Musk recently tweeted that now people can see at most 300 tweets a day.
This market resolves to YES if non-paying users can see an unlimited amount of tweets.
I won't bet on this market.
Other Musk-related markets:
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ1,245 | |
| 2 | Ṁ749 | |
| 3 | Ṁ510 | |
| 4 | Ṁ398 | |
| 5 | Ṁ298 |
I'm honestly not sure how to interpret this, considering that nonverified users are just ... empirically ... not hitting rate limits?
Like I use twitter a lot and on the ratelimit day, everyone was complaining. I haven't seen a single mention of it since.
@jacksonpolack I think rate limits are here to stay for human users -- would they not prevent bots from logging in and using something like selenium/playwright to drive the browser and scrape a ton of content under the guise of being 'human' ? thats the whole point of adding more rate limit to Blue accounts, way too expensive for bot net to rely on all using Blue accounts for scraping?
@jacksonpolack there's still rate limits and it's likely the number for non-blue users is an order of magnitude lower.
@Blomfilter The future of bots is sharing accounts with real users. ie. the user installs a chrome extension, and that extension does a bit of twitter scraping in the background using the users twitter account, and passive scraping of everything the actual user is looking at. In return the user gets ad-free twitter.
@OliverMattos definitely one way to go about getting past twitter/x defences. but I don't they will re-enable unlimited access by the end of this month.
That is for the public twitter API for all users which is, I believe, different from the internal twitter API
Additionally, it has not changed significantly since June, which was before the 'new ratelimits' per the title. The only changes are in areas that have nothing to do with reading posts, and have short cooldowns.
@jacksonpolack From 4 days ago: https://business.twitter.com/en/blog/update-on-twitters-limited-usage.html
Sounds like rate limiting is still active, they just increased the cap. It also is implied that the rate limits are only temporary and will be removed.
To ensure the authenticity of our user base we must take extreme measures to remove spam and bots from our platform. That’s why we temporarily limited usage so we could detect and eliminate bots and other bad actors that are harming the platform. Any advance notice on these actions would have allowed bad actors to alter their behavior to evade detection.
tangent to your point but this is complete nonsense
I mean, there are two perspectives on this. One is that twitter imposed 'The New Rate Limits', and everyone was ratelimited for a day or two. Twitter then massively increased 'The New Rate Limits' such that nobody notices them anymore. But they're still 'the same new rate limits'
Another perspective is that they imposed the new rate limit on all users, and then replaced it with a different 'new rate limit' that only targets bots and doesn't affect all users. I think this makes more sense
Notably, the description says the following:
This market resolves to YES if non-paying users can see an unlimited amount of tweets.
As far as I can tell right now, non-paying users can see an unlimited number of tweets. The rate limit I run into if I spam-scroll twitter is the ten minute ish rate limit that was in place six months ago.
@jacksonpolack Thank you very much for sharing, it seems to me that the threshold is achieve, but it seems odd to me that the mainstream media isn't reporting on that. I'll be cautious and wait, as also to give an opportunity to bears to argue.
@MP can you please add clarification based on the comments below? What exactly would be considered yes VS no?
@eclair4151 the spirit of the market is Musk or Twitter or the specialized press publicly announcing that non-paying users (typically logged) can see an unlimited amount of tweets. I don't have access to Twitter source code to know if it's literally unlimited or if it's capped by a very large number.
So here how it goes, I'll rely on what they say. If Twitter, Musk, or the specialized press reports that rate limits have been removed, this market resolves to YES. If they announce rate limits to a very big number, as some people who bet NO said, this market resolves to NO at market close. Makes sense?
@MP Perhaps a small change to the title would better align with your intent. "Will Twitter remove the new rate limits by the end of August 2023?"
Strongly disagree with vitor, there has always been a rate-limit for logged-in users - it was just set at like 10x normal user activity, to stop bots but not normal users.
Twitter will certainly not remove those kinds of anti-spam rate-limits, but may remove the new kind of rate limit that's preventing normal user activity. Clarification from market creator would be useful, I strongly suspect they intend the latter rate-limit and not all rate-limits.
@jacksonpolack very likely not the intention of the market creator, but the resolution criteria is "This market resolves to YES if non-paying users can see an unlimited amount of tweets.", which is consistent with vitor's reasoning
If I said the market description to someone in a conversation, they would understand that I meant 'the rate limit that Elon imposed', and not 'every technical rate limit'. Market creators generally have latitude to resolve markets how they want so long as it's consistent with the spirit of the market, and IMO this market is much better served by resolving to what most users are actually trying to predict
@jacksonpolack I would argue that the market description was quite clear in specifying that the cap should be unlimited, such that it would be unfair to change this direct interpretation after nearly a day without clarification (since commenters began mentioning this consideration).
No, most common uses of language have similar 'technicalities'.
Consider the question 'I am sick with a virus today. will I be virus-free by the end of the week'? The literal answer here is ... no, everyone has some viruses floating around. But that's clearly not what is meant.
If the market creator does want to stick with the 'this always resolves NO' interpretation (as twitter has had some form of rate-limits continuously since a few years after it began), then the market should simply N/A, as people are betting on the market as if it has something to do with Elon's recent rate-limit change, which it, in that interpretation, does not. Allowing it to remain open with the rules-lawyer meaning is just a way to siphon money off of people who trust the title and Manifold's users a bit too much.