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

391–400 of 585 posts

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

#391

Post by Doddler »

judge2020 wrote: post #58
jjeaff wrote: post #16

I find it rather ridiculous and in bad faith that Musk is harping on the bot issue for 2 reasons. First, it wouldn't matter anyway. He signed away any and all rights to due diligence in the agreement. And secondly, it's completely impossible for any outside analysis to determine the number of active users on Twitter because most active Twitter users don't tweet or interact in anyway. They just read tweets and those u…

> First, it wouldn't matter anyway. He signed away any and all rights to due diligence in the agreement. He waived DD but the claim is that Twitter specifically inflated numbers to make itself appealing for an acquisition/merger, which would still be grounds for breaking the contract without Musk needing to give any money to Twitter or complete the purchase.

It's pretty bold of him to claim they were trying to make themselves more appealing for an aquisition or merger when nearly every action Twitter took was to try to stop Elon from buying them, only relenting when he made an offer so preposterous that they had no choice but to negotiate or risk a lawsuit from their shareholders.

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

#392

Post by 1270018080 »

themaninthedark wrote: post #271
1270018080 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adding to the analogy: The current owners of the home regularly remove swastikas spraypainted on their house by vandals, and some people call this a violation of free speech.

Quoted post unavailable.

This further adds to my point that there's no violation of free speech taking place.

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

#393

Post by Sebb767 »

loceng wrote: post #231
phailhaus wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's insane because Twitter has been very careful to explain that the 5% number is not some sort of "promise". > Additionally, our calculation of mDAU is not based on any standardized industry methodology and is not necessarily calculated in the same manner or comparable to similarly titled measures presented by other companies. Similarly, our measures of mDAU growth and engagement may differ from estimates published…

I imagine the argument is whether the method Twitter used, and was seemingly acceptable by SEC, is ethically, morally, or logically a reasonable measure. E.g. Can they 100% say that there are less than 5% bot accounts, or is that 5% number being pulled out of their ass - and saying "less than 20% of accounts are bots" would hold as much water? That is therefore then a misrepresentation, fraud IMHO - and stockholders…

You're missing that they never promised that there are only 5% bots. They said they estimate five percent based on their internal research, which is completely true as far as we're currently aware. Unless you can prove they intentionally faked their own internal investigation, you'll have a very hard time proving fraud.

Also, then there is the fact that Elon apparently even didn't believe this number. So even if he proves it's faked and the court agrees that this is actually a major dealbreaker (which is already near impossible), Twitter could still argue that he was completely aware of the bot situation when he made the offer.

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

#394

Post by DoesntMatter22 »

ncallaway wrote: post #389
DoesntMatter22 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a good article the other day, I'll see if I can find it, that breaks down why legally Musk can't really be asked for specific performance since he's an individual. It comes down to anti slavery laws so probably not enforceable, though he could be fined. https://www.barrons.com/articles/twitter-elon-musk-thirteent...

Musk isn’t buying Twitter as an individual. He’s buying it as a thin shell company in a reverse merger agreement.

If the agreement is with the company, and not him as an individual, then he could just shut the company itself down, as it probably has zero assets.

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

#395

Post by Sebb767 »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #207
daed wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One point not mentioned (and I’m just paraphrasing Levine from Money Stuff here): It’s crazy because it would probably be BETTER if you had more bots. Then you could say that your revenue per user was higher and you could argue that you had more room for growth. So, if anything, lying and OVERestimating the bot count would help your valuation more.

Not really, because the revenue comes from ads not users. Twitter makes profit from ad buyers thinking they are reaching many users. The "revenue per user was higher" you mention is actually "cost per ad impression" and ad buyers want that to be low.

Ad buyers want this to be lower, but investors would love for this to be higher. I think that's what the parent was aiming at.

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

#396

Post by ErikVandeWater »

1270018080 wrote: post #241
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this analogy leaves out Twitter censorship, which makes Twitter unlikeable.

Adding to the analogy: The current owners of the home regularly remove swastikas spraypainted on their house by vandals, and some people call this a violation of free speech.

You really think the only speech Twitter censors is hate speech? Terrible.

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

#397

Post by zhte415 »

willis936 wrote: post #369
bobobob420 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would he buy the company after the stock crashed? He could buy the company for way cheaper publicly. Who cares what the contract says, theres different rules for billionaires than there are for the contracts I sign. No sane person would go through with it after the stock crashed, its not a financially smart move. A lot of geniuses in this thread but lack basic social and common aptitude as usual. Life is not a fa…

It crashed because of his antics. The house was appraised and you signed a contract to buy it as-is. Then you take a hammer to every window and pipe then try to use that to negotiate a lower price. Sorry, that is not how it works. It's clear that this is a continuation of Musk's feud with Twitter's management. His goal from the onset was to damage Twitter.

To continue the terrible analogy of a home, what appraisal was done where on preparing to move in you find rising damp, nests of rats under the floorboards and the slap of paint on the roof was hiding the need for a full roof replacement?

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

#398

Post by parineum »

willis936 wrote: post #369
bobobob420 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would he buy the company after the stock crashed? He could buy the company for way cheaper publicly. Who cares what the contract says, theres different rules for billionaires than there are for the contracts I sign. No sane person would go through with it after the stock crashed, its not a financially smart move. A lot of geniuses in this thread but lack basic social and common aptitude as usual. Life is not a fa…

It crashed because of his antics. The house was appraised and you signed a contract to buy it as-is. Then you take a hammer to every window and pipe then try to use that to negotiate a lower price. Sorry, that is not how it works. It's clear that this is a continuation of Musk's feud with Twitter's management. His goal from the onset was to damage Twitter.

> It crashed because of his antics.

Is this true? My understanding is that the "crash" is inline with other tech companies losing value in the same period. IIRC (and I might not!), it only looks like Musk caused the crash if show only the Twitter price. Once you overlay it with some other stocks, it looks pretty normal.

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

#399

Post by rtkwe »

falcolas wrote: post #381
rgbrenner wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

note, musk created his twitter account in 2009... shortly after he became tesla's CEO. So unless you're talking about the original roadster, his twitter account existed before those people learned about tesla/musk. Musk has pretty much used Twitter has his primary media communication method. Going so far as to say Tesla has no marketing budget because he's such a star on twitter. He has practically zero reach elsewhe…

Musk was pretty well known prior to Tesla because he was one of the PayPal co-founders (technically a co-founder of X.com which merged with Confinity to form PayPal).

I'll say as a person who was just coming out of HS and not in tech yet at that point I don't think I had any idea who Musk was until after he come into Tesla. I'll also say he wasn't as wild on his twitter till after Tesla and SpaceX bumped up his public profile.

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

#400

Post by parineum »

Doddler wrote: post #391
judge2020 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, it wouldn't matter anyway. He signed away any and all rights to due diligence in the agreement. He waived DD but the claim is that Twitter specifically inflated numbers to make itself appealing for an acquisition/merger, which would still be grounds for breaking the contract without Musk needing to give any money to Twitter or complete the purchase.

It's pretty bold of him to claim they were trying to make themselves more appealing for an aquisition or merger when nearly every action Twitter took was to try to stop Elon from buying them, only relenting when he made an offer so preposterous that they had no choice but to negotiate or risk a lawsuit from their shareholders.

They can lie to make the company more valuable to a buyer and also not want that buyer to be Musk.
Post reply on HN