this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
230 points (98.3% liked)

Enough Musk Spam

1980 readers
125 users here now

For those that have had enough of the Elon Musk worship online.

No flaming, baiting, etc. This community is intended for those opposed to the influx of Elon Musk-related advertising online. Coming here to defend Musk or his companies will not get you banned, but it likely will result in downvotes. Please use the reporting feature if you see a rule violation.

Opinions from all sides of the political spectrum are welcome here. However, we kindly ask that off-topic political discussion be kept to a minimum, so as to focus on the goal of this sub. This community is minimally moderated, so discussion and the power of upvotes/downvotes are allowed, provided lemmy.world rules are not broken.

Post links to instances of obvious Elon Musk fanboy brigading in default subreddits, lemmy/kbin communities/instances, astroturfing from Tesla/SpaceX/etc., or any articles critical of Musk, his ideas, unrealistic promises and timelines, or the working conditions at his companies.

Tesla-specific discussion can be posted here as well as our sister community /c/RealTesla.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

These numbers are legitimately shocking.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FlyingSquid 72 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] Ptsf 69 points 4 months ago

Glad to hear it's looking like the latter!

[–] Spiralvortexisalie 63 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In case anybody just wanted numbers, the group researching this found ~75% of twitter’s ad clicks were bots compared to about 2% for TikTok, FB, and IG during same Super Bowl game. The group also noted they had never seen over half (>50%) being bots before.

[–] pennomi 40 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That smells like fraud to me.

[–] irreticent 30 points 4 months ago

It's almost as if the SEC keeps giving him a pass for all his fuckery.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (2 children)
127.0.0.1 twitter.com 

Works great from my perspective.

[–] irreticent 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] herrvogel 5 points 4 months ago

Is that ipv8?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Wouldn't 0.0.0.0 be better?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Is there an explanation on how CHEQ determines bot traffic? I figure it's likely they wouldn't publicize that information since it'd probably be seen as a risk to their business, but this is a pretty big claim to make without substantiating it. Tbf, I also probably wouldn't understand their methods even if they did explain it, but it'd be nice to have.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

CHEQ's data for this report is based on 144,000 visits to its clients' sites that came from X during Super Bowl weekend, from Friday, Feb. 9 up until the end of Super Bowl Sunday on Feb. 11. The data was collected from across CHEQ's 15,000 total clients. It's a small portion of the relevant data, and it's not scientifically sampled, but it nonetheless suggests a dramatic trend.

CHEQ monitors bots and fake users across the internet in order to minimize online ad fraud for its clients. Tytunovich's company accomplishes this by tracking how visitors from different sources, such as X, interact with a client's page after they click one of their links. The company can also tell when a bot is passing itself off as a real user, such as when a fraudulent user is faking what type of operating system they are using to view a website.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

I mean, that's somewhat informative, and I could guess at some of the behavior they're looking for, but it doesn't explain much in how they determine what behavior exemplifies a bot vs a human user in more complicated scenarios.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think the implication is some of these bots are meant to make twitter are used to fake twitter's engagement numbers.
When they pitch to a customer (to sell ad space), it looks good on paper.
Then they but ad space, but fail to convert anything from it because it's just bots.
TL;DR: Twitter is kinda scamming advertisers

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

The article kinda dances around that.

But then it's implying that all the other sites do it too, just less?

Slightly more than 2.8 percent of the 306 million visits sent from TikTok were determined to be fake. Out of the 90 million visits that came from Facebook, a bit more than 2 percent were fake. And Instagram's traffic was only 0.96 percent fake, based on 749,000 visits.