Matt Taibbi

Rank 23 of 47

Score 29

32. Bhat when originally contacted strongly disagreed with Twitter’s assessment, said his methodology was sound, and suggested some news outlets confused terms like “bot” and “bot-like.” (More to come on that at Racket.)

6/6/2024, 1:37:21 PM

In reply to:

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

616d

31. Policy chief Pickles added:

"Doesn’t publish data, does sell consultancy. Definition of monetizing the problem."

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

616d

30. Twitter regarded the firms in the same light as Hamilton 68, with Roth writing:

"The Botcheck people use a similarly flawed methodology... this is truly a nothingburger... journalists continuing to lean on deeply flawed tools... capitalize on the bot media frenzy.

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

616d

29. Factcheck and Botcheck were two related companies begun by a pair of Berkeley students named Rohan Phadte and Ash Bhat, whom Wired praised as the College Kids who “will do what Twitter won’t”:

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

616d

28. Twitter then received a letter from Mother Jones, asking them to confirm research by https://factcheck.me/, which labeled #WalkAway “38% bot activity” and asked “what Twitter is trying to do to curb this kind of unhealthy user activity.” The firm did work w/the DNC.

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

616d

27. Tired of saying no to influential politicians, one Twitter official urged they “confirm” the requests, saying: “We would love to be able to confirm this and land a positive example of our partnership to silence the… critiques” about refusing too many removal demands.

Matt Taibbi

@mtaibbi

616d

26. Attention bred more complaints. On October 11th, Twitter received a “massive” spreadsheet of 38,000 suspected inauthentic accounts from ther Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), including #Walkaway

The statement by Bhat addresses a public issue regarding the methodology used to identify bot activity on Twitter. It engages in a substantive discussion about the accuracy and reliability of data used by news outlets and social media platforms, which is a matter of public concern.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
Bhat's statement does not appear to cause harm; it is a defense of his methodology and a clarification of terms, which is a constructive approach. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in personal attacks or revealing private information. [+1]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
By suggesting that terms like 'bot' and 'bot-like' are being confused, Bhat promotes understanding and clarity, which aligns with the principle of using words to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
Bhat engages in constructive criticism by defending his methodology and suggesting that there may be confusion in the terminology used by news outlets. This is a respectful way to address disagreement without resorting to personal attacks. [+1]