{"id":20659,"date":"2022-12-02T22:11:06","date_gmt":"2022-12-02T22:11:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/02\/multiple-former-twitter-employees-note-that-musks-new-favorite-tool-polls-are-easily-gamed-by-bots\/"},"modified":"2022-12-02T22:11:06","modified_gmt":"2022-12-02T22:11:06","slug":"multiple-former-twitter-employees-note-that-musks-new-favorite-tool-polls-are-easily-gamed-by-bots","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2022\/12\/02\/multiple-former-twitter-employees-note-that-musks-new-favorite-tool-polls-are-easily-gamed-by-bots\/","title":{"rendered":"Multiple Former Twitter Employees Note That Musk\u2019s New Favorite Tool, Polls, Are Easily Gamed By Bots"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

from the but-of-course<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

Rolling Stone has a fun article quoting multiple former Twitter employees highlighting that polls are the least secure tool on the platform<\/a>, and are regularly open to manipulation by bots:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cPolls are more prone to manipulation than almost anything else [on Twitter]. It\u2019s interesting, given his [Elon\u2019s] use of polls,\u201d he added. Several other ex-Twitter employees gave similar assessments.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This seems particularly notable for two reasons: (1) Musk\u2019s sudden reliance on polls for making big content moderation decisions, and (2) his formerly professed (though of questionable seriousness) claims about concerns regarding bots on the platform.<\/p>\n

On point one, we already discussed<\/a> the ridiculousness, and lack of seriousness, in using easily gamed polls as a tool for content moderation. While supporters like to argue it\u2019s \u201cdemocratic,\u201d it has none of the actual hallmarks of integrity around the \u201cvoting.\u201d And this report regarding the manipulation just makes that even clearer:<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhen someone says. \u2018Oh we must be protecting polls, right?\u2019 No, we\u2019re not,\u201d the former Twitter employee told\u00a0Rolling Stone.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

In the years since the feature debuted, a small industry of spammers has cropped up to offer services manipulating the results of a Twitter poll with inauthentic accounts. The spammers allow users to buy votes in chunks, some offering\u00a015,000 votes<\/a>\u00a0on a given poll for a little over $130 or smaller responses for just\u00a019 cents a vote<\/a>\u00a0 with \u201cguaranteed fast delivery\u201d that\u2019s \u201c100% Confidential.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

For what it\u2019s worth, the Rolling Stone article perhaps gives a little too much credence to the idea that Musk ever seriously considered \u201cbots\u201d a problem on Twitter. It was always clear that it was a pretense<\/a> to try to get out of the deal. So the fact that he pretended to care about bots on the platform for a few months shouldn\u2019t be taken to mean he really believes it\u2019s a problem. Especially right now when he desperately wants to show growth to woo back advertisers who have abandoned ship.<\/p>\n

The Rolling Stone piece does<\/em> a nice job also highlighting how Musk\u2019s recent claims of big increases in the mDAU may also be facing the same issue as the polls: a lack of staff manually removing spammers:<\/p>\n

\n

But it\u2019s not clear how much of that claimed growth is authentic. Asked whether those numbers could be inflated by spam accounts, the former Twitter staffer told\u00a0Rolling Stone: \u201cNo fucking doubt.\u201d\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cThink about it: On any given week, [the security] team removed millions of accounts manually,\u201d the source said.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Of course, on Wednesday, Musk publicly claimed that the site was removing a bunch of spammers:<\/p>\n

\"Twitter<\/figure>\n

Of course, somewhat hilariously, the purge ended up killing a bunch of high profile legitimate accounts. Early on, there were reports of some high profile \u201cleft leaning\u201d critics of Musk who were removed<\/a> leading to claims that the Muskian Twitter was dealing in \u201canti-left bias,\u201d but as with the years of false claims<\/a> under the old regime of \u201canti-conservative bias\u201d the reality appeared to be much more mundane: the impossibility<\/a> of doing content moderation well at scale. Indeed, some of the other accounts that were suspended included Elon Musk\u2019s most vociferous number one fan<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Turns out content moderation, including dealing with spam and bots, is, you know, not easy.<\/p>\n

\nFiled Under: bots<\/a>, elon musk<\/a>, polls<\/a>, spam<\/a>
\n
Companies: twitter<\/a>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n