We already know that Twitter is rife with bots. But how full is it, and what kinds of bots are there? With estimates ranging from Twitter’s own “under 5%” to independent researchers claiming 20% or higher, it’s clear that it’s a difficult number to pin down, as the company’s CEO, Parag Agrawal, explained in a thread today. Elon Musk, a potential buyer, responded with a poo emoji.
Agrawal stated that spam and bots are serious issues that all social media platforms face, and that they are also evolving and “dynamic.” “Our adversaries, their goals, and tactics are constantly evolving — frequently in response to our work!” You can’t create a set of spam-detection rules today and hope they’ll still work tomorrow.”
The problem of determining whether an account is automated, semi-human, benign, violating, and so on is not trivial, yet millions of accounts are actioned in some way, and, as with other platforms, usually before they do anything.
READ ALSO: Nigeria’s Topship Raises $2.5 Million in Funding from Flexport and YC to Assist Merchants With International Shipping.
One reason it’s difficult to tell whether an account is “real” or not, depending on what definition of “real” you use, is that there’s only so much information available publicly. According to Agrawal, “the use of private data is especially important to avoid misclassifying users who are actually real.” FirstnameBunchOfNumbers with no profile pic and odd tweets may appear to be a bot or spam to you, but we often see multiple indicators that it’s a real person behind the scenes.”
By “private data,” he most likely means things like direct message activity, logins, and browsing behavior that are invisible to outsiders but visible to internal systems. Many Twitter users interact with the platform in a quiet manner, and who can blame them?
This is advantageous for Twitter because no one can verify the numbers it publishes. Though there is little reason to believe the company is outright fabricating or doctoring the numbers here, it is undeniable that they have the motive and opportunity to do so in subtle ways that would only be visible to an auditor who has access to the same data as they do.
The issue of user authenticity, of course, is central to a social media platform’s reach and ability to monetize, and we’ve seen time and again that falsifying or misrepresenting these numbers can have serious consequences for advertisers and premium service subscribers’ willingness to pay.
Or, as billionaire and Twitter hopeful Elon Musk put it: “💩”
“So how do advertisers know what they’re getting for their money?” he asks. This is critical to Twitter’s financial health,” is perplexing. As someone ostensibly interested in starting a social media company, it’s difficult to believe he wouldn’t have done some basic research on the metrics that the industry uses to track these things. After all, as Agrawal points out, these figures have been reported on a regular basis for quite some time.
It’s not that the question is bad; it’s just odd that he would ask it now, after making a very risky buyout offer for the business — a business of which he appears to be unfamiliar with the fundamentals. Companies that monetize engagement, such as Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat, have been defining and redefining “how advertisers know what they’re getting for their money” for over a decade.
Of course, there has long been a famous disconnect between advertising and results — the old “half works and half doesn’t, but no one knows which half is which” conundrum.
The most pressing question here does not appear to be, “How do we know engagement is genuine?” but rather, why has Elon Musk only recently begun investigating this? It’s akin to purchasing a horse and then looking up the word “horse” in the dictionary. The apparent lack of familiarity not only with the complexities of Twitter, but also with the way the social media ad market and authenticity metrics are defined and handled in general will undoubtedly add to the concerns of those who believe Musk is not the best person to lead the company.