>Twitter Inc(TWTR.N)estimated in a filing on Monday that false or spam accounts represented fewer than 5% of its monetizable daily active users during the first quarter.
>The social media company had 229 million users who were served advertising in the first quarter. read more
It seems evident that a bot user is almost never monetizable, so you'd think the amount of bots in Twitters monetizable user base would be very close to zero even if the total amount of bot users is 90% of the total user base.
Why isn't a bit monetizable? - True, you can't monetize that account via ads, but for one it drives conversation, thus interaction with other users thus allows to send those other users mire ads and the bot operator is willing to get his message out and might be willing to pay.
In subscription-based video games, bots are absolutely monetized (and some people use it as an argument to explain why editors might seem slow at suspending them). In its current iteration, bots are not monetizable on Twitter, but we can imagine a world where they are.
They define “monetizable” to mean that the user is using Twitter in a way that could serve ads. (I think they mean this in contrast to, like, API only usage, although I’ve never seen Twitter explain this in more detail.)
Why do you think a bot is not monetizable? What if some payed by Putin pro-Russian trashtalker (bot by definition) without Adblock installed (unlike most of decent users who are not happy to see some ads in the social network they love) - who is monetizable and who is not in this case?
Because they devalue your ad business. Your views don't lead to enough click-throughs which don't lead to conversions for the buyer. Even if you imagine that the paid sockpuppet operator might be interested in the ads, their whole business is representing themselves as being from a country they're not so the targeting is all wrong.
