261–270 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We definitely can have it both ways. We don’t want him to buy Twitter - because he is an idiotic blowhard. Also we are happy he is backing out, because it demonstrates what an idiotic blowhard he is.
That's fine, but then you can't celebrate that he may be forced into buying it which a ton of comments here are doing.
This was always going to be how it ended. Elon got what he wanted. Everyone on his side now thinks he's a bastion of free speech, and he can forever say "If I owned Twitter, I would have...". And he gets the credit he wants without having to actually do anything. Twitter got what they wanted. They didn't want Elon to own the company, but they also couldn't ignore the offer. So they called his bluff. They would have e…
Doesn't he kind of forfeit that bragging right if he tries to walk away from the deal though?
>"Twitter got what they wanted. They didn't want Elon to own the company, but they also couldn't ignore the offer."
What happens to their stock price after this though if this deal doesn't happen? Hasn't it basically been flat or trending down for some time before this current situation? Doesn't Twitter still have all the same problems they had before this current circus started?
Also is there a possibility that if that deal doesn't happen there becomes a bigger spotlight on Twitter's future filings in regards to their quoted percentage of "fake or spam accounts on Twitter’s platform"?
Musk is saying, you haven't demonstrated your numbers are accurate. But having signed the merger agreement and waived due diligence, I think he needs to demonstrate that they are _not_ accurate. Complaining Twitter rate-limited his API access (which would be very foolish on their part) or that their bot measurement standards are "arbitrary" doesn't seem to get there.
The letter complains that Musk asked for data allowing him to "independently verify Twitter's representations regarding the number of mDAU" -- but where does the agreement provide for that verification as a condition of the deal? Maybe Twitter didn't provide sufficient information for Musk to "independently verify" that number -- that means nothing without showing Twitter had a duty to provide that information, or that Musk had a right to his own verification. (Any lawyer agreeing to the other side's verification of such a thing probably isn't a very good lawyer.)
The last paragraph, complaining about firings and hiring freezes and departures, seems positively desperate. Who seriously cares about this stuff?
"I relied on your numbers but now they seem soft" is different than "I relied on your numbers but now they are clearly wrong".
I have enormous respect for his engineering and business skills, he's accomplished some remarkable things. But he doesn't seem so great as a dealmaker. Perhaps he's badly advised, but hey, he chose his advisors.
I would think Twitter will sue for specific performance, and they probably have a case. And Musk is liable for their full market cap, and any trial would depend on a legal team that has a hard time writing a clear letter. I think Musk is in trouble here.
This is good for Twitter, and good for the world. Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. My guess is Musk never intended to buy Twitter. He needed an excuse for dumping billions of dollars' worth of TSLA at its peak (while at the same time faulting Bill Gates for shorting TSLA), and his…
> Musk's misguided approach to free speech, which says anything that is not explicitly illegal is allowed, would have made Twitter an open forum for spreading lies and hate. Twitter is of course currently known as a source of Truth and Harmony. "anything not illegal is allowed" sounds decent to me; if you want stuff illegal, make it illegal. If you want unwritten laws dreamt up by anonymous elites and enforced for ra…
Twitter is based in the US, the 1st Amendment protects hate speech such as explicit support for genocide. I don't consider a social network full of genocide promotion to be a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> It's less clear to me why he almost immediately started trying to back out. That's what you do when you sober up and realize what a mess you've made.
Well, if the purpose of buying twitter was to improve the user experience of internet users and advance the doctrine of free speech, then why not just spend that same amount of money building your own twitter (mastodon instance or something) and use your publicity to attract users?
It seems apparent to this observer that he developed cold feet pretty fast after an impetuous decision, and has been looking for any reason to back out of it since then. The spam accounts angle seems like a convenient scapegoat, rather than a real surprise to him. He's clearly eccentric in his approach to decision making: I don't think any Harvard Business School course will teach "the Musk Principles". But it's uncl…
He is a man who owns and can raise massive amounts of money and promise smart people the ability to build something they want to build. That he gets so much credit for his ventures is a very strange thing to me given how many he has vs how few hours in the day he must have to actually pay any attention to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We definitely can have it both ways. We don’t want him to buy Twitter - because he is an idiotic blowhard. Also we are happy he is backing out, because it demonstrates what an idiotic blowhard he is.
That's fine, but then you can't celebrate that he may be forced into buying it which a ton of comments here are doing.
He's an adult.
An alternative theory all the people who have being really upset about him buying Twitter are now actually cheering for him to be forced to buy it. So he got to shift the sentiment for free :)
There's something really messed up and confusing about all the people complaining about him buying twitter now complaining he's backing out of the deal. Most of the people in these comments are hypocrites.
1) Elon Musk, as owner of Twitter, would prioritize profits over free speech and other concerns.
2) Elon Musk, as a participant in a binding legal agreement, should not be allowed to break it on a whim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They’re saying they’re lying about the numbers. Which would be fraud. But they've been sending the SEC these same numbers calculated using the same methodology since 2013, right? If they were materially adverse circumstances, you'd imagine that someone would have caught this in the last 9 years...
Also, Musk routinely knowingly confuses DAUs and normal users. Twitter claims 5% of daily active users are bots, but Musk complains about how many of his followers are bots, when clearly many of those wouldn’t be DAUs. Twitter’s CEO has addressed this. Musk responded with a poop emoji: https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1526237578843672576?s=20&t...