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

441–450 of 585 posts

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

#441

Post by lokar »

ncallaway wrote: post #73
mcguire wrote: post #41

" The merger agreement contained no references to false or spam accounts, and Musk didn't ask Twitter for any information to verify the number of spam accounts before signing the merger deal, Twitter said. "To the contrary, Musk forwent all due diligence—giving Twitter twenty-four hours to accept his take-it-or-leave-it offer before he would present it directly to Twitter's stockholders," Twitter wrote. " If that's t…

Not entirely moot. If Musk could demonstrate that the 5% number was actually a fraud (that is, not just wrong, but people were lying about it) and show that the true number is so different that it would cause a material adverse effect, then he’d have an argument to escape the contract even with the DD waiver. I don’t think he has a shot in hell at demonstrating fraud, given the various disclaimers around the quoted f…

No, it's great that he signed the contract. It could ruin him, which would be fantastic.

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

#442

Post by winternett »

sen wrote: post #415
alexb_ wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What circles are you in? I basically never, ever see bots on Twitter, let alone enough to suggest that Twitter is "nowhere near as vibrant as it once was".

Yeah I’m a daily twitter user and the only bots I see at all are the cryptocurrency scam ones replying to Elon tweets. Other than that, I find twitter works as it always has, and I’m continually finding interesting new people to follow. If anything, I think twitter is the best it’s ever been at least for my hobbies (maker/hacker/diy type stuff).

The IT world on Twitter may be a bit more responsible because there are too many tech savvy people reading everything... I also work in entertainment, and it's a dumpster fire daily though because competition is more fierce, and I guess credibility comes based on followers and likes rather than resumes and skill sets.

I think it may involve what field you work in for perception of the matter, but a lot of others complain about botting in Crypto (etc) and a few other industries... I think on the inverse, there are still a lot of community issues that have affected everyone on the platform...

Has your account grown in followers over time? Do you interact well with other users on you account?

Many people have complained that organic growth/discovery has stalled and that interaction is low across the site for ages now to drive ad sales.

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

#443

Post by eru »

jjeaff wrote: post #105

Imagine this whole ordeal playing out on a house that was not listed for sale. The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. His antics are hurting the home's value so you relent to selling and give him an as-is sale contract, which he signs and gives you 24 hrs to respond or he will try to force a sale. All the while, this is of co…

> The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale.

It's more complicated. The incumbent management of Twitter are not the owners of Twitter.

Initially, Musk bought shares of Twitter on the open market from willing sellers (previous homeowners in your analogy).

Because of various regulations he could not just keep doing that, and instead had to go via the complicated takeover route.

Twitter's incumbent management is a bit like the janitor in an apartment block, not the homeowner.

(Just to be clear, I am not making any moral arguments here. And when in doubt, I defer to whatever Matt Levine says on the topic.

I have opinions on 'hostile' takeovers, but this comment is not trying to express any opinion on whether the 'janitor' should have a right to interfere with 'homeowners' who are willing to sell.)

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

#444

Post by winternett »

throwawaycities wrote: post #340
jjeaff wrote: post #105

Imagine this whole ordeal playing out on a house that was not listed for sale. The buyer starts harassing the homeowner to sell to them, they say no, so he buys up the mortgage lender and tries to force a sale. His antics are hurting the home's value so you relent to selling and give him an as-is sale contract, which he signs and gives you 24 hrs to respond or he will try to force a sale. All the while, this is of co…

It’s almost as if Musk used a smoke screen to sell $8.5B in Tesla stock before the crash while redirecting attention to Twitter so as to not raise suspicion about selling his own stock…and then instead of going through with the deal he allegedly sold his Tesla stock to complete, he wants to back-out without paying the $1B penalty. But that can’t be it and what really happened, Musk is buying Twitter for us and restor…

It sounds like a diabolical idea, but why would someone risk that much money on something that is pretty much guaranteed to get tied up in long-term and very public litigation?

There's no way to simply back out of a very public offer for a major social app without litigation that costs time out of your life (which is in that case more of a painful thing than losing the money). Paying capital gains (after huge deductions of course) might prove to be less by the time it's all done.

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

#445

Post by vitus »

parineum wrote: post #398
willis936 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Is this true? My understanding is that the "crash" is inline with other tech companies losing value in the same period.

It spiked because of his antics and then crashed because of his antics.

Twitter stock today ($42.52) is basically where it was at the beginning of the year ($42.66 on Jan 3), on April 1 ($39.31, right before it was disclosed that Musk was the single largest shareholder), and where it was on May 16 ($37.39, after most of the fallout of him pulling out).

Please let me know if another tech stock's price has jumps that are aligned with those events.

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

#446

Post by positr0n »

yieldcrv wrote: post #440
throwawaycities wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s almost as if Musk used a smoke screen to sell $8.5B in Tesla stock before the crash while redirecting attention to Twitter so as to not raise suspicion about selling his own stock…and then instead of going through with the deal he allegedly sold his Tesla stock to complete, he wants to back-out without paying the $1B penalty. But that can’t be it and what really happened, Musk is buying Twitter for us and restor…

Is he even capable of selling just because he wants to buy something? Insiders have to have a stock acquisition/disposition window and follow that schedule to only sell during that pre-determined schedule I don't really understand this theory/criticism, can you elaborate? note, its not about whether he did, its about whether its important since all insiders have windows and schedules they can and can't sell in in thi…

The theory is that buying twitter provided him a good "excuse" to dump a ton of TSLA. If he had just randomly sold billions of TSLA it would have spooked the markets because it would seem like Elon didn't believe in the future of the company, or at the very least didn't believe that it's current valuation is justified.

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

#447

Post by yieldcrv »

positr0n wrote: post #446
yieldcrv wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is he even capable of selling just because he wants to buy something? Insiders have to have a stock acquisition/disposition window and follow that schedule to only sell during that pre-determined schedule I don't really understand this theory/criticism, can you elaborate? note, its not about whether he did, its about whether its important since all insiders have windows and schedules they can and can't sell in in thi…

The theory is that buying twitter provided him a good "excuse" to dump a ton of TSLA. If he had just randomly sold billions of TSLA it would have spooked the markets because it would seem like Elon didn't believe in the future of the company, or at the very least didn't believe that it's current valuation is justified.

an you mean that its not really about the liquidity of the markets, its more about the perception of why the sell (of an amount that large) occurred at all, and extrapolating what that means

okay

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

#448

Post by palmetieri2000 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #285

I really can't see any other outcome besides Musk getting his ass handed to him by the Delaware Court of Chancery. It's always important to look at incentives and motivations when trying to read the tea leaves, and if you look at Delaware's incentives, it's very clear. The whole reason everyone incorporates in Delaware is because they have centuries of handling business cases and have built out a clear set of rules a…

> That is, businesses go to them more for stability and predictability than anything else.

You really think this is the reason and not the extraordinary removal of income taxes for companies and shares?

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

#449

Post by judge2020 »

chx wrote: post #420
rwiggins wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if he's forced to buy Twitter, let's not forget that... he will own Twitter. I'm not sure that's a net positive for the world. Though I'm not certain it's a net negative either. And though it may well be expensive, it's not as if the $44 billion disappears: in fact it buys Twitter. And though he might regret it all in the end, he'll still have enormous wealth. (And Twitter.) So... it does feel a bit like a pyrrh…

He doesn't have the money any more...

Even after today's 7% TSLA loss he's worth over 150 billion in Tesla stock alone; Twitter will be a huge chunk of his wealth but it's not more than a third of it.

Note that the loans were secured with TSLA stock as collateral, but even if those expire he'd be able to secure funding again if he was forced to proceed with the purchase by the Delaware Court of Chancery.

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

#450

Post by dawnerd »

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…

And keep in mind: Twitter wasn’t out there soliciting a sale. Elon came along and pretty much demanded he own it. Twitter tried to stop but he persisted. Should be a pretty clear cut case imo
Post reply on HN