41–50 of 585 posts
If that's true, it kind of makes the question moot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still can't get over the banana-pants insanity of the first count As someone who's unfamiliar with this, could you explain what's banana-pants insane about a company inflating their hard-to-discover numbers, for profit? I thought that was, unfortunately, banana-pants standard? For example, the fiction that is Twitter or Reddit's user count.
Twitter is a public company (and has been for 9 years), and has maintained the 5% mDAU disclaimer in its required annual reports for years. I don't know off-hand how long it's been doing so, but probably at least 4 or 5 years. The allegation is saying not only that Twitter has been lying about that number--for years, on documents that land it in legal hot water if it's been lying--but that it was doing so specificall…
This current saga is pure entertainment, which will end up in some kind of settlement and will leave the lawyers a lot richer.
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 still can't get over the banana-pants insanity of the first count... arguing that Twitter lied about its numbers for years specifically so that someone would buy it at an inflated price? Not a lawyer, so could you explain why this is banana-pants insanity? There's malicious fraud (unlikely) and then there's the more likely case of under-investing in bot-detection and expunging efforts, e.g. "in favor of other pri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His Tweets are all done with an iPhone, as Twitter allows you to see what client a tweet was made from. The only way bot behavior could be done on a smartphone, is if the phone is an iOS virtual machine, and the tweets are programmatically generated using some algo.
You're neglecting the simple solution of a hot dog moved around by a few actuators. Musk could totally be replaced by one of these. Or some other stylus that you can use on a touchscreen with your hands in non-conductive gloves. But a hot dog is funnier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musk has no legal standing to use any of that to back out of the merger. The claim is that Twitters SEC filings had bots at ~5%, and Musk made the investment based on that. From the leaked recordings of staff, everyone knew that the percentage was much higher.
That's not what the SEC filings say. The SEC filings say that up to 5% of the number of monetizable daily active users (i.e., the number of users after eliminating bots ) may be bots--or, in other words, the techniques that Twitter uses to detect bots have up to a 5% false negative rate. No one is saying that 5% of Twitter's users is bots, except for when Musk is trying to put those words into Twitter's beak.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I still can't get over the banana-pants insanity of the first count As someone who's unfamiliar with this, could you explain what's banana-pants insane about a company inflating their hard-to-discover numbers, for profit? I thought that was, unfortunately, banana-pants standard? For example, the fiction that is Twitter or Reddit's user count.
Twitter is a public company (and has been for 9 years), and has maintained the 5% mDAU disclaimer in its required annual reports for years. I don't know off-hand how long it's been doing so, but probably at least 4 or 5 years. The allegation is saying not only that Twitter has been lying about that number--for years, on documents that land it in legal hot water if it's been lying--but that it was doing so specificall…
0: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/10/nearly-48-million-twitter-ac...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Musk has no legal standing to use any of that to back out of the merger. The claim is that Twitters SEC filings had bots at ~5%, and Musk made the investment based on that. From the leaked recordings of staff, everyone knew that the percentage was much higher.
That's not what the SEC filings say. The SEC filings say that up to 5% of the number of monetizable daily active users (i.e., the number of users after eliminating bots ) may be bots--or, in other words, the techniques that Twitter uses to detect bots have up to a 5% false negative rate. No one is saying that 5% of Twitter's users is bots, except for when Musk is trying to put those words into Twitter's beak.
Would their be any benefit to Musk going through this ordeal meanwhile fully intending to buy Twitter all along?