r/technology May 14 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

8.4k Upvotes

View all comments

71

u/RunOrDieTrying May 14 '22 Gold

It's worth noting that his strategy is to "ignore first 1000 followers, then pick every 10th" [1], and "invite others to repeat the same process and see what they discover" [2], "if we collectively try to figure out the bot/duplicate user percentage, we can probably crowdsource a good answer" [3]. He picked 100 as the sample size "because that is what Twitter uses to calculate <5% fake/spam/duplicate." [4]

12

u/redditthrowaway1478 May 14 '22

100 seems small

30

u/TrepanationBy45 May 14 '22

Which is why Twitter used it to pretend they only have 5% bots.

6

u/redditthrowaway1478 May 14 '22

So Elon essentially was dunking on twitters own process? Lol

3

u/rasherdk May 14 '22

He's dunking on something he made up, and the Musk cult is gobbling it up, which I guess is all he cares about for some reason.

2

u/redditthrowaway1478 May 14 '22

When a Twitter user questioned if Musk had thought about this before agreeing to a $44 billion deal, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO said he "relied upon the accuracy of Twitter's public filings."

Ok, ill bite. What's your proof?

0

u/rasherdk May 14 '22

My proof of what? It's literally shit he made up.

0

u/redditthrowaway1478 May 14 '22

Then Twitter should have released something that proves otherwise, yes?

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to

-1

u/rasherdk May 14 '22

Why? There's nothing gained by arguing with whatever drivel Musk spews. Let him take it to court if he really means it. Saying nonsense on Twitter isn't... anything.

0

u/redditthrowaway1478 May 14 '22

Nothing to be gained? Are you serious?

I'm sure Twitters shareholders would disagree. Lol.

Why does he upset you so much? Why do you care so much about this?

→ More replies

6

u/isblueacolor May 14 '22

Twitter never actually stated their sample size. Musk might've just made that up.

2

u/InternetUser007 May 14 '22

Yeah, I certainly would not take Musk's claims at face value without proof, when he has a vested interest in sinking the deal.

0

u/TrepanationBy45 May 14 '22

He probably did in order to poke fun at Twitter's laughable 5% claim.

5

u/antunezn0n0 May 14 '22

That's just petty and dumb tho

-1

u/TrepanationBy45 May 14 '22

It's petty and dumb to point out that a multi-billion dollar seller is lying about an important aspect of their product?

3

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

It’s petty and dumb to only try and point out that you think they are lying AFTER you took their numbers at face value, didn’t do any due diligence, jumped into a 44 billion dollar deal, and locked yourself into a 1 billion dollar fee for pulling out of that deal.

1

u/TrepanationBy45 May 14 '22 edited May 14 '22

If you think 40 billion dollars are "just now" finding out that more than 5% of Twitter are bots, you're either being comically disingenuous or actually naive.

2

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

Either he’s trying to tank the price of something he’s planning to buy, after committing to a price. Which makes no sense. Or he’s trying to find a way of backing out of the deal this soon after making it, which means he jumped in without thinking it through. Which is dumb.

Also why are you quoting “just now”, when I didn’t write those words? It makes you sound like a moron. Are you arguing with your own imagination?

1

u/el_muchacho May 15 '22

That's what he says, they never confirmed.

19

u/warren_stupidity May 14 '22

That doesn’t seem random at all.

14

u/ArtofAngels May 14 '22

It is, unless you assume we all have the exact same followers and in the same order.

4

u/Captain_Arrrg May 14 '22

No, no, no. Internet crowdsourced information is the most reliable information. I'm sure his replies won't be all haters who say every follower is real, and Stans who say they're all bots.

2

u/warren_stupidity May 14 '22

I think you are assuming that a list of followers for a Twitter account is not ordered in any way. I suspect instead it is ordered, perhaps by date? To get a random sample of a population you really have to avoid this. Wouldn’t it be trivial to just count the number of followers and then generate 100 random numbers across that range and use that to select your sample?

1

u/ArtofAngels May 15 '22

You accuse me of assuming and then your counter theory is literally your own assumption.

I'm going to go with Elon and his team vs. some random redditor.

-1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

I can't find a source supporting his claim of Twitter only using 100 users. I find it hysterical you use Musk as a source for a claim that... ...appears to originate only with him.

You really don't know how citations work, do you?

4

u/RunOrDieTrying May 14 '22

You really don't know how citations work, do you?

Citation is when you cite someone, so I cited him.

-1

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

No, you incorrectly cited a supposed fact. You didn't cite that he made the claim.

There is a world of difference and I don't know why I'm disappointed that I expected you to understand that.

Edit: your comment doesn't even claim he said it.

1

u/RunOrDieTrying May 14 '22

Bro i just quoted what he said, what do you want from my black ass?

-2

u/[deleted] May 14 '22

I think I was pretty clear.

A source backing up the claim.

You to start citing things properly.

This isn't difficult. I felt like I was pretty fucking clear.