Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon & Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jack Dorsey is a true friend and believer in The Mission for sharing proprietary company information, exposing himself to both criminal and civil penalties and tanking a deal in which he would receive $1 billion in cash.

Oh gee, look the hyperbolae is back.

Dorsey owns ~2% of twitter, and would not have any kind of claim personally on the 1B in "separation" funds that Elon might pay out. Furthermore, Dorsey stands to gain far more if Twitter sells to Elon than if it doesn't.

Sounds more like you have a personal beef with Elon, like you personally want to tell the man how to spend his money or something. You almost sounds like TSLAQ, but I guess the more appropriate description would be ElonQ?
 
Probably from same place he got the dirt on "pedo guy."
Apparently you have some inside info .... or you always act like you do ;)

ps : More seriously - having worked on calculation of such metrics for multiple companies (no, not monthly active users, but complicated metrics for large companies) - I can say most of them have lots of weird and vague spaghetti code accumulated over the years based on various business managers who were in charge over the years. The "business" no longer would know what the logic is - its whatever the code is doing. Now, try to independently confirm the numbers - even with all the data ....
 
Last edited:
Oh gee, look the hyperbolae is back.

Dorsey owns ~2% of twitter, and would not have any kind of claim personally on the 1B in "separation" funds that Elon might pay out. Furthermore, Dorsey stands to gain far more if Twitter sells to Elon than if it doesn't.

Sounds more like you have a personal beef with Elon, like you personally want to tell the man how to spend his money or something. You almost sounds like TSLAQ, but I guess the more appropriate description would be ElonQ?
Sarcasm is back! I think we're agreeing that if Dorsey is sane he will not share with anyone that he knows anything about fraud that he presided over. The $1 billion is the value of Dorsey 2.4% stake in Twitter if the deal closes.
Elon isn't that bad, it's the cult of personality that I have a beef with. My opinion is that buying Twitter is a huge mistake however it's certainly going to be interesting to see what happens.
 
My opinion is that buying Twitter is a huge mistake ...
There are two sides to the Twitter deal, just like Elon.

Elon the "naïve" who wants "free speech" and bought Twitter to enforce his idea of free speech : This will be a disaster if for eg., he wants to strictly go by US 1st amendment definition of free speech (except in EU).

Elon the successful entrepreneur and who Twitter to make it better : He will implement changes needed to increase Twitter revenue and make it profitable.

Elon's Twitter persona is the 1st one above. He was being very practical and profit / revenue oriented, like the second one above, to become the richest person in the world.

I'm partly convinced that its the second Elon that will actually show up if he ends up with Twitter. Afterall there are debtors and other investors he is responsible for. Not just to his ego. When the full "free speech" doesn't work - he will go back to a sane moderation policy that ensures ad revenue can continue to flow (may be put pure free speech in a walled garden within Twitter).
 
Even if Elon gets access all the raw data (not just the subset Twitter has recently decided to release to him), that is still not enough to judge whether Twitter's report of "5% or less bots in mDAU" statement is true or false. Simply, because he would need to have access to Twitter's bot-filtering algorithm to compare its output to the number of mDAU -- which itself has a kind of vague definition (exactly which user accounts are considered "monetizable" ?)

At best, he could come up with his own algorithm to identify / filter bots and come up with a different estimate of mDAU. Then they (Elon vs Twitter) could start to argue about the value of the company if the two estimates for mDAU are materially different (far more than 5%). However, it would still not prove that Twitter's SEC filing was ever inaccurate (for that he would need Twitter's filtering algo), let alone fraudulent (they have added plenty of wriggle room into the language of the filings).

A different/better mDAU estimate may give Elon a method to come up with a more realistic value for the company than his meme-inspired purchase price number he proposed on a whim. However, the question is: what kind of legal base does he has at this point to change the price already agreed upon.
That is what I do not see / understand.*

In addition to the whole point of wanting to buy this toxic social media company, which I see as a pure distraction from achieving his missions driving Tesla/SpaceX.
 
Monetizable is a pretty strong word in the clause.

Simply, because he would need to have access to Twitter's bot-filtering algorithm to compare its output to the number of mDAU -- which itself has a kind of vague definition (exactly which user accounts are considered "monetizable" ?)

Right, what does Monetizable mean, anyway ?

I interpret as - something they can show an ad on i.e. based on the content of the tweet, they can show an ad (because it has a key word someone has purchased). So, all they are saying is that lots of bots tweet in such a way that twitter can't place an ad based on key words ?

As I was writing above - Twitter may not even be able to tell what the algorithm / logic (or as we say "business rules") is outside of the spaghetti code. So their MAU calculation is "working as coded". No bugs ;)
 
Right, what does Monetizable mean, anyway ?

I interpret as - something they can show an ad on i.e. based on the content of the tweet, they can show an ad (because it has a key word someone has purchased). So, all they are saying is that lots of bots tweet in such a way that twitter can't place an ad based on key words ?

As I was writing above - Twitter may not even be able to tell what the algorithm / logic (or as we say "business rules") is outside of the spaghetti code. So their MAU calculation is "working as coded". No bugs
Long version:
We review a number of metrics, including monetizable daily active usage or users (mDAU), changes in ad engagements and changes in cost per ad engagement, to evaluate our business, measure our performance, identify trends affecting our business, formulate business plans and make strategic decisions. See the section titled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations— Key Metrics” for a discussion of how we calculate mDAU, changes in ad engagements and changes in cost per ad engagement.
We define mDAU as people, organizations, or other accounts who logged in or were otherwise authenticated and accessed Twitter on any given day through twitter.com, Twitter applications that are able to show ads, or paid Twitter products, including subscriptions. Average mDAU for a period represents the number of mDAU on each day of such period divided by the number of days for such period. Changes in mDAU are a measure of changes in the size of our daily logged in or otherwise authenticated active total accounts. To calculate the year-over-year change in mDAU, we subtract the average mDAU for the three months ended in the previous year from the average mDAU for the same three months ended in the current year and divide the result by the average mDAU for the three months ended in the previous year. Additionally, our calculation of mDAU is not based on any standardized industry methodology and is not necessarily calculated in the same manner or comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. Similarly, our measures of mDAU growth and engagement may differ from estimates published by third parties or from similarly-titled metrics of our competitors due to differences in methodology.
The numbers of mDAU presented in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are based on internal company data. While these numbers are based on what we believe to be reasonable estimates for the applicable period of measurement, there are inherent challenges in measuring usage and engagement across our large number of total accounts around the world. Furthermore, our metrics may be impacted by our information quality efforts, which are our overall efforts to reduce malicious activity on the service, inclusive of spam, malicious automation, and fake accounts. For example, there are a number of false or spam accounts in existence on our platform. We have performed an internal review of a sample of accounts and estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the first quarter of 2022 represented fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter. The false or spam accounts for a period represents the average of false or spam accounts in the samples during each monthly analysis period during the quarter. In making this determination, we applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated. We are continually seeking to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from the calculation of our mDAU, and have made improvements in our spam detection capabilities that have resulted in the suspension of a large number of spam, malicious automation, and fake accounts. We intend to continue to make such improvements. After we determine an account is spam, malicious automation, or fake, we stop counting it in our mDAU, or other related metrics. We also treat multiple accounts held by a single person or organization as multiple mDAU because we permit people and organizations to have more than one account. Additionally, some accounts used by organizations are used by many people within the organization. As such, the calculations of our mDAU may not accurately reflect the actual number of people or organizations using our platform.
In addition, geographic location data collected for purposes of reporting the geographic location of our mDAU is based on the IP address or phone number associated with the account when an account is initially registered on Twitter. The IP address or phone number may not always accurately reflect a person’s actual location at the time they engaged with our platform. For example, someone accessing Twitter from the location of the proxy server that the person connects to rather than from the person’s actual location.
We regularly review and may adjust our processes for calculating our internal metrics to improve their accuracy.
Questionable metric:
We are continually seeking to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from the calculation of our mDAU, but we otherwise treat multiple accounts held by a single person or organization as multiple accounts for purposes of calculating our mDAU because we permit people and organizations to have more than one account.
Previous error that went undetected for years: (though not a huge %, but this impacted only linked accounts)
In March of 2019, we launched a feature that allowed people to link multiple separate accounts together in order to conveniently switch between accounts. An error was made at that time, such that actions taken via the primary account resulted in all linked accounts being counted as mDAU. This resulted in an overstatement of mDAU from the first quarter of 2019 through the fourth quarter of 2021. See the section titled, "mDAU Recast" after "Key Metrics" below for more information.
 
Right, what does Monetizable mean, anyway ?

I interpret as - something they can show an ad on i.e. based on the content of the tweet, they can show an ad (because it has a key word someone has purchased). So, all they are saying is that lots of bots tweet in such a way that twitter can't place an ad based on key words ?

As I was writing above - Twitter may not even be able to tell what the algorithm / logic (or as we say "business rules") is outside of the spaghetti code. So their MAU calculation is "working as coded". No bugs ;)
It has nothing to do with targeted ads. It's the average number of unique users who view ads each day. They don't have to tweet and it sounds like they don't even have to login (say you click on a tweet from a website).
It doesn't count users who use the API (which doesn't show ads and is probably only used by bots).
If you audit the algorithm and determine that only 5% of the counted users are bots doesn't that mean it's working? The only major issue you miss is if it were undercounting users.
The funny thing about all this is that I bet it is targeted ad clicks that make the most money so this number probably has very little to do with Twitter's revenue.
 
It's the average number of unique users who view ads each day.
Do they have to be "unique" users? I end up seeing duplicate ads all the time on YouTube. I'm sure that YouTube gets revenue every time that ad appears. Same for TV, etc. Political ads pay to repeat endlessly.
Don't know about Twitter since I never go there.
A lot of ad people tout the effectiveness of repeated exposure to the same ad... they think it helps to drill the message into your brain.
 
To add to the above or simplify a bit - it only counts users who interact through a facility that can serve ads, meaning Twitter.com or the app (mostly). It's a metric intended to exclude all of the bots that are active on Twitter (which is why the number is below 5%) in order to express some kind of measure of the ability to monetize ads.

Twitter could have 99% bots interacting through the API, and 1% real users logging in through the app and their browsers, and still have less than 5% mDAU. And that metric has value in that case because if there are 99,000,000 bots and 1,000,000 users, you want to know how many of the 1,000,000 users are real people being served ads, since bots don't buy products or services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanSubie4Life
Do they have to be "unique" users? I end up seeing duplicate ads all the time on YouTube. I'm sure that YouTube gets revenue every time that ad appears. Same for TV, etc. Political ads pay to repeat endlessly.
Don't know about Twitter since I never go there.
A lot of ad people tout the effectiveness of repeated exposure to the same ad... they think it helps to drill the message into your brain.
If someone logs in multiple times during a day that still counts as only one user. It seems like someone who doesn't login and views Twitter from multiple devices would be over counted.
 
It doesn't count users who use the API (which doesn't show ads and is probably only used by bots).
So a lot of real users who see Tweets on TMC won't be counted ? A lot of websites show tweets this way.

If someone logs in multiple times during a day that still counts as only one user. It seems like someone who doesn't login and views Twitter from multiple devices would be over counted.

Thats right. I think thats how most of the industry counts DAU. The idea is to show how many actual active users use the website/service.

If you audit the algorithm and determine that only 5% of the counted users are bots doesn't that mean it's working? The only major issue you miss is if it were undercounting users.

To audit the numbers, you have to basically do an independent calculation of mDAU using raw data and known business rules (which is exactly how I design testing). But Twitter doesn't publish their detailed business rules. So, if the mDAU that you independently calculate is less than published mDAU - then you can say for whatever reason their numbers are ot correct (which Elon will claim is because of more Bots).

Ofcourse you could also take a random sample of the data and manually count mDAU and run Twitter's actual program on the same sample. Or if the random samples are of large enough size, you can compare to published numbers. If the numbers are different, then there is a problem. This is kind of how Elon tried to do it publicly - but Twitter said their mDAU definition is quite different and can't be calculated using public data. So, now that Elon has more data, may be he can ask his teams to calculate using random samples of statistically significant size.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Dayreg
So a lot of real users who see Tweets on TMC won't be counted ? A lot of websites show tweets this way.
I think you're talking about embedded tweets, which is different than the API (or a different API) that is used to programmatically read and post tweets. I run a twitter bot (which is totally open about being a bot), and it uses the official twitter API, and it is surely not counted as a mDAU.

But I don't think embedded tweets show ads, either, unless you click on them to go to twitter.com.
 
I think you're talking about embedded tweets, which is different than the API (or a different API) that is used to programmatically read and post tweets. I run a twitter bot (which is totally open about being a bot), and it uses the official twitter API, and it is surely not counted as a mDAU.

But I don't think embedded tweets show ads, either, unless you click on them to go to twitter.com.
Twitter should actually count the embedded tweets. Remember "monetizable" not "monetized". Infact Twitter should be showing ads with embedded tweets, they are missing revenue.

As a business Twitter has been run poorly, IMO, and there is a lot that should have been done / can still be done.

I can understand the concept of unique users but "monetizable" ad impressions can be multiple views of the same ad by the same person.
The idea is to show a metric that tells advertisers and shareholders the "number of users" the website/service has. It is an important measure of the value and potential of the website. But just number of "registered" users is not that useful, if they are not all active. So they filter out inactive ones. Since the idea is to show number of users during a given time period, you need to count only unique users. So, filter out duplicates. Unlike various other websites (like Facebook), Twitter has a big Bot problem. So, they needed to remove bots and they call that "monetizable".

Number of visits, number of page views, time spent on site etc etc are all different metric they would be calculating (may be not publishing).
 
Last edited:
I can understand the concept of unique users but "monetizable" ad impressions can be multiple views of the same ad by the same person.
Sure, but that's not what mDAU is. Of course this whole mDAU argument is a red herring, I bet Twitter advertisers don't even factor it in to their calculations.
Twitter should actually count the embedded tweets. Remember "monetizable" not "monetized". Infact Twitter should be showing ads with embedded tweets, they are missing revenue.
They could but then in response websites might quote the tweet instead of embedding? Then Twitter would miss out on click throughs.
 
They could but then in response websites might quote the tweet instead of embedding? Then Twitter would miss out on click throughs.
Yes - this is why most sites do A/B testing.

Did Twitter do this and decide not to show ads .... can't find anything about it with a simple & quick search.

ps : There is actually another, potentially more trouble some, problem. Advertisers don't want their brand names associated with certain content (hate speech, porn etc). This is the most important reason Twitter started moderating more vigorously - which, apparently Elon doesn't understand. But anyone can embed a tweet ... thus making the ads show up in pages that could have objectionable content.

From the above linked article ...


Twitter has worked to clean up its platform to make it safer for brands after CEO Jack Dorsey pledged to reduce the amount of abuse on its platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.