Musk walks away from Twitter deal

Editor’s Note: Musk insisted to have data on how many fake bot accounts Twitter was allowing to operate on their platform. They refused to give the information. This does not surprise me, because I think that its not the 5% that Twitter claims. From my experience using twitter for the last 8 years, on and off, I would estimate that in recent years it is as high as 90%, and that a large majority of these bots are operated by Twitter Inc. itself. Indeed, lately, it seems that twitter is using A.I. to simulate conversations, because when you read the replies to certain tweets, there is a running, perfectly coherent dialogue by dozens of different accounts with strange bot like names and identities holding a conversation with each bot account coming on stage to reply to the next, a thing which is not only highly improbably among human beings, but points to a conspiratorial association, that is a planned theatrical event. Musk did the right thing. Let us pray that with his 40 Billion in cash he uses it for humanitarian causes and takes to heart that the technocratic class are all damned liars.

3 thoughts on “Musk walks away from Twitter deal”

  1. A friend, Charles Caldwell, conducted a LinkedIn poll on this very topic around 3 weeks ago, here:

    https://www.linkedin.com/posts/charlesbdcaldwell_okay-were-back-thinking-about-twitter-activity-6943572783679332352-Iot_/

    “What percentage of Twitter accounts are fake? Vote and then provide your evidence in the comments below.”

    The 27 votes were cast as follows:

    5% (Twitter’s claim)?? – 4 votes (15%)
    20% (Musk’s claim)!? – 19 votes (70%)
    90% (Another Musk claim)!? – 2 votes (7%)
    All of them: Do you agree? – 2 votes (7%)

    There were several comments, including this one which I posted, so need no permission to repost in full here:

    “Define fake!
    Does it mean:
    a. Not set up or used by a real person
    b. Set up, but not used by a real person
    c. Set up and used by a real person, paid to push some commercial, economic, military or political objective
    d. Set up and used by a real person with a concealed/changed identity
    e. Read-only; not Tweet accounts
    f. User deleted or unused, inaccessible accounts
    g. Some other definition?

    Depending on one’s definition(s) of “fake”, any of the options 1 to 3 are probably true. If by all of them you mean all the above options, then the last option 4 is true. If being very strict, meaning every single detail supplied to Twitter must be true and complete – not advisable for personal privacy and security reasons! – then the figure should be between 90% and 100%.

    I have three long unused Twitter accounts. Two of these I “deleted” more than two years ago, but if I click on a link to Twitter threads, I can see them for a couple of seconds, then get prompted to login with one of my supposedly long deleted accounts. The third I could not delete, because I had forgotten the password and no longer had access to the defunct employer email account. After spending too long trying, I decided that the handful of harmless Tweets could stay!”

    Another commenter, Lydie Tchouangang Livolsi, concurred with your estimation of 90% and your reasoning, pointing out that fee paying advertisers on Twitter pay for example per click.

    “They have us pay for fake clicks. Plus, there are people who have multiple accounts. You pay for ads, your ad is sent to the same person who has 10 accounts: that is why social media, digital advertising is a BIG SCAM.”

    She compared free social media account platforms with Amazon, where people must at least be verified purchasers to be able to rate or comment on products, also pointing out that they (Twitter and some other social media platforms) do not delete accounts of dead people even upon request.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.