The pressure on Twitter to talk publicly about how it monitors and removes spam accounts continues to mount.
Reports from CNN and The Washington Post reveal an 84-page whistleblower complaint alleging that Twitter isn't motivated to track the true number of spam accounts and hid security vulnerabilities from federal regulators.
The complaint comes from Twitter's former security chief, Peiter Zatko. Zatko is a well-known ethical hacker with the alias "Mudge." He told the Post that he "felt ethically bound" to report his serious concerns to government agencies. He alleges that he was fired for pushing disinclined Twitter executives to address major security problems—which his complaint suggests "pose a threat" to Twitter "users' personal information, to company shareholders, to national security, and to democracy."
Zatko alleges that Twitter execs were more invested in covering up those vulnerabilities, including cherry-picking and misrepresenting data on spam accounts and security threats to regulators and Twitter's board members.
Previously:
Judge Orders Twitter to Give Elon Musk Former Executive's Documents
Elon Musk Pulls Deal to Buy Twitter
Twitter Reportedly Will Give Musk the Full "Firehose" of User Data
Elon Musk Accuses Twitter of Thwarting His Due Diligence, Threatens to Walk Out of Deal
Twitter Users React to Elon Musk Putting Buyout Deal 'on Hold'
Musk Buying Twitter Is Not About Freedom of Speech
After Musk's Twitter Takeover, an Open-Source Alternative is 'Exploding'
Elon Musk has just bought Twitter
Elon Musk Isn't Joining Twitter's Board of Directors After All
Elon Musk Will Join Twitter's Board of Directors
Related Stories
Elon Musk will join Twitter's board of directors:
Elon Musk isn't just stopping at buying a stake in Twitter — he'll also have a seat at the table. As CNBCreports, Twitter is appointing Musk to the company's board of directors. He'll be of value as both a "passionate believer and intense critic" of the social network, according to chief executive Parag Agrawal.
An SEC filing shows that Musk will serve as a Class II director (that is, not top-tier) with a term that expires at the company's 2024 annual shareholder meeting. The appointment limits the stake Musk can hold. He can't own more than 14.9 percent of common stock during his tenure, and for 90 days afterward.
[...] It's too soon to say how much influence Musk will have as a director. However, he recently blasted Twitter for allegedly falling short of "free speech principles" and asked the social site's users if they want an edit button. He clearly intends to make his presence felt, not to mention thumb his nose at the SEC for its crackdown against his finance-related tweets.
Elon Musk isn't joining Twitter's board of directors after all:
Elon Musk's stint on Twitter's board of directors has ended before it even began. The SpaceX and Tesla CEO has scrapped plans to buff his resumé with a seat on Twitter's board, though his status as the company's biggest shareholder will still give him some influence over the platform.
The change in plans was announced by Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on Sunday night. In an internal note he subsequently posted to Twitter, Agrawal stated that Musk had directly discussed joining Twitter's board with them, and that the board had offered him a seat, but that he pulled out at the last minute on the day he was to be officially appointed.
[...] "We announced on Tuesday that Elon would be appointed to the Board contingent on a background check and formal acceptance," Agrawal continued. "Elon's appointment to the board was to become officially effective 4/9, but Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the board."
Though Agrawal did not provide a reason why Musk backed down, and Musk has not commented publicly, it's reasonable to speculate that the restrictions placed on Twitter's board members may have been a contributing factor.
Twitter has just accepted Elon Musk's offer to buy the company.
Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company
On April 25th, Twitter's board of directors accepted Musk's offer of $54.20 per share, or $44 billion, for total control of the company. It was the same price he named in his initial offer on April 14th. Upon completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a private company.
Additional coverage on Reuters, The New York Times, NPR and The Wall Street Journal.
From The Wall Street Journal:
The Wall Street Journal reported Twitter and Mr. Musk had reached an agreement to value Twitter at $44 billion.
The takeover, if it goes through, would mark one of the biggest acquisitions in tech history and will likely have global repercussions for years to come related to how billions of people use social media.
Is this the end for Twitter? Will it become a bastion of unfettered free speech, will it become a dumpster fire (you can bookmark this just in case), or will it be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
The decentralized social network is having a moment — again:
We may not yet know exactly what Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter means for the platform, but one Twitter alternative is already booming as a result of the news. Mastodon, the open-source social media service which bills itself as the "largest decentralized social network on the internet," has been "exploding" since Musk's acquisition, according to its founder.
"Funnily enough one of the reasons I started looking into the decentralized social media space in 2016, which ultimately led me to go on to create Mastodon, were rumours that Twitter, the platform I'd been a daily user of for years at that point, might get sold to another controversial billionaire," he wrote. "Among, of course, other reasons such as all the terrible product decisions Twitter had been making at that time. And now, it has finally come to pass, and for the same reasons masses of people are coming to Mastodon."
[...] While Mastodon has been in the spotlight as a potentially viable Twitter alternative in the past, it has yet to reach the mainstream. But its current popularity comes at a moment when Twitter is also exploring how it could become an open-sourced protocol — much like Mastodon.
Unlike Twitter, Mastodon is not a single, centralized service. Though the interface looks similar to Twitter — it has a 500-character limit but otherwise will be mostly recognizable to Twitter users — it runs on an open-source protocol. Groups of users are free to create and maintain their own "instances" with their own rules around membership, moderation and other key policies. Users are also able to take their followers with them between instances.
[...] But all that also comes with extra complexity for new users who may not easily understand Mastodon's unique structure or how it works. But those who stick around long enough may see some significant new features. Rochko said that end-to-end encrypted messaging is in the works, as well as "an exciting groups functionality."
Anyone in the community have experience using or recommending it?
Over at ACM.org, Samuel Greengard speculates Elon Musk buying Twitter is more about freedom to control speech:
The press has mostly accepted Musk's statement that the $44-billion acquisition is a "free speech" crusade that will create wonderful online town squares brimming with democratic ideas! It's 1998 naivete revisited. The Internet will bridge the digital divide! It will end oppression and censorship! It's the dawn of a new era for world freedom!
This isn't 1776, or even 1976. No one assembles at a town square to politely share ideas and debate philosophies. The Federal Communications Commission's imperfect but beneficial Fairness Doctrine is now buried deep in history. Today's online world, while delivering an appearance of democratization, has introduced hidden traps and limitations that we can't see.
It's no secret that algorithmic engines run (and rule) the Internet—and Twitter. They amplify, magnify, and even distort ideas. They introduce biases and, too often, they discriminate. They also manipulate our minds—and our thinking.
[...] Make no mistake, there will be a line; actually, lots of lines. What's more, even if Musk somehow accomplishes the seemingly impossible task of ensuring that everyone on the platform is verified, there's no way to guarantee that this will stop abuse—or that there will be any real penalty for the offenders.
[...] Yes, Twitter will wind up with different rules, results and outcomes—and it may be the better or worse for it. Along the way, some people will cheer, and others will jeer. But framing the discussion as a "free speech" issue is entirely disingenuous. This is simply a billionaire attempting to etch his world view into an algorithm—even if he brands himself a swashbuckling digital freedom fighter.
Previously
After Musk's Twitter Takeover, an Open-Source Alternative is 'Exploding'
Elon Musk has just bought Twitter
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Twitter Users React to Elon Musk Putting Buyout Deal 'On Hold':
Following Tesla CEO Elon Musk's announcement Friday that he has placed his buyout of Twitter "on hold," many across social media were quick to react to the news.
Breitbart News reported earlier today that Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has tweeted that his deal to purchase Twitter is currently "on hold" while an investigation into the number of bots and spam accounts on Twitter is completed. Twitter claimed in a recent filing that less than five percent of its daily active users were fake or spam accounts, now Musk appears to want to confirm this claim, which is lower than most estimates.
"Twitter deal temporarily on hold pending details supporting calculation that spam/fake accounts do indeed represent less than 5% of users," Musk said in a tweet. He later added, "Still committed to acquisition."
In a letter to the regulators and to the board of directors at Twitter, Elon Musk has stated that he was entitled to measure just how bad the spam bot situation is at Twitter as part of his due diligence and that the social media platform is thwarting his requests to learn more about its user base.
Twitter's Parag Agrawal and Elon Musk have been going back and forth over the issue of spam and the number of bots the platform has in its daily user base. Sparring over the issue, Musk had earlier stated that the takeover deal is on hold, pending further investigation.
However Musk's letter formalises the dispute that has been going on for weeks, and for the first time, Musk has gone on record to state that he is willing to walk away from the deal, if Twitter interferes with his due diligence.
Elon Musk's lawyer, Mike Ringler, wrote in the letter, "As Twitter's prospective owner, Mr Musk is clearly entitled to the requested data to enable him to prepare for transitioning Twitter's business to his ownership and to facilitate his transaction financing. To do both, he must have a complete and accurate understanding of the very core of Twitter's business model - its active user base."
[...] Several trade analysts and investment experts have stated that this may be a clever ruse deployed by Musk, to get Twitter for far cheaper than his initial offer of $54.20 per share. And given how badly tech stocks, particularly that of Twitter, is operating.
Twitter reportedly will give Musk the full "firehose" of user data he demanded
Twitter now plans to comply with Elon Musk's demand for user data that he says is needed to determine whether the company's spam estimates are accurate, The Washington Post reported Wednesday.
"After a weeks-long impasse, Twitter's board plans to comply with Elon Musk's demands for internal data by offering access to its full 'firehose,' the massive stream of data comprising more than 500 million tweets posted each day, according to a person familiar with the company's thinking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the state of negotiations," the Post wrote.
Twitter declined comment on the Post report when contacted by Ars today but pointed to its statement from Monday that "Twitter has and will continue to cooperatively share information with Mr. Musk to consummate the transaction in accordance with the terms of the merger agreement."
Whether Twitter has to give all the user data to Musk is under dispute. The Post report comes two days after Musk's legal team sent a letter to Twitter claiming the company violated the merger agreement by refusing to provide the data behind its spam estimates.
Twitter Set to Comply With Elon Musk Demand for Data on Fake Accounts
Twitter set to comply with Elon Musk demand for data on fake accounts:
Elon Musk warned he might walk away from Twitter if it fails to provide the data on spam and fake accounts he seeks.
Twitter is preparing to comply with Elon Musk's demand for data on fake accounts, after the Tesla chief executive threatened to walk away from buying the business if it refused.
Three submitted stories on different aspects of the breakdown of the Musk/Twitter tale.
Elon Musk's deal to buy Twitter is in peril:
Elon Musk's deal to buy Twitter is in serious jeopardy, three people familiar with the matter say, as Musk's camp concluded that Twitter's figures on spam accounts are not verifiable.
[...] The spam accounts are not the only reason Musk might try to wriggle out of the deal. Twitter's share price has fallen dramatically since his takeover bid in April, leading to the impression that he is overpaying. And Musk also runs two other major companies, Tesla and SpaceX, along with some start-ups.
[...] Musk likely grasps the difficulty of backing out at this stage, prompting him to find legal reasons to justify an exit, according to Carl Tobias, law professor at the University of Richmond.
After raising the bot issue, for example, Musk said Twitter's figures could constitute a "material adverse misstatement," a likely reference to a contractual clause that gives him the ability to back out of the deal in the event of a significant event that fundamentally changes the business.
"I think it's an excuse," Tobias said. "It doesn't seem to me that a court would find that persuasive." Tobias cited Musk's own waiving of due diligence in his hasty acceptance of the deal. "It does seem to me that it undercuts a lot of arguments he could try to make otherwise," he said.
Elon Musk has notified Twitter the $44 billion buyout is off, citing "false and misleading representations"
Judge orders Twitter to give Elon Musk former executive's documents:
Twitter Inc (TWTR.N)needs to give Elon Musk documents from a former Twitter executive who Musk said was a key figure in calculating the amount of fake accounts on the platform, according to a Monday court order.
Bot and spam accounts on Twitter have become a central issue in the legal fight over whether Musk, who is Tesla Inc's (TSLA.O) chief executive, must complete his $44 billion acquisition of the social media company.
Twitter was ordered to collect, review and produce documents from former General Manager of Consumer Product Kayvon Beykpour, according to the order from Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of the Delaware Court of Chancery.
[...] Beykpour, who left Twitter after the social media company agreed in April to be acquired by Musk, was described in Musk's court filings as one of the executives "most intimately involved with" determining the amount of spam accounts.
(Score: 3, Redundant) by fraxinus-tree on Friday August 26 2022, @07:06AM (2 children)
It takes a billionaire and a high-rank whistleblower (and yet another unknown factors, because it is not over at any rate) for a mature society to recognize an obvious "threat to users' personal information, to company shareholders, to national security, and to democracy".
(Score: 3, Touché) by coolgopher on Friday August 26 2022, @07:26AM
Seems like Elon's lol [twitter.com] is coming true.
(Score: 5, Touché) by helel on Friday August 26 2022, @02:18PM
You imply "society" recognizes the risk. I'm not convinced this is true.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Username on Friday August 26 2022, @07:25AM (15 children)
I bet all those twits at twitter wish they didn't pick an internet fight and brigade against Musk right about now.
Those people who gain a little bit of power and ego trip, wielding it against everyone, even the president of the united states, are now laid low because they crossed some guy with more money than their source of power.
I love it.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2022, @08:25AM (5 children)
Twitter has been notably smaller than its largest competitors, like Facebook and Instagram, YouTube, Whatsapp, and TikTok. Banning Trump hurt site engagement among even those who hated him the most. The bot accounts don't notice such things. Remove the bots, and it will become clear that Twitter is a much smaller echo chamber.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2022, @08:50AM (3 children)
Twitter and SoylentNews have more in common than they do not, if that be the case. Kinda makes you wonder, how many of these accounts are actual peoples.
(Score: 5, Funny) by PiMuNu on Friday August 26 2022, @10:27AM (2 children)
> how many of these accounts are actual peoples.
I can confirm that I am a bot. Hope that helps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 26 2022, @06:24PM (1 child)
Are you . . . sentient?
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Saturday August 27 2022, @02:21PM
> Are you . . . sentient?
Definitely not.
(Score: 2) by unauthorized on Friday August 26 2022, @06:22PM
Most Twitter activity is not political, even if they got rid of their woke base they'd still have a huge audience of people who post about fashion, animals and other typical normie shit.
(Score: 2, Troll) by RedGreen on Friday August 26 2022, @01:04PM (7 children)
"wish they didn't pick an internet fight and brigade against Musk"
Typical of you lying sacks of shit. The twits at Twitter did nothing to start this it was that piece of garbage Musk who started it with his unsolicited offer to buy the place lock, stock and barrel no questions asked when he waved his rights to do so. In the quest to help his Neo-nazi Aryan brothers have unrestricted access to spread their garbage everywhere. Either that or the plan was the destruction of it since the beginning with a disingenuous offer he would later rescind when the little bitch took a hissy fit and threw the toys out of his pram with his pretense of a supposed effort to deceive him into buying it, when it was his actions that locked him into the contract to do so. I do not care which party wins the battle and is found at fault hopefully they both get fucked over in it, it could happen to a nicer bunch of slime balls.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 26 2022, @02:36PM (3 children)
Why would Twitter be obligated to tell anybody how many bots they have? Musk waived that right and their SEC statements are vetted but use a monetizable user metric instead.
To capitalists, there is no meaningful difference between a bot and a non-monetizable user.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday August 26 2022, @03:08PM
Bots will never generate revenue under any future circumstances, users were non-monetizable yesterday but the future is unclear, so they have some possible future value.
Maybe phrased another way, non-monetizable users are a failure of the advertising sales executives, whereas bots will never generate revenue no matter how hard ad sales works to sign advertising contracts.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Friday August 26 2022, @05:32PM (1 child)
Twitter is publicly traded. Real active users are a metric of the companies current and future value. If Twitter SEC filings have been using an alternative metric to hide the true, much smaller real number that's a material breach and if proven will cause a sudden large drop in the stock price.
If celebrities find out their audience is significantly fake, they'll reevaluate the time they spend on twitter. If enough pause their engagement, that might spark a MySpace event. That's also material if the user count is fake. Only Twitter knows how great that risk is.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday August 26 2022, @05:40PM
They've been using this metric in their SEC filings for several years now. here's one from 2018 [sec.gov]
I only know this because I wanted to compare user base size across platforms!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Spamalope on Friday August 26 2022, @05:53PM (2 children)
Godwin the thread and the other guy is the problem. Ooookay... sure... got it.
As far as Twitter starting anything... they're just not alone.
In the same ~4-6 week period a coordinated astro-turf campaign to smear Musk started. Hit piece editorials, smear 'news' articles and (at least initially) bot posted meme smears across social media (I saw them flood Twitter, Imgur, FB starting the same day). Media companies do have 'social messaging' back channel coordination. Whoever put Elon at the top of the list back then is the person 'who started' this.
At the time Telsa's stock price had soared as legislation mandating electric cars passed, costing Detroit auto makers billions by obsoleting their product lines. SpaceX was shaming ULA and seriously threatening their business model. Via Starlink they're also threatening telco/cell phone monopoly giants. At the time I figured an investment giant with billions in those sectors or one of the groups in particular also had media influence though I guess it'd just take someone with media control and a personal ax to grind.
I'd wondered if Musk would enjoy his success and ignore the smear campaign or take action. With the Twitter tender offer we got an answer. But to say Musk 'started it' is laughable. It's also true that Twitter didn't either. They're a pawn.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by RedGreen on Friday August 26 2022, @08:59PM (1 child)
"Godwin the thread and the other guy is the problem. Ooookay... sure... got it."
Aaah the precious little snowflake has his panties all in a bunch because his favorite asshole has been described for what he is. A right wing nutjob with the leanings of them groups of peoples. Too bad if you do not like to hear the truth like the rest of them morons, I will call it as I see it every time with scum like that. When they decide to join the civilized world and support the human rights of people then I will support them not when they are some slave labor exploiting cocksucker who supports a genocidal government, not a hope in hell of me saying any good about a person who does that. I do not care how much money he made doing it, he is still a piece of shit.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 27 2022, @02:26PM
Grow up
(Score: 4, Touché) by epitaxial on Friday August 26 2022, @03:15PM
I'm honestly amazed you were able to hold back using "woke" in that ass kissing comment.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Friday August 26 2022, @03:10PM
Its interesting they won't use the common phrase "Dead Internet Theory".
Probably because it explicitly applies to a lot more than just Twitter, including arstechnica's own business models.
Still, even if the corporations won't / can't talk about it, others can. Dead Internet Theory is just this individual story times every other advertising supported company on the internet.