plot twist. it was always a bot.
Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
491–500 of 585 posts
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 p…
So if you have a home inspector inspect a house before you buy it, and they say "yeah, it looks good" - but it turns out they didn't actually investigate in a way that arguably involves an adequate amount of integrity or in a reasonable way to determine as accurately as possible that everything is sound - then you don't think that home inspector isn't liable? And what if the professional organization who has the resp…
> if you have a home inspector inspect a house before you buy it, and they say "yeah, it looks good" - but it turns out they didn't actually investigate
Home inspectors follow well-established practices. Bot estimation for Twitter has no such analog. The closest might be the seller saying they've seen rats but never looked into it. You say fine, I'm buying to clean it up anyway; waive inspection rights; commit and then discover a rat's nest.
Unless you can show the seller knew about the problem and lied about it, you're going to get your case thrown out of court. Now add multimillion dollar teams of lawyers and bankers advising each side prior to entering into the transaction and we have an approximation of the stupidity of this case.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#493Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh it's definitely not about a billion dollars. He'd pay that out in an instant if he could. The contract he signed and the law itself is not on his side, he may yet slither out of his commitments, but Twitter would never settle for a mere $1B when they've lost so much more in value due to him.
Twitter hasn't lost anything due to him? Their share price would likely be lower if not for his dumb shenanigans. The contract is pretty clear that he can walk away for $1B, which is a lot of money.
[deleted]
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have like 9 twitter bots and they’re all cool and interesting. I wonder if Musk’s tool differentiates between cool and uncool bots. In the past I tried to write bots that do things like reply to people, but that is a violation of the TOS and twitter would immediately identify and ban the account.
The tool he used to identify bots identified his own account as a bot, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it's not very intelligent (or is hyper-intelligent)
At that level of intelligence I bet it can drive a car.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#495As someone unfamiliar with the US juridical system: when can we expect an outcome in court?
Or put otherwise: if we assume Musk is stalling in the hope that tesla shares go back up. How long can he keep this going?
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actual bot count is irrelevant. The only thing that matters for revenue purposes would be the results that advertisers are getting by advertising on the platform and what advertisers think of the bot count.
No, it is relevant. When the curtain is pulled back and it is revealed that all of the accounts are bots, advertisers will stop spending money with Twitter.
If the ads are converting all the way through the chain, they don't really have any reason to care whether it's "bots" making those purchases and service sign-ups or not.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if you have a home inspector inspect a house before you buy it, and they say "yeah, it looks good" - but it turns out they didn't actually investigate in a way that arguably involves an adequate amount of integrity or in a reasonable way to determine as accurately as possible that everything is sound - then you don't think that home inspector isn't liable? And what if the professional organization who has the resp…
> if you have a home inspector inspect a house before you buy it, and they say "yeah, it looks good" - but it turns out they didn't actually investigate Home inspectors follow well-established practices. Bot estimation for Twitter has no such analog. The closest might be the seller saying they've seen rats but never looked into it. You say fine, I'm buying to clean it up anyway; waive inspection rights; commit and th…
"Bot estimation for Twitter has no such analog."
And that's acceptable there isn't well-established/widely accepted practices?
Certainly Twitter and SEC will argue that to protect themselves from scrutiny and legal issues they likely deserve.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#498[deleted]
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#499" 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…
Even if he prove fraud (which he won't), there is countless evidence of him believing the number to be higher, and that specifically being one of the main reasons he wants to buy it so he can clean it up, so material adverse effect to the deal wouldn't hold
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are your thoughts on TruthSocial, which is also "a company of bullies, with how they ban people from their service that down't conform"?
I haven't used TruthSocial, but if they do the same (but towards liberals), then TruthSocial has already failed.
I don't use the site, but I read that that was indeed the case:
https://www.businessinsider.com/truth-social-is-shadow-banni...