Monthly Archives: May 2022

Tesla chief Elon Musk and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

When Tesla chief Elon Musk overtook Amazon founder Jeff Bezos as the worlds richest person for the first time last September, Musk told Forbes he was sending a giant statue of the digit 2 to Jeffrey B., along with a silver medal. Nearly eight months later, neither man is likely in a joking mood.

The U.S. stock market rout this year has seen to that, taking a massive chunk out of public company values. With inflation surging and interest rates rising throughout the first half of 2022, stock markets are facing some of the worst starts to a year in history. The S&P 500 just posted its seventh straight week of losses, its longest down streak since March 2001. And the Nasdaq just ended its worst month (April) since October 2008.

The fortunes of the 50 richest people on the planet (worth a combined $2.9 trillion as of last Fridays close) have shriveled by more than half a trillion dollars since the beginning of the year, according to Forbes estimates. No one has lost more than Musk and Bezos, whose net worths have cratered by a combined $123.6 billion from December 31 through Friday May 20.

Since the beginning of 2022, the fortunes of Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have cratered by a combined $124 billion, Forbes estimates.

Bezos, worth an estimated $133.3 billion as of Friday, is $59.3 billion poorer than he was on December 31. Shares of Amazon have sunk by 35% over that period, outpacing the tech heavy Nasdaqs 27% drop over the same period. But compared to his rival Musk, Bezos, who stepped down as Amazons CEO to become executive chairman last July, may be more of a victim of circumstance with less control over his falling fortune.

Amazon is a work from home poster child and the stock has been crushed as the average consumer is now shopping in more normalized patterns than the last few years, says Wedbush analyst Dan Ives. In this risk-off market, Amazon along with other tech stocks have been under massive pressure.

Thats not to say that Bezos, who now ranks as the worlds third richest person after Bernard Arnault of French luxury empire LVMH (worth $142.3 billion as of Friday, after seeing a $57.2 billion drop since December 31), is sitting idly by as his fortune dwindles. In fact, the typically reserved Amazon chairman has ripped a page out of Musks playbook, taking to Twitter to criticize the Biden Administration for stoking inflation with its spending.

Musk, who briefly became the first person ever to be worth $300 billion or more when Teslas market capitalization surpassed $1 trillion twice in November and January, has also faced headwinds out of his control for example, production issues in China due to the countrys latest round of Covid lockdowns. But hes also played a more active role in sending his own fortune down tens of billions to $207.3 billion; hes down $113 billion from his all-time peak on November 4 and down $64.3 billion since the end of December.

Most of the 37% decline in shares of Tesla so far this year through May 20 has come in the past six weeks. The electric vehicle makers stock has fallen by 35% since April 13, the day before Musk announced his $44 billion Twitter takeover. That is double the Nasdaqs 17% loss over the same period. The acquisition has overshadowed the record revenue and profits Tesla reported for its most recent quarter on April 20. Musk did earn $23 billion worth of performance-based options that day (now worth $15 billion), partially offsetting the drop in his fortune.

Wedbushs Ives earlier summed up Tesla investors concerns about the Twitter acquisition, noting that worries about Musk selling Tesla stock to pay for the Twitter deal and distraction fears for Elon are causing a bear festival on the name.

The deal to acquire Twitter has certainly been distracting. Tesla investors briefly rejoiced on May 13, when Musk tweeted that the takeover was on hold over concerns about the number of spam and fake accounts on the social media platform, leading many to speculate that hes looking for a way out because tech stocks had tanked since he made his $44 billion offer. But the celebration ended quickly, when Twitters board responded in a statement to the New York Times last Tuesday that it intends to close the transaction and enforce the merger agreement between the company and Musk, hinting at the possibility of litigation.

Tesla investors are still faced with the question of how Musk will finance the $27.3 billion equity commitment he made to Twitters board, with little more than $8 billion of cash on hand, according to Forbes estimates. Hes pledged not to sell any more Tesla shares, after unloading more than $8 billion worth (pre-tax) last month, but he may not have any other choice. Given Twitters limited free cash flows and the falling value of Tesla shares that would likely be required as collateral, Musks bankers may be reluctant to lend him any more money (hed already pledged more than half his Tesla stake as collateral for other loans before pursuing Twitter). And with sexual misconduct allegations (which Musk denied on Twitter) now hanging over his head, outside investors may be hesitant to chip in for a deal he was forced to close. (Musk has not responded to Forbes request for comment).

According to Columbia University law professor John Coffee, Musk could be forced to sell a lot of his Tesla stock (which is his only real asset). That will drive the price down and some shareholders in anticipation of such sales are getting out early. (Forbes estimates that Musk holds a 47% stake in his rocket producer SpaceX worth $42.7 billion, though as a private company it is much less liquid than his Tesla shares).

Musk may have an opportunity to win back some Tesla shareholders with additional clarity regarding his plans at Twitters annual shareholder meeting this Wednesday, which Wedbush analysts Dan Ives and John Katsingris described in a note as a fork in the road situation [for Musk] in which he has to decide his next step in this soap opera as Tesla investor patience is wearing very thin.

The path forward for Bezos may be even less certain, largely dependent upon macroeconomic factors and investors rediscovering their appetites for tech stocks. But despite the challenging start to 2022, Bezos and Musk remain a combined $203 billion richer than they were at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020.

See the article here:

Billionaires Elon Musk And Jeff Bezos Have Lost $124 Billion This Year - Forbes

San Francisco, May 25

Tesla CEO Elon Musk on Wednesday slammed billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates after a report claimed that the Microsoft co-founder poured millions into attacking Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter.

Far-right publication Breitbart News claimed that hundreds of millions of dollars flew from Gates' foundation to 11 of the 26 organisations that "signed an open letter last month urging Twitter advertisers to boycott the company if Elon Musk restores free speech on the platform".

Citing research and analysis from the Foundation for Freedom Online (FFO), the report analysed public filings to trace hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions from the letter signatories back to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

"In total, 11 of the 26 anti-Musk organisations received funding from a Gates-backed entity," the report claimed.

Musk replied: "What a d*** move!"

"You think that's bad, wait until you find out what he put in your vaccine," Musk replied to a follower.

As per FFO's analysis, Gates Foundation paid 102 separate cash grants to or through New Venture Fund, totaling $457 million.

Soros, Clinton, Obama staffers shoot off anti-Musk letter to boycott Twitter After Musk tweeted about "who funds these organisations that want to control your access to information", the reports surfaced late on Wednesday that the groups behind the anti-Musk campaign belong to wealthy Democrat donors and their family foundations, labour unions and the governments of European nations.

Earlier this month, about 26 activist organisations and NGOs signed a letter to Twitter advertisers asking them to boycott the platform if Musk makes content moderation changes.

It was later revealed that some of these groups are funded or tied to billionaire philanthropist George Soros, former US presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

"Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety, especially among those already most vulnerable and marginalised," the groups wrote to advertisers.

"Under Musk's management, Twitter risks becoming a cesspool of misinformation, with your brand attached, polluting our information ecosystem in a time where trust in institutions and news media is already at an all-time low," the groups wrote.

The Daily Mail had first revealed the people behind the 26 groups.

Musk has put the Twitter deal on hold till the company reveals the actual number of bots on its platform.

He has sparred with Gates on Twitter earlier too over various issues.

Gates had expressed apprehension regarding Musk's Twitter takeover, saying he could potentially make the micro-blogging site a "worse" platform.

Musk earlier tweeted a picture of Gates, accusing him of shorting Tesla's stock.

Gates replied, saying Musk's tweeting "doesn't bother me". IANS

Go here to read the rest:

Bill Gates 'poured' millions into attacking Elon Musk, Tesla CEO tweets wait until you find out what he put in your vaccine - The Tribune India

Elon Musk, fresh off of a week of what is now in retrospect only moderately unhinged tweets, is now tweeting about the Far Right's cherished Replacement Theory.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

In addition to being close with the Buffalo shooter's screeds, this theory was, as noted by others on Twitter, a popular conversation topic in the waning days of Apartheid South Africa, a time and place rich with history for a young Elon.

None of this is surprising. Ahead of accusations of being a sex pest at SpaceX and attempting to barter a handjob for a horse, Elon claimed he was now a card-carrying Republican, and that hit pieces would follow. As one reporter pointed out, Elon does not refute; he attacks.

This plan of attack sends Elon down an increasingly racist and right-wing direction. This is not the least successful career path in the United States, certainly it can get you elected to the White House. But Elon's job is a little different. He sells cars. He sells fancy, high-tech cars to liberals. Theoretically, as he goes right, he will become unpalatable to this left-wing audience. We all know someone with a Tesla. This person is not talking replacement theory.

Then again, maybe not! The liberal enclave of Silicon Valley is less liberal than it likes to present itself. This is Peter Thiel's part of the country, and Peter Thiel is far from a peace-loving hippie. Maybe Musk's racist turn won't hurt Tesla sales. Sure Tesla's stock has been down, but it fluctuates. Maybe this all ends up as Twitter drama. Maybe we'll all be surprised. Maybe we'll just be disappointed.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

Go here to read the rest:

Elon Musk Is Trying to Figure Out How Racist He Can Be - Road & Track

Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro arrives to a resort hotel where he is expected to meet with Elon Musk in Porto Feliz, Brazil on Friday.Photo: Andre Penner (AP)

Theres a lot of scandals hitting Tesla CEO Elon Musk all at once, but at least he knows he has a friend in Brazils deforester-in-chief Jair Bolsonaro, a right-wing demagogue who similarly to Musk, has a very hard time taking any sort of public criticism, and has tried using the power of his office to make sure his conspiracies dont get deplatformed.

Musks trip down south was reportedly meant to include talks about internet connectivity within the country alongside concerns of rapid deforestation. The Brazilian Amazon has seen a 15-year high under the three-year Brazilian president, which has scientists concerned it could lead to a total ecological collapse.

While making vague and unconvincing overtures to preserving the Amazon, Bolsonaro reportedly lauded the tech billionaire for his Twitter stance. The Brazilian president told the SpaceX CEO that his planned takeover of Twitter is a breath of hope, adding Freedom is the cement for the future. Musk has repeatedly said he doesnt agree with Twitter account perma-bans, and wants to effectively open up the platform for anybody and everybody to post what they want. The billionaire has proposed incredibly vague ideas for which tweets could require content moderation, including anything that is illegal or otherwise just destructive to the world, or just wrong or bad.

Bolsonaro, an ultra-right and violent figure who has defended the 20-year military dictatorship of his country that ended nearly 40 years ago, has claimed that companies like Twitter are left-wing and are silencing people like him. He has used those platforms to attack the Brazilian electoral system much in the same way former President Donald Trump did for the 2020 election. After Trump was banned, Bolsonaro told his supporters to avoid much of current social media.

G/O Media may get a commission

Save $70

Apple AirPods Max

Experience Next-Level SoundSpatial audio with dynamic head tracking provides theater-like sound that surrounds you

Musk is apparently seeking praise from wherever he can get it. He is currently embroiled in scandal after Insider reported Thursday about a SpaceX flight attendant who was allegedly sexually harassed by Musk, and that she was then paid $250,000 for her silence.

Alongside the sexual harassment accusation, Musk is being taken to task in a new FX and New York Times documentary that examines how the billionaire has responded to crashes involving his Tesla cars autopilot feature. Reporters say that Musk pressured lawmakers into curbing investigations into those crashes.

Other than for his Twitter stance, its no wonder that Bolsonaro is rolling out the red carpet for the worlds richest man. The president is five months out from a tense election this October, and Bloomberg reported Friday that Musk is a celebrity among Bolsonaros right-wing base. Musk himself proclaimed himself for the Republicans in a tweet Thursday afternoon.

Trying to get away from this accusation, Musk would apparently rather talk about his lingering plans for self-driving cars with the Brazilian strongman, despite the new documentary making the rounds. Of course, Musk has long promised completely autonomous vehicles, so its not like this is anything revelatory.

Continued here:

Elon Musk Completes Transition to Supervillain With Bolsonaro Meeting in Brazil - Gizmodo

Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Tesla's "Gigafactory" in Germany. Patrick PleulAFP via Getty Images hide caption

Tesla CEO Elon Musk at Tesla's "Gigafactory" in Germany.

Just as his effort to buy Twitter has led the world to focus on Elon Musk's management style and business strategies, FX and The New York Times have stepped up with a documentary taking a close look at how Musk responded to crashes involving the Autopilot function in cars from his company, Tesla.

For those watching Musk's fitful attempt to buy Twitter, the film also serves as a pointed comparison; showing how his penchant for bold moves and provocative statements can lead fans to see what they want in his words regardless of whether what he says is actually possible.

As part of FX's The New York Times Presents documentary series, Elon Musk's Crash Course suggests that Musk oversold the cars' self-driving capabilities, leading to public confusion over what it could actually do. And when federal authorities began an investigation into a fatal crash involving the technology, the program says Musk pressured officials to curb the investigation.

"He would say really cool things like science fiction things and he would make you believe that you could do it," said JT Stukes, a former senior product engineer at Tesla, noting how Musk's ambitious public statements turned into goals staffers would have to work hard to attain.

"The message is constantly going up and down," added Cade Metz, a technology correspondent for the New York Times. "Elon can change his mind at any moment. He can say one thing at one moment and then say something completely different."

The film features fresh interviews with a wide range of subjects, including former Tesla employees and corporate leaders, Times journalists and friends of a man killed in a 2016 crash while operating his Tesla's Autopilot function. Musk declined to sit for an interview, but is represented by loads of clips from public appearances and past interviews.

In one clip, Musk is shown calling the development of self-driving technology for cars a "solved problem"; in others, he predicts a near future where cars can park themselves and navigate long trips without driver assistance.

Times journalists and some critics say such bullish talk has confused consumers, leading them to think that Tesla's cars can be trusted to drive themselves. The film notes that Tesla used hype around its Autopilot system as a selling point to get consumers to buy its cars.

But Tesla insists drivers should keep hands on the steering wheel while Autopilot is operating, just in case the system fails to recognize a road hazard. (In one telling news clip, a CNN anchor asks: if drivers still must hold the steering wheel while Autopilot is on, "what's the point?")

Crashes involving Tesla's Autopilot function explicitly illustrate the high stakes involved. One man, Josh Brown, was killed when his car didn't recognize a tractor trailer crossing in front of the vehicle.

"People were trusting the system to do things it was not designed or capable of doing," Stukes said. "The fact that...[Brown's accident] happened was obviously tragic...But it was going to happen."

One former employee noted Musk had updates to the autopilot sent to his personal vehicles, so staffers wound up working to address his concerns instead of looking at larger issues. Another ex-employee said cameras the cars use to detect traffic and roadways had a blind spot where a small dog or small child might not be seen.

When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration finally released its report on the accident which claimed Brown's life, it concluded the Autopilot system wasn't at fault, because it was an Advanced Driver Assistance System requiring the driver to pay attention during operation. The report also included an observation which the film says was based on data from Tesla that the company's cars with the auto-steering technology crashed 40% less than those without it, allowing Tesla to spin the report as a positive finding.

The film quoted one former employee, software engineer Raven Jiang, who was unsettled by how the system worked. "Sometimes it seems like people and companies were being rewarded, not for telling the truth, but in fact, for doing a bit of the opposite," he added.

Like a few other TV projects these days, the documentary zeroes in on the strategy employed by many Silicon Valley leaders to talk up the possibilities of their companies' products before their achievements are fully realized. It's a "fake it until you make it" style that allows companies to harness enthusiasm and capital to push toward goals which might otherwise seem impossible to reach.

But Elon Musk's Crash Course is a straightforward look at the dangers of such an approach when the product involved controls a speeding automobile.

And it asks us all the consider the possible damage from a system which tolerates and even rewards such risks in service of a powerful, wealthy business moguls chasing profits and glory.

Read the original here:

'Elon Musk's Crash Course' shows the tragic cost of his leadership - NPR

Why do billionaires tweet? Is it because they no longer have to earn a living? Or because theyre bored? Or because they spend a lot of time in, er, the smallest room in the mansion? Elon Musk, for example, currently the worlds richest fruitcake, has said that At least 50% of my tweets were made on a porcelain throne, adding that it gives me solace. This revelation motivated the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson to do some calculations, leading to the conclusion that more than 8,000 tweets over 12.5 years suggests that, on average, Musk poops twice a day. (I make it 1.75 a day, but thats just quibbling.)

So why does Musk tweet so much? One explanation is that he just cant help himself. He has, after all, revealed that he has Aspergers. Look, I know I sometimes say or post strange things, he said on Saturday Night Live, but thats just how my brain works. Understood. It may also be a partial explanation of his business success, because his mastery of SpaceX and Tesla suggests not only high intelligence but also an ability to focus intensely on exceedingly complex problems without being distracted by other considerations.

There are, however, darker interpretations shared, it seems by the US Securities and Exchange Commission that some of his tweeting is not, as it were, involuntary but is aimed at manipulating stock markets. Exhibit A: his announcement on 4 April that he had acquired a 9.2% stake in Twitter sent its shares rocketing upwards from $39.31 to $49.97 which meant the value of his holding went from $2.9bn to $3.5bn, giving him a notional profit of $600m in a single day. Nice work if you can get it, eh?

Exhibit B: on 26 April he agrees to buy the company, whose shares were trading at $49.68 that day, for $54.20 a share, which leads Wall Street to conclude that he was paying too much. Then (exhibit C), on 13 May he announces that he is pausing his bid pending investigation of Twitters estimate of the prevalence of spam bots on the platform and the share price tumbles, confirming Wall Streets view of its overvaluation, but also suggesting that Musk is trying to find a way of wriggling out of what is now beginning to look like a foolish deal. And if that proves impossible for legal reasons, stand by for a torrent of tweets portraying himself as a victim.

Where the truth lies in all this is unknowable, at least to a humble columnist, but the thing to keep hold of is that its all been driven by Musks tweets. Theres method somewhere in the madness, in other words.

On one thing we can all agree, though, is that Musk is sui generis. What then about another insanely rich guy also obsessed with space exploration Jeff Bezos, the Amazon founder? He bought the venerable Washington Post newspaper in August 2013 for what was effectively small change $250m. This had the useful side-effect of infuriating Donald Trump. More importantly, it secured the papers future. And, as far as we can tell, Bezos doesnt seem to be driving the Posts editorial agenda.

Yet Bezos, too, seems to have a tweeting problem. Last week, for example, Joe Biden published an anodyne tweet saying You want to bring down inflation? Lets make sure the wealthiest corporations pay their fair share. Up pops Bezos, saying the newly created Disinformation [Governance] Board should review this tweet, or maybe they need to form a new Non Sequitur Board instead. Raising corp taxes is fine to discuss. Taming inflation is critical to discuss. Mushing them together is just misdirection. He followed this with what can only be described as a sermonette in Twitter-speak: In fact, the administration tried hard to inject even more stimulus into an already over-heated, inflationary economy and only Manchin [Joe, the coal-brokerage founder who is also a senator representing West Virginia] saved them from themselves. Inflation is a regressive tax that most hurts the least affluent. Misdirection doesnt help the country.

So why is Bezos wasting his time on Twitter? I can only think of two reasons: one bad and one good. The bad one is that hes bored not running Amazon any more and needs to do some virtue-signalling just to show Musk (and the Twitterverse) that other billionaires are available. Though, as Politicos Jack Shafer puts it: Twitter fulminations may give Bezos a rush of ego-gratification, but why should the man who owns an entire dairy get such a kick out of sipping from a personal-sized milk carton?

The more charitable interpretation is that, unlike most proprietors of newspapers, hes not using the Post as his personal megaphone and using Twitter to indulge his inner child. Like Musk but without the porcelain, in other words. So at least any war between the two of them wont be a game of thrones.

A strange breedLife among the Econ. Axel Leijonhufvuds delightful satirical ethnography, now available as a pdf, of an interesting academic tribe economists.

Hidden figuresA nice essay in the online magazine Aeon by Ann-Sophie Barwich on how the history of ideas still struggles to remember the names of notable female philosophers.

Culture clashFighting talk from Maureen Dowd in her New York Times column about US supreme court justice Samuel Alitos views on womens rights.

Read the original here:

What do Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have in common? An unhealthy Twitter habit - The Guardian

Twitter reports that fewer than 5% of accounts are fakes or spammers, commonly referred to as bots. Since his offer to buy Twitter was accepted, Elon Musk has repeatedly questioned these estimates, even dismissing Chief Executive Officer Parag Agrawals public response.

Later, Musk put the deal on hold and demanded more proof.

So why are people arguing about the percentage of bot accounts on Twitter?

As the creators of Botometer, a widely used bot detection tool, our group at the Indiana University Observatory on Social Media has been studying inauthentic accounts and manipulation on social media for over a decade. We brought the concept of the social bot to the foreground and first estimated their prevalence on Twitter in 2017.

Based on our knowledge and experience, we believe that estimating the percentage of bots on Twitter has become a very difficult task, and debating the accuracy of the estimate might be missing the point. Here is why.

To measure the prevalence of problematic accounts on Twitter, a clear definition of the targets is necessary. Common terms such as fake accounts, spam accounts and bots are used interchangeably, but they have different meanings. Fake or false accounts are those that impersonate people. Accounts that mass-produce unsolicited promotional content are defined as spammers. Bots, on the other hand, are accounts controlled in part by software; they may post content or carry out simple interactions, like retweeting, automatically.

These types of accounts often overlap. For instance, you can create a bot that impersonates a human to post spam automatically. Such an account is simultaneously a bot, a spammer and a fake. But not every fake account is a bot or a spammer, and vice versa. Coming up with an estimate without a clear definition only yields misleading results.

Defining and distinguishing account types can also inform proper interventions. Fake and spam accounts degrade the online environment and violate platform policy. Malicious bots are used to spread misinformation, inflate popularity, exacerbate conflict through negative and inflammatory content, manipulate opinions, influence elections, conduct financial fraud and disrupt communication. However, some bots can be harmless or even useful, for example by helping disseminate news, delivering disaster alerts and conducting research.

Simply banning all bots is not in the best interest of social media users.

For simplicity, researchers use the term inauthentic accounts to refer to the collection of fake accounts, spammers and malicious bots. This is also the definition Twitter appears to be using. However, it is unclear what Musk has in mind.

Even when a consensus is reached on a definition, there are still technical challenges to estimating prevalence.

Networks of coordinated accounts spreading COVID-19 information from low-credibility sources on Twitter in 2020. Pik-Mai Hui

External researchers do not have access to the same data as Twitter, such as IP addresses and phone numbers. This hinders the publics ability to identify inauthentic accounts. But even Twitter acknowledges that the actual number of inauthentic accounts could be higher than it has estimated, because detection is challenging.

Inauthentic accounts evolve and develop new tactics to evade detection. For example, some fake accounts use AI-generated faces as their profiles. These faces can be indistinguishable from real ones, even to humans. Identifying such accounts is hard and requires new technologies.

Another difficulty is posed by coordinated accounts that appear to be normal individually but act so similarly to each other that they are almost certainly controlled by a single entity. Yet they are like needles in the haystack of hundreds of millions of daily tweets.

Finally, inauthentic accounts can evade detection by techniques like swapping handles or automatically posting and deleting large volumes of content.

The distinction between inauthentic and genuine accounts gets more and more blurry. Accounts can be hacked, bought or rented, and some users donate their credentials to organizations who post on their behalf. As a result, so-called cyborg accounts are controlled by both algorithms and humans. Similarly, spammers sometimes post legitimate content to obscure their activity.

We have observed a broad spectrum of behaviors mixing the characteristics of bots and people. Estimating the prevalence of inauthentic accounts requires applying a simplistic binary classification: authentic or inauthentic account. No matter where the line is drawn, mistakes are inevitable.

The focus of the recent debate on estimating the number of Twitter bots oversimplifies the issue and misses the point of quantifying the harm of online abuse and manipulation by inauthentic accounts.

Recent evidence suggests that inauthentic accounts might not be the only culprits responsible for the spread of misinformation, hate speech, polarization and radicalization. These issues typically involve many human users. For instance, our analysis shows that misinformation about COVID-19 was disseminated overtly on both Twitter and Facebook by verified, high-profile accounts.Through BotAmp, a new tool from the Botometer family that anyone with a Twitter account can use, we have found that the presence of automated activity is not evenly distributed. For instance, the discussion about cryptocurrencies tends to show more bot activity than the discussion about cats. Therefore, whether the overall prevalence is 5% or 20% makes little difference to individual users; their experiences with these accounts depend on whom they follow and the topics they care about.

Even if it were possible to precisely estimate the prevalence of inauthentic accounts, this would do little to solve these problems. A meaningful first step would be to acknowledge the complex nature of these issues. This will help social media platforms and policymakers develop meaningful responses.

Article by Kai-Cheng Yang, Doctoral Student in Informatics, Indiana University and Filippo Menczer, Professor of Informatics and Computer Science, Indiana University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See original here:

Elon Musks obsession with bots will do nothing to stop Twitter spam - The Next Web

Tech billionaire Elon Musk has said that his electric vehicle company Tesla will have self-driving cars without the need for human drivers, behind the wheel for supervision, around this time next year.

According to the auto-tech website Electrek, it is not the first time that Musk made this announcement.

He made the announcement in Brazil, where he was for a partnership with the local government to launch a program to connect Amazonian regions with SpaceX's Starlink satellite-based internet.

Recently, Electrek reported that Musk changed Tesla's 1 million robotaxis by end of the year goal to a1 million people in Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta, which are two different things.

The term "robotaxi" implies that a vehicle can provide a taxi service without a driver at the wheel.

On the other hand, Tesla's FSD Beta has all the features of a self-driving system, but they often fail, which is why it requires a driver behind the wheel at all-time to be attentive and ready to take control.

Read more:

Tesla to soon have self-driving cars without need for human drivers: Elon Musk - Economic Times

The tech elite, however, had it all. Facebooks Sheryl Sandberg was, for a while, a feminist icon. Musk has millions of Twitter followers, many of them actual human beings rather than bots, and these followers have often been ardent Tesla defenders.

Now the glitter is gone. Social media, once hailed as a force for freedom, are now denounced as vectors of misinformation. Tesla boosterism has been dented by tales of spontaneous combustion and autopilot accidents. Technology moguls still possess vast wealth, but the public and the administration isnt offering the old level of adulation.

And its driving them crazy.

Weve seen this movie before. Back in 2010 much of the Wall Street elite, rather than feeling grateful for having been bailed out, was consumed with Obama rage. Financial wheeler-dealers were furious at not, in their view, receiving the respect they deserved after, um, crashing the world economy.

Unfortunately, plutocratic pettiness matters. Money cant buy admiration, but it can buy political power; its disheartening that some of this power will be deployed on behalf of a Republican Party that is descending ever deeper into authoritarianism.

Did I mention that the most recent meeting of the right-wing gathering CPAC, which included a video address from Donald Trump, was held in Hungary under the auspices of Viktor Orban, who has effectively killed his nations democracy?

The right turn by some technology billionaires is also, may I say, very stupid.

Its true that oligarchs can get very rich under autocrats like Orban or Vladimir Putin, whom much of the U.S. right deeply admired until he began losing his war in Ukraine.

But these days Russias oligarchs are, by many accounts, terrified. For even vast wealth offers little security against the erratic behavior and vindictiveness of leaders unconstrained by the rule of law.

See more here:

Opinion | Musk and Bezo Show the Perils of Plutocratic Pettiness - The New York Times