The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

[BowdonUK]

I was watching one of those late night shows last night, Murder on CCTV. The show focuses on how technology, mainly CCTV cameras help law enforcement solve crimes.

This particular episode was about a young girl who had been abducted at gun point by a man on a shopping centre car park. They used technology and noticed her car had been returned to the car park and tracked the guy going to his own vehicle in another parking area.

The cops eventually found the girl, sadly died, in a forest area. They had managed to get the cell co-ordinates from her phone as her boyfriend had kept text messaging her. So her phone was being constantly located.

One thing that came out, and something I've mentioned before, because of carrier status in the US, the phone company had no legal obligation to give the police the information. After the case it was said if the phone companies had released the information sooner the girl might have survived. The parents supported a law to make it a legal requirement for cell phone companies in the US to release information immediately. It eventually become the law.

Some information on the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kelsey_Smith

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/466

Kelsey Smith Act

This bill requires a mobile or internet voice service provider to disclose the location information of a device pursuant to certain requests.

Specifically, a provider must disclose this information at the request of an investigative or law enforcement officer (or public safety employee or agent on behalf of such officer) if the officer asserts (1) that the device was used to place a 911 call, or (2) reasonable suspicion that the device is in the possession of an individual who is in an emergency situation.

A provider that discloses a device location in response to such a request may not be held liable in legal or administrative proceedings related to the disclosure.

The reason I'm typing about this situation on this thread is because currently these social media companies have no obligation to hand over information or remove illegal content either. I hope in the future a similar law to this will include social media companies. In my opinion no company, private or not, should have the ability to withhold vital information.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Almost every service on the internet inflates their 'users' because it's the most important metric they have. More users means more profits which means bigger bonuses and promotions for the hack MBA's.

Inflating users for the sake of metrics should be illegal. Surely you would class that as fraud if a person was been paid by the number of adverts viewed (for example)…..by bots and/or fake users?

 

[Deleted member 77746]

The reason I'm typing about this situation on this thread is because currently these social media companies have no obligation to hand over information or remove illegal content either. I hope in the future a similar law to this will include social media companies. In my opinion no company, private or not, should have the ability to withhold vital information.

I have to agree with you on this one. When it’s law companies should be forced to hand over vital information IMO.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Inflating users for the sake of metrics should be illegal. Surely you would class that as fraud if a person was been paid by the number of adverts viewed (for example)…..by bots and/or fake users?

I'm pretty certain there is an entire industry around using bots to inflate views and ad revenue for music on Spotify and on Youtube that seems to be ongoing. So it doesn't seem to be a big enough issue for advertisers to kick up a fuss. yet.

 

[dlockers]

The reason I'm typing about this situation on this thread is because currently these social media companies have no obligation to hand over information or remove illegal content either. I hope in the future a similar law to this will include social media companies. In my opinion no company, private or not, should have the ability to withhold vital information.

You gotta think about the flip side of the coin. "No company, private or not" - you are aware public sector individuals are just humans too? If they have carte blanche to request what they want, it is a hiding to nowhere.

 

[PlacidCasual]

I'm pretty certain there is an entire industry around using bots to inflate views and ad revenue for music on Spotify and on Youtube that seems to be ongoing. So it doesn't seem to be a big enough issue for advertisers to kick up a fuss. yet.

I read an amusing anecdote about a band that put an album of 20 silent songs on their Spotify page and encouraged fans to play it on loop overnight

No idea if it's true but it tickled me.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

I read an amusing anecdote about a band that put an album of 20 silent songs on their Spotify page and encouraged fans to play it on loop overnight

No idea if it's true but it tickled me.

Yeah it's true earned the band $20,000 in about a month. It's such a joke how easy it is to exploit spotify.

Spotify removes silent album that earned indie band $20,000

The Verge is about technology and how it makes us feel. Founded in 2011, we offer our audience everything from breaking news to reviews to award-winning features and investigations, on our site, in video, and in podcasts.

www.theverge.com

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I'm pretty certain there is an entire industry around using bots to inflate views and ad revenue for music on Spotify and on Youtube that seems to be ongoing. So it doesn't seem to be a big enough issue for advertisers to kick up a fuss. yet.

Disgusting. It should be illegal especially when there's money involved. It's kind of fraud.

 

[Goksly]

Inflating users for the sake of metrics should be illegal. Surely you would class that as fraud if a person was been paid by the number of adverts viewed (for example)…..by bots and/or fake users?

I think if Twitter were to do it, it would be illegal... It's users / companies that do it, and Twitter do not as an on going operate prune these users.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I think if Twitter were to do it, it would be illegal... It's users / companies that do it, and Twitter do not as an on going operate prune these users.

They should put in special precautions so accounts can't be created by bots. i.e verification via email, verification of phone number (for example). I personally think we need to start to take responsibility and every time an account is created it must be verified by some sort of ID verification. People really need to start and take responsibility with what is posted online.

All social media platforms has big problems with fake news, fake accounts, fake posts, NSFW posts in public eye e.t.c. It's horrible.

It's can be dangerous in certain ways.

 

[Goksly]

They can't win... they don't police it, it becomes a breeding ground for scum. They do police it, they are accused of stifling free speech etc. Creating accounts etc - I think they do require email addresses, but they can be created instantly so doesn't provide much of a buffer. I remember reading you can buy followers quite cheaply ($100 for 10,000 users or something) so that's all got to be part of a bot network, controlled by an individual. They'll be loads of them out there...

 

[Deleted member 77746]

They can't win... they don't police it, it becomes a breeding ground for scum. They do police it, they are accused of stifling free speech etc. Creating accounts etc - I think they do require email addresses, but they can be created instantly so doesn't provide much of a buffer. I remember reading you can buy followers quite cheaply ($100 for 10,000 users or something) so that's all got to be part of a bot network, controlled by an individual. They'll be loads of them out there...

I think the easy way is just to not go on them and not create accounts for social media platforms. I can't see it ending well for them if they don't start and do something about the problems.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Disgusting. It should be illegal especially when there's money involved. It's kind of fraud.

I don't know about youtube but on Spotify it's just artist stealing from other artists (usually smaller ones), so there are no big guys with the financial muscle to take it to court and get a ruling on it. Spotify doesn't care because their cut dosn't change.

 

[Sankari]

Has Elon Musk bought Twitter yet, or is he still rummaging down the backs of other people's couches?

 

[Tony Edwards]

Has Elon Musk bought Twitter yet, or is he still rummaging down the backs of other people's couches?

He hasnt finished showing how much of an arse he can be yet.

 

[Tony Edwards]

 

[BowdonUK]

Twitter as been massaging the figures. So he's put it on hold to see by how much.

He was prepared to accept 5% 'spam bots'. But now its looking like there is more.

 

[visibleman]

I think he knows they are inflating their numbers.

Going off past tweets he's made, surely he already knew Twitter had a fairly substantial bot/fake account issue?
Similarly, i would have thought anyone purchasing a global company for many, many billions would do due diligence prior to making an official offer rather than halting proceedings to then do it - considering the share price has dropped nearly $8/9 (currently $38/share) since him announcing the halt, it understandable some might think there is a slight whiff to all of this with him either wanting out or wanting to make a lower offer.

Has Musk said he is still committed to the original $54/share offer?

 

[Rroff]

I'm extremely sceptical, especially where the UN is involved , that $6bn would end world hunger - if that was possible it is perfectly within the UN's remit to be able to raise $6bn to do so. The UN commands in excess of $6bn and could raise more. So why are they not ending world hunger?

 

[Tony Edwards]