Genuine question. What would you train an "anti-bot" NN on? And what would they be targeting? Would the inference always have to run the bot's entire profile and post history as a sum, or could it "target" individual posts? I'm asking because it seems that bot posts could simply be tailored to be less verbose, hence with less text for "flags" that the anti-bots could identify. Less rope to hang themselves with. Similarly, fewer posts per "bot" could make it much trickier to analyze larger posting patterns.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
hacer
Active Member
What evidence do you have it was useless for most people? I think most people were able to use the check to distinguish imposters of those account that had them (the checks) which were the majority of accounts that had lots of followers and the largest target for scammers and thus the most important to protect from imposters. It never mattered much if James Groud couldn't get a blue check and was being impersonated because nobody was paying attention to them anyway.
If they had looked for the Blue Checks it would have offered them a lot of assurance and they would not have fallen for the various bitcoin scams that plagued Elon's account for instance. It's true that many Twitter users couldn't even reach that level of sophistication to look for that and simply saw a reply in his thread stack that had his picture and name and they got scammed. People who are too dumb to see any tell-tale signs will probably always be victimized by scammers as they are through e-mail, phone calls, snail-mail, newspaper ads, etc. But that has more to do with them (the victims) than it does with the technology by which they're being scammed (or misled).
But for those who were smart enough to understand Twitter's identity verification badge (and there were many - maybe even most) it was a reliable means to determine authenticity of those accounts that had the blue check. That was most of the accounts where it was of any significant consequence. Now the blue check no longer has any meaning and it will be difficult to ever bring back real trust in any identity verification on Twitter in the future because that trust has been wantonly betrayed.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I mean, at $15,000 you can at least be pretty sure it's not being done as fraud or a joke.
Not so much for $8 it seems.
But it's not the actual price that is the issue- it's that for $8 there was no actual verification needed to get the verified checkmark
That's dumb at any price.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
So they need to beef up verification requisites then and re-do for every verified user.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
False. Better fact-check yourself before you post.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Elon Musk Would Have Done Better With Twitter If He’d Read Noam Chomsky
Musk is impaled on the horns of a corporate dilemma described in radical critiques of the media.
theintercept.com
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Except, not at all false.
Numerous examples of you being wrong here already posted in the thread.
The fact no real verification was happening is why the feature was pulled in fact- how are you seriously not aware of that?
Stuff like imposters being "verified" as politicians, official corporate accounts, or most famously Jesus Christ being "verified"
Sorry, I forgot, you simply don't read any news, right? Here ya go!
Last edited:
Evidence of demand weakening?
The price drop happened in China. I'm sure the Chinese, even if they can access Twitter, don't care what Elon tweets if it doesn't involve China.
The order dates getting moved forward seems to be a US phenomenon, but it could have another valid reason: people cancelling or not placing orders because they want to get the $7500 subsidy after January 1st. It was expected this would lead to weakening demand in Q4, followed by stronger demand in Q1.
I think the negative effects of Elon's 'antics' are overstated. In China they don't care, in Europe some may care but most don't and certainly not enough to cancel or not place orders. In the US the 50% voting for the Democrats might theoretically care, but many of them probably don't and for the ones who do. the step to cancelling an order is a big one. It may also very well be compensated by extra orders among the 50% who voted for the Republicans.
I know for a fact there is zero coordination between the advertising and news sides of the times.
It’s a firing offense there.
Believing otherwise is just uninformed nonsense. Though it’s a relatively common belief among the conspiracy-adjacent, that doesn’t make it true. Prob less than 1 percent of their ad revenue is auto stuff. Hardly worth taxing credibility for.
And more and more their business model is based on subscriptions.
The journos there as in most MSM are essentially the demographic that is most likely to buy EVs and understand the seriousness of climate change.
They had a positive, factual story about the more widespread acceptance of EVs just today.
Sigh. The first attempt at verification for $8 used Apple's verification system (which is why the blue mark was available for IOS only, not Android) and a phone number.
A massive campaign of fraudulent abuse (requiring lots of time and money to obtain throwaway credit cards and phone numbers) proved that this first attempt was not strong enough, so Twitter suspended it and is now strengthening it. I'm sure you will repeat (several times) that it was not "actual" verification (your word), but it is good enough for Apple. Who knew that Elon has more enemies than Apple? Now we do.
Your posting of the most sensational jeering possible reminds me of the haters jeering at SpaceX's early rocket crashes. We'll see if history repeats itself in who gets the last laugh.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Well now that we’ve made those two words used in succession totally meaningless, your guess is as good as mine.
Let me clarify, I didn't say these things were clear evidence of weakening demand. Only time will tell but they are possible evidence of such and a reasonable investor should consider that possibility. I disagree with your statistical view of things. Yes, we over time we vote that way but there is a large percentage of people who are moderates, whether they self-identify as a Dem, Rep, or independent. Repeated petulance and sophomoric tweets have the real potential to hurt Tesla's brand. Again, the smart approach would be the adult in the room. Everyone knows that politicians and randos on Twitter will be self-interested children. Why stoop to their level? I wish Elon would be the adult in the room. That's the reputation he used to have when his main message was to advance humanity through Tesla, Spacex, etc. Also, if he's going to pick a fight with Democratic politicians for their woke stupidity, great. But why not also call out the narrow-minded hypocrisy of Republicans? Bottom line: anyone who is a TSLA investor shouldn't defend everything that Elon does but use your voice, however miniscule an impact it might have, to promote the right path forward.
You mean the one that suggests that all EV owners can't find reliable charging on road trips? By failing to mention Tesla's superchargers?
Spacep0d
Active Member
If I were you I'd just watch him work. Give it time. He'll fix Twitter and it's much an act of philanthropy as anything else.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Because it wasn't.
It did not, in any way, actually verify the identity of a person. Just that they had an iOS device and $8.
As you've been provided ample evidence of- after first bizarrely insisting the claim wasn't true.
You seem to pick the weirdest, most blatantly wrong, things to disagree about.
Again false. As I already said, abuse of the system required a throwaway Apple account, credit card, and phone number. Those took some effort for Jesus Christ to obtain.
- Status
