It's not amusing to me that fake numbers can be used to justify a higher valuation, especially when those fake accounts are used to scam or mislead the "real" ones.
At some point should there be regulation on what terms like MAU means?
I don't think MAU numbers are being used to justify valuations. They may inform analysts' understanding of growth trends, in general. But, most analysts are looking at revenue, revenue/user, and margins.
This is the classic foible of calling for the mere existence of some regulation and assuming that is the same thing as the world really behaving according to some good rule.
Right now, investors researching Facebook stock have to be aware that published metrics include botspam. Suppose an authority imposed a regulation to force Facebook to publish "bot free" metrics.
Then what will happen? Legal will impose a demand on engineers, and the engineers will scratch their heads and do what it takes to satisfy legal, and legal will scratch their heads at the result and write up whatever report it takes to satisfy the regulator.
In the end, the relationship of the published number to reality will have changed in some difficult to predict, probably undocumented, way. Will investors then really have an easier time doing their research?
At some point should there be regulation on what terms like MAU means?