So a publicly traded company cannot validate one of its key metrics? And the CEO, who has a fiduciary duty to shareholders is telling the world that essentially, he doesnβt know how many real, living human beings actually use Twitter. Wow!
Digital social avenues are plagued with fake users to create the appearance of popularity, user activity, consensus, etc.
Before the internet they were just called shills or actors. Fake people taking part in the ruse, to steal your attention, and part you from your money.
Lol the people reeeing over statistics. "100 people isn't representative of 260 million users" to validate their existence meanwhile "100 people is representative of 260 million voters political beliefs, leanings, opinions, etc."
The sample needs to be a certain size AND must also be representative of the group being sampled to yield accurate projections. Larger sample sizes generally produce better results, but the only accurate result is counting every user. Think how politcal polls are manipulated (oversample democrats then declare majority of likely voters support their democrat cadidate). They carefully contrive the sample to ensure the desired result to use as a tool to manipulate public opinion. For sure twitter carefully selected the 100 accounts to yield a number they felt the public would believe, in this case 5% bots.
I completely agree. I was just offering the observation that, from a strictly numerical standpoint, their "sample" size was far too small---aside from the issue of cooking the sample.
The only one that I think would be tricky would be the troll farms, where people use racks of phones to hold dozens of profiles.
If they had restricted the API to prevent a bot from doing anything relating to posting or retweeting, then that would (correct me if wrong) prevent all bots in the first place aside from 'clicker' bots, and IMO that would leave a different trace that could be noticed.
Either way, when the value of the company is tied to the number of human users for ad revenue purposes, there's not much excuse to give bots or those who try to implement them a hard time.
"Iβm not suggesting malice in the algorithm, but rather that itβs trying to guess what you might want to read and, in doing so, inadvertently manipulate/amplify your viewpoints without you realizing this is happening"
Oh, of course not, not suggesting a thing, AT ALL. LOL
So a publicly traded company cannot validate one of its key metrics? And the CEO, who has a fiduciary duty to shareholders is telling the world that essentially, he doesnβt know how many real, living human beings actually use Twitter. Wow!
Digital social avenues are plagued with fake users to create the appearance of popularity, user activity, consensus, etc.
Before the internet they were just called shills or actors. Fake people taking part in the ruse, to steal your attention, and part you from your money.
Lol the people reeeing over statistics. "100 people isn't representative of 260 million users" to validate their existence meanwhile "100 people is representative of 260 million voters political beliefs, leanings, opinions, etc."
Using a rough rule of thumb that the square root of the population would be the minimum sample size, it works out to 5,100.
The sample needs to be a certain size AND must also be representative of the group being sampled to yield accurate projections. Larger sample sizes generally produce better results, but the only accurate result is counting every user. Think how politcal polls are manipulated (oversample democrats then declare majority of likely voters support their democrat cadidate). They carefully contrive the sample to ensure the desired result to use as a tool to manipulate public opinion. For sure twitter carefully selected the 100 accounts to yield a number they felt the public would believe, in this case 5% bots.
I completely agree. I was just offering the observation that, from a strictly numerical standpoint, their "sample" size was far too small---aside from the issue of cooking the sample.
The only one that I think would be tricky would be the troll farms, where people use racks of phones to hold dozens of profiles.
If they had restricted the API to prevent a bot from doing anything relating to posting or retweeting, then that would (correct me if wrong) prevent all bots in the first place aside from 'clicker' bots, and IMO that would leave a different trace that could be noticed.
Either way, when the value of the company is tied to the number of human users for ad revenue purposes, there's not much excuse to give bots or those who try to implement them a hard time.
ha...Bullshit Soldier!!!!
Translation: "We already know exactly which accounts are bots"
I like this one in his feed:
"Iβm not suggesting malice in the algorithm, but rather that itβs trying to guess what you might want to read and, in doing so, inadvertently manipulate/amplify your viewpoints without you realizing this is happening"
Oh, of course not, not suggesting a thing, AT ALL. LOL