[salusinarduis]

Some other interesting things I've noticed is counters are often wrong, sometimes even with insane values such as -1. Replies missing from retweet views, missing search results, people have reported that replies sometimes don't work or never appear.

[andy_ppp]

There are now always exactly 35 new tweets to load... on web anyway. Seems to be an increasingly buggy mess.

Isn't it $1bn in interest payments Twitter owes, on what regularity is that paid, every 3 months?

[rchaud]

Yes, they made a $300m payment about a week ago.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-30/twitter-s...

[hn92726819]

Re: the counter issue; I've had "2" tweets for at least 5 years. I really have 0 tweets, but they mention if you ever delete tweets in bulk, the counter can be off.

They confirm this can happen on their site: https://help.twitter.com/en/using-twitter/missing-tweets

Makes you wonder if anything security related has glitches like this.

[ge96]

> counters are often wrong,

I heard about "optimistic rendering"

-1 does seem bad. Reddit has fluctuating numbers I thought it was to fight bots or maybe using the eventually correct type db.

[pifm_guy]

I never really saw how making the counters random helped fight bots.

Anyone who wants to know if their bot armies upvotes are counted can just choose 2000 articles, upvote a random half, then see if the half they upvoted have higher vote tallies than the half they didn't.

No amount of delay, quantizing, or adding noise will defeat that tactic. So why try at all?

[derefr]

I don’t think the technique would be meant to counter blind voting, but rather strategic voting—i.e. counter-voting some particular post down/up with a random member of your bot army every time it’s voted up/down, to keep its count high/low/at some constant value.

I say this, not because it seems like an especially common style of bot to be running, but rather because 1. it would be a rather heavy backend write load on the site if two bots doing this in opposite directions did exist, and ever “clashed” on the same post—and, much more problematically, a never-ending load, as the bots would never be satisfied; and 2. such bots do depend on the exact vote count passing some threshold, so fuzzing votes is a simple way to make such bots confused—not all the time, but probabilistically, enough of the time to make any such “clash” loops eventually quiesce rather than going on forever.

[CaveTech]

You can't efficiently tell which accounts work and which don't, so

a) you'll quickly accumulate more invalid accounts than valid ones, but have the burden of maintaining all of them.

b) you'll continue to provide more signal to reddit from your invalid accounts that can be used to burn your valid accounts.

[JustLurking2022]

I would expect it's a database consistency issue across some distributed NoSQL store.

[hn92726819]

I would imagine that's the cause too. But there are ways to prevent that. It is eventual consistency after all, right? As I mentioned in my other comment, I've had the wrong count for multiple years.

[908B64B197]

How long until they have a major outage?