contract workers, shortly after he took over. Earlier last year Musk himself said he had laid off about 80% of Twitter's employees.

Drastically reducing content moderating staff is not consistent with "making way more than an effort".

 

[tommyGunZ]

Update: After logging in to my account which I don't want, on my landing page there were 2 items with videos of (human) shootings, 2 conspiracy items pushing violence, and an item directing me to a long thread advertised with a child abuse video. I've gotten none of this bile before. I guess as long as a business owner keeps the advertising bucks coming in, or decides to just keep running it and covering the losses with other money, the owner can keep pushing this kind of vomit material.

Sorry to hear that. Like I've stated (probably too much), I've pretty much stopped going and have gone from a reluctant Twitter user to somebody who foregoes it. I know I'm missing stuff, but it's just not worth it to me.

Thanks. I'm sorry a business owner chooses to push this crap on people. Imagine if Amazon did that.

I can't imagine that this is his intent. Rather, I suspect that his intent is to remove some (or much) of the content moderation algorithms and/or subjective policies to allow for broader speech and this is the unintended result.

"Unintended" doing a lot of work here biggy. Even if unintended, it was 100% foreseeable and obvious to anyone and everyone that this would be the result. The fairest and most accurate take is that Musk knew removing moderation would lead to lots more ugliness on his platform, and he thought it was worth it.

Automaker removes seatbelts to cut costs and give drivers/passengers more freedom. Death rates in car accidents spike. Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, well, the automakers don't intend for people to die, so not really their fault?

 

[Joe Bryant]

well it's a $40 billion company they should have a lot of dedicated resources for this. is it easy? no. is it even clear that they're making much of an effort? not really.

Thanks. We'll just disagree on the bolded. Given what little bit I know, it seems clear, at least to me, they're making way more than "much of an effort".

My point, and what I said was, I tend to give a platform a good bit of grace and not assume I know things I coudln't possibly know about their effort as it seems like an incredibly difficult task.

But zero worries as it's fine for us to disagree.

Musk famously fired much of the content watchdogs, both in house and contract workers, shortly after he took over. Earlier last year Musk himself said he had laid off about 80% of Twitter's employees.

Drastically reducing content moderating staff is not consistent with "making way more than an effort".

If you're going to quote me, please get the words right. I said, "Given what little bit I know, it seems clear, at least to me, they're making way more than "much of an effort".'

I believe they're making more than "much of an effort" to moderate and have a good product. But I truly do not know the behind the scenes work they are doing. That's just how it seems to me, as I said, given what I do know and the experiences I have had with the product.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Update: After logging in to my account which I don't want, on my landing page there were 2 items with videos of (human) shootings, 2 conspiracy items pushing violence, and an item directing me to a long thread advertised with a child abuse video. I've gotten none of this bile before. I guess as long as a business owner keeps the advertising bucks coming in, or decides to just keep running it and covering the losses with other money, the owner can keep pushing this kind of vomit material.

Sorry to hear that. Like I've stated (probably too much), I've pretty much stopped going and have gone from a reluctant Twitter user to somebody who foregoes it. I know I'm missing stuff, but it's just not worth it to me.

Thanks. I'm sorry a business owner chooses to push this crap on people. Imagine if Amazon did that.

I can't imagine that this is his intent. Rather, I suspect that his intent is to remove some (or much) of the content moderation algorithms and/or subjective policies to allow for broader speech and this is the unintended result.

"Unintended" doing a lot of work here biggy. Even if unintended, it was 100% foreseeable and obvious to anyone and everyone that this would be the result. The fairest and most accurate take is that Musk knew removing moderation would lead to lots more ugliness on his platform, and he thought it was worth it.

Automaker removes seatbelts to cut costs and give drivers/passengers more freedom. Death rates in car accidents spike. Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, well, the automakers don't intend for people to die, so not really their fault?

I'm only one user, but I will put up with having to block a few "fight club video" accounts if it means that people are not being suspended for expressing wrongthink. That tradeoff is 100% worth it for me, and I will always opt for a platform structured like this vs. a platform structured like Old Twitter, all else equal.

This forum is different because it's a message board, and we're all exposed to one another whether we want to be or not. So it makes sense that we ask people to conform to some pretty stringent norms. But on a site like Twitter, the default is that I don't see other people -- I have to intentionally choose to follow them if I want to see their stuff. The opt-in nature of the platform makes me favor rather loose moderation on that sort of site while also favoring strong moderation on a platform like this. Not sure if that makes sense to others, but it makes sense to me. (Think of it as the Alex Jones paradox -- I don't care if he's on Twitter because I'm not going to read his stuff anyway, but I would not want to be exposed to that here.)

 

[bigbottom]

Update: After logging in to my account which I don't want, on my landing page there were 2 items with videos of (human) shootings, 2 conspiracy items pushing violence, and an item directing me to a long thread advertised with a child abuse video. I've gotten none of this bile before. I guess as long as a business owner keeps the advertising bucks coming in, or decides to just keep running it and covering the losses with other money, the owner can keep pushing this kind of vomit material.

Sorry to hear that. Like I've stated (probably too much), I've pretty much stopped going and have gone from a reluctant Twitter user to somebody who foregoes it. I know I'm missing stuff, but it's just not worth it to me.

Thanks. I'm sorry a business owner chooses to push this crap on people. Imagine if Amazon did that.

I can't imagine that this is his intent. Rather, I suspect that his intent is to remove some (or much) of the content moderation algorithms and/or subjective policies to allow for broader speech and this is the unintended result.

"Unintended" doing a lot of work here biggy. Even if unintended, it was 100% foreseeable and obvious to anyone and everyone that this would be the result. The fairest and most accurate take is that Musk knew removing moderation would lead to lots more ugliness on his platform, and he thought it was worth it.

Automaker removes seatbelts to cut costs and give drivers/passengers more freedom. Death rates in car accidents spike. Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, well, the automakers don't intend for people to die, so not really their fault?

Fair enough. I was only meaning to take issue with the suggestion that it is his intent to push child abuse videos. But that wasn’t precisely what was stated so I may have been raising a straw man to begin with.

 

[tommyGunZ]

well it's a $40 billion company they should have a lot of dedicated resources for this. is it easy? no. is it even clear that they're making much of an effort? not really.

Thanks. We'll just disagree on the bolded. Given what little bit I know, it seems clear, at least to me, they're making way more than "much of an effort".

My point, and what I said was, I tend to give a platform a good bit of grace and not assume I know things I coudln't possibly know about their effort as it seems like an incredibly difficult task.

But zero worries as it's fine for us to disagree.

Musk famously fired much of the content watchdogs, both in house and contract workers, shortly after he took over. Earlier last year Musk himself said he had laid off about 80% of Twitter's employees.

Drastically reducing content moderating staff is not consistent with "making way more than an effort".

If you're going to quote me, please get the words right. I said, "Given what little bit I know, it seems clear, at least to me, they're making way more than "much of an effort".'

I believe they're making more than "much of an effort" to moderate and have a good product. But I truly do not know the behind the scenes work they are doing. That's just how it seems to me, as I said, given what I do know and the experiences I have had with the product.

Thats fair - I was trying to quote you but paraphrased clumsily. My bad!

We’ll have to agree to disagree with the efforts to moderate content. I don’t see how you can overlook Musk’s huge reductions in content moderation staffing and still suggest it’s a priority.

One thing I think we agree on is the fact that content moderation is HARD. Really HARD. I empathize with moderators who are constantly being pushed to the margins on the rules. For example, IK keeps harping on twitter’s attempt to combat misinformation during the heights of Covid. I empathize with those moderators who had to make tough decisions, knowing that lives literally were hanging in the balance.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think most of the moderation on large platforms like Twitter and Facebook is done by computer programs, and bots/algorithms used to boost or suppress certain content. I was once banned by Twitter based on a reply comment that included a cliche reference in which I said something like 'X could happen if you were hit by a bus' (or similar) - it was a very clear cliche comment that was responding to the other user's tweet. The Twitter algo interpreted my comment as a threat of violence and banned me. I explained to them using the reply button they provided, but after a couple days of being banned, I just deleted my initial reply to get un-banned. Its still a massive undertaking for the host/owner of the platform, but I don't think anyone expects them to have humans reviewing the content. This is one of the concerns these platforms have with the new laws in Texas and Florida - that their bots might cause them liability by censuring or banning the wrong user.

 

[Joe Bryant]

This forum is different because it's a message board, and we're all exposed to one another whether we want to be or not. So it makes sense that we ask people to conform to some pretty stringent norms. But on a site like Twitter, the default is that I don't see other people -- I have to intentionally choose to follow them if I want to see their stuff. The opt-in nature of the platform makes me favor rather loose moderation on that sort of site while also favoring strong moderation on a platform like this. Not sure if that makes sense to others, but it makes sense to me. (Think of it as the Alex Jones paradox -- I don't care if he's on Twitter because I'm not going to read his stuff anyway, but I would not want to be exposed to that here.)

Agreed, @IvanKaramazov. The "opt in" nature does make a big difference compared to a forum like this.

 

[fatness]

Update: After logging in to my account which I don't want, on my landing page there were 2 items with videos of (human) shootings, 2 conspiracy items pushing violence, and an item directing me to a long thread advertised with a child abuse video. I've gotten none of this bile before. I guess as long as a business owner keeps the advertising bucks coming in, or decides to just keep running it and covering the losses with other money, the owner can keep pushing this kind of vomit material.

Sorry to hear that. Like I've stated (probably too much), I've pretty much stopped going and have gone from a reluctant Twitter user to somebody who foregoes it. I know I'm missing stuff, but it's just not worth it to me.

Thanks. I'm sorry a business owner chooses to push this crap on people. Imagine if Amazon did that.

I can't imagine that this is his intent. Rather, I suspect that his intent is to remove some (or much) of the content moderation algorithms and/or subjective policies to allow for broader speech and this is the unintended result.

"Unintended" doing a lot of work here biggy. Even if unintended, it was 100% foreseeable and obvious to anyone and everyone that this would be the result. The fairest and most accurate take is that Musk knew removing moderation would lead to lots more ugliness on his platform, and he thought it was worth it.

Automaker removes seatbelts to cut costs and give drivers/passengers more freedom. Death rates in car accidents spike. Do we just shrug our shoulders and say, well, the automakers don't intend for people to die, so not really their fault?

Fair enough. I was only meaning to take issue with the suggestion that it is his intent to push child abuse videos. But that wasn’t precisely what was stated so I may have been raising a straw man to begin with.

No harm done about misunderstanding what I was saying about intent. I clarified it in another reply to you here:

I'm kind of in agreement that it wasn't his intent, but I wouldn't characterize this as an unintended result. I'd call it acceptable (to him) collateral damage. When message boards are unmoderated and get enough traffic, this often happens --- violent talk, abuse talk, porn and child porn talk, racist or antisemitic or anti-ethnic or anti-religion talk. It's the reason so many smaller media outlets have stopped their comments section. When the moderating staff at Twitter was cut by 70 or 80% everyone who wanted to be realistic knew this kind of bile would increase on Twitter. And it has. The desire to be the guy in charge of what could be said, and who could say it, is why Musk bought Twitter in my opinion. Because of his wealth he can sustain Twitter as long as he wants to by just paying for it, so to expect any substantial change isn't realistic.

Musk bought Twitter to tilt it to the right, in my opinion. People are getting suspended or banned but they're just different people than were getting suspended or banned before. The reduction in moderation is a cost-cutting move, and knowing that that will allow more vile content was just acceptable collateral damage, in my opinion.

 

[fatness]

I also agree that changing the name to X was a stupid business decision. I'm guessing it was purely ego-driven since there's no business advantage to be obtained by doing it.

Imagine logging in to the main part of FBG and finding out the site is named

F​

Or finding out the site is named

SITE NAME​

 

[massraider]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

 

[massraider]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

See, you don't know who he is because he's being shadow-banned!

 

[BlackCrowes]

Should be renamed again to “bot”

 

[McBokonon]

Matt Taibbi never thought they’d eat HIS face

 

[Chaos34]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

Matt Taibbi is probably my favorite journalist. His work on the Iraq invasion and WMD story was the best out there. Again, he was the best source for the economic crisis in 08. He's continued digging into banking corruption and sees things setting up for it happening again, just differently. He's best known for being on staff at Rolling Stone which may make you think he's a lib, but his disdain for the left and right has been nothing but balanced, imo.

For that reason, including Matt being perceived liberal, Elon tapped him to cover the Twitter censorship mess. They became friends. Elon had to censor Matt some because the findings were so appalling to Matt that the story became too over the top. So we only got a watered down version of what was going on at Twitter. Although Elon has said a few times, the rest of the story will be available some day.

For this and other reasons Matt parted ways with Elon and moved to Substack, a direct competitor with Twitter. The conflict between them is a year old. Matt has spoken out here and there several times explaining X is not truly allowing free speech. He openly picked a fight with Elon on the topic. Bla bla bla. Elon has explained a few times Substack is treated no differently than FB, Insta, etc. Matt's a fantastic writer but I think I side with Elon on this. If you follow Matt his stuff will appear in your Following but not your For You. Seems fair enough considering how Substack and other media firms have scraped X for users and content only to use it in direct competition.

 

[massraider]

X accused of taking payments from terrorists

Campaigners at the Tech Transparency Project in the US found paid-for features for organisations.

www.bbc.com

Elon Musk's X, formerly Twitter, granted subscription perks to designated terrorist groups and others barred from operating in the US, according to campaigners.

The Tech Transparency Project (TTP) found X had granted blue check marks to accounts tied to Hezbollah members, among others.

For $8 (£6.40) a month, a tick allows longer posts and better promotion.

X removed some ticks after the report, saying its security was "robust".

"A blue checkmark account that bears the name and profile image of Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, also indicates it is 'ID verified', a service that X offers to premium subscribers as a way to prevent impersonation. X requires users to submit a government-issued ID and a selfie to get verified in this way, though it is unclear if Nasrallah did so", it added.

 

[the moops]

Seems fair enough considering how Substack and other media firms have scraped X for users and content only to use it in direct competition.

It might be fair, but it is 1000% hypocritical considering Musk has yelled from every rooftop about "free speech"

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Seems fair enough considering how Substack and other media firms have scraped X for users and content only to use it in direct competition.

It might be fair, but it is 1000% hypocritical considering Musk has yelled from every rooftop about "free speech"

I’m not really sure how Substack is necessarily a direct competitor of X anyway. According to Taibbi, he was always very clear with Musk that he would be using Substack to make a living, which is hard to do on twitter. I don’t see how Taibbi’s long form journalism marketed to monthly subscribers would work just using Twitter. But of course Musk can do anything he wants and he knows better than I do who his competitors are. I did think the Twitter Files work by Taibbi was excellent and extremely important.

 

[massraider]

I’m not really sure how Substack is necessarily a direct competitor of X anyway

It's not.

 

[Desert_Power]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

A hack

 

[Ilov80s]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

Former real noteworthy journalist who did some great work during the recession exposing firms like Goldman Sachs. He has since shifted to being a culture war guy and critic of the mainstream media. When Elon first took over Twitter, Matt worked for him to expose dirt on the former people running Twitter but they had quickly had a falling out and have been beefing ever since.

 

[Joe Bryant]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

Former real noteworthy journalist who did some great work during the recession exposing firms like Goldman Sachs. He has since shifted to being a culture war guy and critic of the mainstream media. When Elon first took over Twitter, Matt worked for him to expose dirt on the former people running Twitter but they had quickly had a falling out and have been beefing ever since.

There's big money in the culture wars. And it's cool to try and be the next Hunter Thompson.

And nothing attracts attention and clicks like culture/politics. Please let's stay far from that in this thread.

 

[massraider]

Taibbi shares the text messages where he admits he repeatedly declined to criticize Musk. In the midst of the bootlicking whining, Musk says, 'You are dead to me'.

Taibbi's best chance for relevance now is Twitter Files 2.0, The Sequel Nobody Asked For!!!

 

[fatness]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

According to CHEQ, a whopping 75.85 percent of traffic from X to its advertising clients' websites during the weekend of the Super Bowl was fake.

"I've never seen anything even remotely close to 50 percent, not to mention 76 percent," CHEQ founder and CEO Guy Tytunovich told Mashable regarding X's fake traffic data. "I'm amazed…I've never, ever, ever, ever seen anything even remotely close."

When a post goes viral on X, its now commonplace to find bots filling the replies with AI-generated responses or accounts with randomly generated usernames spamming a user's mentions with unsolicited "link-in-bio" promotions. Now, there's data which backs up that user experience.

Advertisers have also noticed X's bot issues. In a recently published piece in The Guardian, Gene Marks, a small business owner shared his ad campaign results from X. After a small $50 advertising spend, X's analytics shows that his website had received 350 clicks from approximately 29,000 views. However, according to Google Analytics, X wasn't the source of any of the actual traffic his website had received during that time period.

 

[Ilov80s]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

According to CHEQ, a whopping 75.85 percent of traffic from X to its advertising clients' websites during the weekend of the Super Bowl was fake.

"I've never seen anything even remotely close to 50 percent, not to mention 76 percent," CHEQ founder and CEO Guy Tytunovich told Mashable regarding X's fake traffic data. "I'm amazed…I've never, ever, ever, ever seen anything even remotely close."

When a post goes viral on X, its now commonplace to find bots filling the replies with AI-generated responses or accounts with randomly generated usernames spamming a user's mentions with unsolicited "link-in-bio" promotions. Now, there's data which backs up that user experience.

Advertisers have also noticed X's bot issues. In a recently published piece in The Guardian, Gene Marks, a small business owner shared his ad campaign results from X. After a small $50 advertising spend, X's analytics shows that his website had received 350 clicks from approximately 29,000 views. However, according to Google Analytics, X wasn't the source of any of the actual traffic his website had received during that time period.

Yeah, actual human interaction is way way down from my anecdotal experience. When I get notifications, it's 95% a fake account following me or someone spamming accounts asking to me follow or click a link for some scam. So funny how when Musk bought it, one of his main goals was getting rid of the bots.

 

[titusbramble]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

a) Is that different from any other social media platform?
b) Is said "cyber security company" saying that 75% of what X is quoting is fake, or that 75% of the overall traffic is fake? I would not dispute the latter, but Musk has generally been pretty careful to quote actual legitimate traffic, and those increases quoted seem reasonably in line with what we have been seeing in terms of legitimate X usage paired with some randomly extremely popular singer being involved with one of the team's tight ends

 

[fatness]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

a) Is that different from any other social media platform?
b) Is said "cyber security company" saying that 75% of what X is quoting is fake, or that 75% of the overall traffic is fake? I would not dispute the latter, but Musk has generally been pretty careful to quote actual legitimate traffic, and those increases quoted seem reasonably in line with what we have been seeing in terms of legitimate X usage paired with some randomly extremely popular singer being involved with one of the team's tight ends

I think both those answers are in the linked article I provided.

The majority of traffic from Elon Musk's X may have been fake during the Super Bowl, report suggests

These numbers are legitimately shocking.

mashable.com

 

[bigbottom]

From an ad revenue perspective, these reported results have to be devastating for business.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I would have to imagine that companies should be able to tell whether clicks are actually turning into sales or not. If it’s just a bunch of fake traffic with no corresponding increase in sales, then the advertising dollars are a waste no matter how many “clicks” are generated.

 

[fatness]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

a) Is that different from any other social media platform?
b) Is said "cyber security company" saying that 75% of what X is quoting is fake, or that 75% of the overall traffic is fake?

Sorry for the short answer earlier. I don't like posting from my phone.

a) Yes, it's different than any other platform.

According to CHEQ, a whopping 75.85 percent of traffic from X to its advertising clients' websites during the weekend of the Super Bowl was fake. "I've never seen anything even remotely close to 50 percent, not to mention 76 percent," CHEQ founder and CEO Guy Tytunovich told Mashable regarding X's fake traffic data. "I'm amazed…I've never, ever, ever, ever seen anything even remotely close."

b) CHEQ is saying 75% of the overall traffic X is quoting is from fake accounts.

CHEQ's data for this report is based on 144,000 visits to its clients' sites that came from X during Super Bowl weekend, from Friday, Feb. 9 up until the end of Super Bowl Sunday on Feb. 11. The data was collected from across CHEQ's 15,000 total clients. It's a small portion of the relevant data, and it's not scientifically sampled, but it nonetheless suggests a dramatic trend.

CHEQ monitors bots and fake users across the internet in order to minimize online ad fraud for its clients. Tytunovich's company accomplishes this by tracking how visitors from different sources, such as X, interact with a client's page after they click one of their links. The company can also tell when a bot is passing itself off as a real user, such as when a fraudulent user is faking what type of operating system they are using to view a website.

 

[FairWarning]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

According to CHEQ, a whopping 75.85 percent of traffic from X to its advertising clients' websites during the weekend of the Super Bowl was fake.

"I've never seen anything even remotely close to 50 percent, not to mention 76 percent," CHEQ founder and CEO Guy Tytunovich told Mashable regarding X's fake traffic data. "I'm amazed…I've never, ever, ever, ever seen anything even remotely close."

When a post goes viral on X, its now commonplace to find bots filling the replies with AI-generated responses or accounts with randomly generated usernames spamming a user's mentions with unsolicited "link-in-bio" promotions. Now, there's data which backs up that user experience.

Advertisers have also noticed X's bot issues. In a recently published piece in The Guardian, Gene Marks, a small business owner shared his ad campaign results from X. After a small $50 advertising spend, X's analytics shows that his website had received 350 clicks from approximately 29,000 views. However, according to Google Analytics, X wasn't the source of any of the actual traffic his website had received during that time period.

Yeah, actual human interaction is way way down from my anecdotal experience. When I get notifications, it's 95% a fake account following me or someone spamming accounts asking to me follow or click a link for some scam. So funny how when Musk bought it, one of his main goals was getting rid of the bots.

The porn bots have seemed to go away, now it’s Bitcoin bots.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Twitter announced that Super Bowl impressions, posts, and views on Twitter were up 31%, 41%, and 75% respectively over last year.

Cybersecurity company CHEQ says that about 75% of that traffic was fake.

According to CHEQ, a whopping 75.85 percent of traffic from X to its advertising clients' websites during the weekend of the Super Bowl was fake.

"I've never seen anything even remotely close to 50 percent, not to mention 76 percent," CHEQ founder and CEO Guy Tytunovich told Mashable regarding X's fake traffic data. "I'm amazed…I've never, ever, ever, ever seen anything even remotely close."

When a post goes viral on X, its now commonplace to find bots filling the replies with AI-generated responses or accounts with randomly generated usernames spamming a user's mentions with unsolicited "link-in-bio" promotions. Now, there's data which backs up that user experience.

Advertisers have also noticed X's bot issues. In a recently published piece in The Guardian, Gene Marks, a small business owner shared his ad campaign results from X. After a small $50 advertising spend, X's analytics shows that his website had received 350 clicks from approximately 29,000 views. However, according to Google Analytics, X wasn't the source of any of the actual traffic his website had received during that time period.

Yeah, actual human interaction is way way down from my anecdotal experience. When I get notifications, it's 95% a fake account following me or someone spamming accounts asking to me follow or click a link for some scam. So funny how when Musk bought it, one of his main goals was getting rid of the bots.

The porn bots have seemed to go away, now it’s Bitcoin bots.

I see a lot of P I C S I N B I O when I look at the comments. It seems like there should be an easy way to automate those accounts out of existence.

 

[Joe Bryant]

From an ad revenue perspective, these reported results have to be devastating for business.

No idea if the reports are accurate and more importantly how they relate to other platforms.

But of course, if accurate, they are awful for selling advertising.

I don't know anymore than what I read and hear online with this, but listening to Musk on Rogan on Halloween (thus the costumes) a few months ago, it seems he's not that concerned with selling advertising. Whether or not he can afford to hold that position, is of course another matter.

And please, let's let that be as political as this gets.

 

[Joe Bryant]

It seems I'm one of the few that has a good experience on Twitter but the most recent changes are making it even better.

On some of the posts I make, I'll have the normal replies and comments and then at the very bottom box that says, "Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content". If you click "show" it almost always is a gambling post advertising for a sports book or something. It's not a big deal. But it's helpful that those are filtered out from the real comments.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It seems I'm the only one that has a good experience on Twitter but the most recent changes are making it even better.

On some of the posts I make, I'll have the normal replies and comments and then at the very bottom box that says, "Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content". If you click "show" it almost always is a gambling post advertising for a sports book or something. It's not a big deal. But it's helpful that those are filtered out from the real comments.

I like Twitter. Just correcting the record to note that there are actually still porn bots on there. I agree with you that they're not a huge deal. They're just tacky more than anything else.

 

[shuke]

Are we supposed to be blocking these bots that follow us?

 

[BlackCrowes]

Are we supposed to be blocking these bots that follow us?

They multiply faster than I can block them

 

[belljr]

I sparingly use Twitter .... I follow 5 people

My experience from the corner of my little world is posts and replies/likes are way way down

 

[massraider]

Are we supposed to be blocking these bots that follow us?

What do you have against nude Bitcoins?

 

[McBokonon]

nude Bitcoins?

Now that’s something I don’t mind hodl’ing.

 

[McBokonon]

Yulia Navalnaya (Alexi Navalny’s wife) had her account suspended a day after she created it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

From an ad revenue perspective, these reported results have to be devastating for business.

No idea if the reports are accurate and more importantly how they relate to other platforms.

But of course, if accurate, they are awful for selling advertising.

I don't know anymore than what I read and hear online with this, but listening to Musk on Rogan on Halloween (thus the costumes) a few months ago, it seems he's not that concerned with selling advertising. Whether or not he can afford to hold that position, is of course another matter.

And please, let's let that be as political as this gets.

is it political to point out how hilariously preposterous this lie is?

The dude publicly lobs juvenile insults at advertisers who stop giving him business. I mean, come on. You run a business, Joe, and occasionally sell ad space. Does this seem like the behavior of someone who is not concerned with selling advertising to you?

 

[TobiasFunke]

https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi and Elon Musk are fighting. Taibbi is posting screenshots.

who?

Matt Taibbi is probably my favorite journalist. His work on the Iraq invasion and WMD story was the best out there. Again, he was the best source for the economic crisis in 08. He's continued digging into banking corruption and sees things setting up for it happening again, just differently. He's best known for being on staff at Rolling Stone which may make you think he's a lib, but his disdain for the left and right has been nothing but balanced, imo.

For that reason, including Matt being perceived liberal, Elon tapped him to cover the Twitter censorship mess. They became friends. Elon had to censor Matt some because the findings were so appalling to Matt that the story became too over the top. So we only got a watered down version of what was going on at Twitter. Although Elon has said a few times, the rest of the story will be available some day.

For this and other reasons Matt parted ways with Elon and moved to Substack, a direct competitor with Twitter. The conflict between them is a year old. Matt has spoken out here and there several times explaining X is not truly allowing free speech. He openly picked a fight with Elon on the topic. Bla bla bla. Elon has explained a few times Substack is treated no differently than FB, Insta, etc. Matt's a fantastic writer but I think I side with Elon on this. If you follow Matt his stuff will appear in your Following but not your For You. Seems fair enough considering how Substack and other media firms have scraped X for users and content only to use it in direct competition.

I can't believe I ever left this place.

 

[McBokonon]

Yulia Navalnaya (Alexi Navalny’s wife) had her account suspended a day after she created it.

Aaand she’s back.