Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 585 posts

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#311

Post by dragontamer »

viraptor wrote: post #283
dragontamer wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who could possibly be on the side of the buyer? Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. Its so ridiculous. Musk's popularity is largely *BECAUSE* of his Twitter antics. So this "buyer" is basically someone who has come to house-parties / benefited from the house in question for the last decade. And the people arguing against the (current owners)…

> Except you can just buy up supporters by gaslighting huge masses of people on Twitter. The house in question. What's the path from the masses on twitter and courts which will hear the case? Public opinion doesn't matter here. The case over the contract doesn't even have a jury if I understand correctly.

> Public opinion doesn't matter here.

Public opinion doesn't matter with regards to winners/losers of the case. But public opinion matters from the perspective of Elon Musk continuing to build his brand and grow his fanbase.

Even if Elon Musk loses the court case, he still want to turn this whole charade into a positive for himself. IE: Fail upwards, etc. etc.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#312

Post by thaumasiotes »

shapefrog wrote: post #244
Rebelgecko wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment implies that there was a time when he was actually trying to buy the "house" in good faith. I'm not convinced that is true... It gave him a great excuse to liquidate Tesla stock without the market responding as strongly as it normally would when a CEO unloads billions of dollars of shares in a company

I think it is actually worse than that, I think he was buying it in good faith. He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone. I know, if I buy 44bn worth then at this rate I will make many many billions ... Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancell…

> I think he was buying it in good faith.

> He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone.

> Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancelled.

But these concepts don't even apply to taking a company private. Once you do that, there is no stock price. You can't meaningfully claim that your stock is up or down. And what the stock does between when you agree to buy it and when you take possession isn't relevant to... anything.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#313

Post by xiphias2 »

mabbo wrote: post #113

Just in case anyone isn't seeing through the bullshit of Elon Musk, let me lay this out for you: On April 14th: Twitter stock was worth about $45. Tesla stock was worth about $985. Elon's contract said he would sell $13B worth of Tesla stock (about 13.1m stocks) as part of the plan to buy Twitter for $44B, $54.20 per share. A good deal for the Twitter shareholders even at the time. (23% higher than the market said it…

Even though you are totally right, I can’t fault Elon for having a sour grape feeling and trying to renegotiate hard with all the tools he’s got. Millions of lawyer fees are nothing compared to the billions of losses he is going to have from the deal.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#314

Post by cycomanic »

jollybean wrote: post #296
wahern wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really buy this. I think you're both correct. My experience is as you described, but Musk has also developed a following among political conservatives attracted to his abrasive, thumb-nosing antics.

It's not 'conservatives' as 1/2 of them loath that stuff - and 'agitation' is traditionally an artifact of leftist populism (with traditional conservatives usually being small-c, establishment, older etc.) - it's more a bit of a businessy libertarianism, with hints of anti establishmentism that's in many ways more popular among the youth. Also, it's a hugely populist and international appeal, spreading his 'Noisy Twe…

I appreciate your analysis, but would like to add that I feel that "traditional conservatives" seem to have largely disappeared or become voiceless not only in the US but also in other places like e.g. the UK. I imagine in decades prior traditional conservatives would have found people like Trump or Boris Johnson obscene and distasteful.

However, I don't see many of that old guard speak out against them. It seems with the reducing success projections due to changing demographics, many see winning as more important than values. Or at least that is my only explanation.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#316

Post by madeofpalk »

codingdave wrote: post #106
jcranmer wrote: post #8

I think Musk's counterclaims are more interesting than Twitter's response. Here's the summary of the five counterclaims: * Twitter committed fraud by lying to the SEC about the mDAU numbers with the intent of inducing Musk to buy Twitter at an inflated price. No, really, this is the allegation (see paragraphs 202-206). * Count 2 is that Twitter committed [Texas fraud statute] by lying when it offered its shares. It's…

I don't honestly believe either side cares about the merits of the legal case - this is all just a very public and showy exercise to negotiate on a new price during a settlement.

> this is all just a very public and showy exercise to negotiate on a new price during a settlement.

Why would Twitter want to negotiate on a new price? There's already the agreement at a high price - why would they go lower?

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#317

Post by Dylan16807 »

762236 wrote: post #294
Dylan16807 wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fake streisand effect. Pretending even the tiniest act of moderation is a massive campaign to hide information.

How is it fake? I'd have never learned about, e.g., some of the gender critical viewpoints, if Twitter hadn't banned people expressing them. It wouldn't have come on my radar. But since Twitter did ban some of those people, those viewpoints came on my radar (being relayed by others via screenshots), which raised my awareness of it. That fits the definition of Streisand effect.

Because twitter wasn't trying to make those viewpoints go away or hide them from the world. They just didn't want to themselves amplify those views to hundreds or thousands or more people.

Twitter's not trying to keep gender critical viewpoints a secret, or remove them from anywhere outside of twitter.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#318

Post by HarryHirsch »

ctvo wrote: post #308
kaczordon wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that Musk has talked about how he had to work his way through college and basically didn’t benefit in any way from his dad. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1211054942192119808?s=21...

I don't mean to represent that I think it's a fact, only that people are increasingly repeating it, which represents more negativity than I think Elon has received in the past. Interestingly though, it was Elon who said his family owned an emerald mine: https://web.archive.org/web/20140802011449/http://www.forbes... That was a Forbes interview in 2014. The relevant section: > JC: How do you handle fear? > EM: Company…

Elon says he arrived in Canada with only ~2500 CAD.

He went to Canada and could rely on his family network.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#319

Post by dragontamer »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #312
shapefrog wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is actually worse than that, I think he was buying it in good faith. He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone. I know, if I buy 44bn worth then at this rate I will make many many billions ... Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancell…

> I think he was buying it in good faith. > He believed he had "bought the dip" in stocks. He had bought 3bn worth, announced that he had bought some stock and made 1bn in a day on it - worlds smartest man everyone. > Once he realised he wasnt buying the dip but was actually holding the bag, deal cancelled. But these concepts don't even apply to taking a company private. Once you do that, there is no stock price. You…

Lets say you promise to buy a car in 30 days at a dealership (fully fictitious. This obviously can't really happen in real life).

You sign a contract saying "I promise to pay $20,000 for this car and I'll be back in 30 days".

---------

What happens if, within those 30 days, the car market collapses and the cars are now worth $15,000 ? Well, if you were an honest man, you'd still carry through with your $20,000 promised payment. If you were a dishonest man, you'd try to find a way around it.

Same thing here. Twitter's stock price has no relevance after Elon Musk buys it. But we all know that the 60% drop in Tech prices means that Twitter is *probably* down 60%+ like all other tech stocks.

Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot

#320

Post by Banana699 »

dragontamer wrote: post #202
Banana699 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Legally ? I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, and law can frequently have surprising implications in the twists and turns of the its logical structure, which - as a bonus - differ by time and exact place. The contract states the place of the law. Specifically: in the Delaware Chancery Court. The contract also states the time and conditions of the contract. Have you read the contract? Its public. Furthermore, the date o…

How does any of this change or contradict what I said?

And doesn't the US legal system allow for escalation to the Supreme Court, which can override lower courts? So technically whatever the Delware Court is not the final say on whatever happens.

>Trial date set to October

This is so so awesome, I will get to see Twatter defenders rage and fume for 2 more months? ^__^

Post reply on HN