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

501–510 of 585 posts

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

#501

Post by glenngillen »

kukx wrote: post #487
glenngillen wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t really matter at this point, because he signed a binding agreement. He’s the one that made that move. Specifically why is just speculation now. But, hey, we’re all here speculating anyway! My take is: 1) He’s a history of making impulsive decisions without thinking (or caring) about the consequences. 2) It forced Twitter’s hand because they couldn’t act like it was it a non-genuine offer. 3) He’s so rarely…

You have to make a series of countless good or great decisions to be that successful. His ratio of good decisions to bad ones is probably one of the best in the world. He is not above the law, he has to stand before court as every normal citizen has.

Or, counter-point: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1534172773580513280?s=20&...

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

#502

Post by throwawaycities »

winternett wrote: post #444
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…

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 deducti…

> 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

$1B is a lot of money…he has obviously determined it’s well worth it to spend a few million in legal fees to try. Even if they settle (which more than >90% of cases do) maybe he cuts that penalty in half…even if he knocks 10% of financially it’s well worth it. Even if he loses and ends up paying his legal fees and their legal fees its clear he has determined it’s well worth it.

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

#503

Post by throwawaycities »

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…

He sold $8.5B in stock over 3 days and within 2 days of the sales filed Form 4’s (changes in beneficial ownership) as required by the SEC.

If you have SEC filings showing these sales were scheduled in advance show please link them.

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

#504

Post by _djo_ »

loceng wrote: post #497
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes it is, because Twitter has no close analogues. There’s nothing to base an industry-wide standard on.

All company figures involve some level of trust that they’re based on correct processes as signed off by audit firms. For areas of material interest you’re supposed to do due diligence before signing final offers, but Musk explicitly waived that for some bizarre reason.

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

#505

Post by _djo_ »

gfodor wrote: post #335
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…

The point to me seems to be to set up things where this won’t go to court: if the primary claim is that Twitter misstated mDAU, the downside risk to Twitter is far greater than to Musk (I think) to have that fact finding occur. If it turns out the court agrees with Musk, then in one swoop the deal falls through, Musk is vindicated, the reputation of Twitter’s entire executive leadership and board is permanently damag…

Twitter seems pretty confident about revealing their process to calculate that figure: They’ve described it multiple times and been explicit in their SEC filings.

As they should have been, as it’s a sound enough process given constraints and doesn’t need to be 100% accurate. They have nothing to worry about.

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

#506

Post by _djo_ »

throwawaycities wrote: post #502
winternett wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 deducti…

> 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 $1B is a lot of money…he has obviously determined it’s well worth it to spend a few million in legal fees to try. Even if they settle (which more than >90% of cases do) maybe he cuts that penalty in half…even if he knocks 10% of financially it’s well worth it. Even if he loses and ends…

He’s not on the hook for $1 billion. That was just a break up fee if he couldn’t secure financing. He’s on the hook for the entire deal value.

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

#507

Post by watwut »

winternett wrote: post #467
justapassenger wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Musk thinks he’s a god, he can distort the reality around him and do whatever he wants with no consequences. And TBH, he has all the reasons to think so. He’s been openly lying about so many aspects of his businesses for a long time, manipulating markets, ignoring all the rules and regulations and only thing it resulted in, was making him wealthiest man in the world.

I'd never give bad behavior a pass, but I think moral points are superfluous to the discussion, and they only serve to show emotional bias, they don't really serve the right method of evaluating the overall situation. Expressing character traits and flaws puts a harmful spin on discussions. Think of the situation as if an unknown person did the very same things perhaps? The actual actions taken and specific words wri…

This thread is not court and the question posed was "why would Musk do it". And the answer seems spot on - he lied and bullied for years and it tended to end for his benefit. There was no reason for him to not think it is going to end the same way.

And it is not even primary issue with Musk, it is primary issue with general economy/justice syatem that favors lying and bullying, pri ided you have enough money.

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

#508

Post by ThunderSizzle »

Infinity315 wrote: post #433
ThunderSizzle wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a demonstrated fact that traditional conservatives are punished for expressing anything that Leftists disagree with, which is everything because a conservative said it.

This is mostly true of social conservatism. No one is getting canceled for saying we should reduce taxes and spend less in government.

Yes, they do. You want grandma to die? We need to spend 1 billion to Ukraine right now or else Grandma will die. You want to murder Grandma? You should lose your job over this. I can't believe you can't be a little generous and send something to the current political target of the month. You are too selfish to have a job.

I've seen the logic train be that bad. Cancel culture has no end.

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

#509

Post by throwawayacc2 »

breakfastduck wrote: post #250
throwawayacc2 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am, not because I think “the buyer is right” but because I hate the seller with a passion. Twitter has done terrible harm to society and whatever and whoever does it harm, it’s doing a good job in my book.

Quite funny than the person doing twitter 'harm' is exactly the kind of famous, pompous narcissistic asshole their entire platform has been built around enabling.

If it helps, I think both twitter and musk are two turds. I like seeing turds suffer and harming each other. Best outcome for my personal satisfaction would be twitter gets dragged for years in the courts and loses tons of money and at the end musk is forced to pay that billion dollars or however much the break clause is. Both side can go f themselves.

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

#510

Post by antifa »

jollybean wrote: post #388
mjmsmith wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a demonstrated fact that traditional conservatives are punished for expressing the opinion that Donald Trump is obscene and distasteful.

I think you and onos are not quite making the same point. Conservative voices are a bit suppressed in some places, like on Campus. Some don't like to accept that, but it's true. But it's a kind of Social Justice institutionalism that would be the issue there. Otherwise, 'classical conservatives' who voice their opinion against Trump, are also ostracized by that far right gang, which is very true. So that's a differen…

>Conservative voices are a bit suppressed in some places, like on Campus.

I think it's a bit misleading though. Who would goto college and listen to somebody repeat ad nauseum their parent's conservative talking points they've already heard their entire lifes? Or listen to someone even more radically conservative than their parents?

Also a lot of those "suppressed" people were just openly bigoted and claiming to feel persecuted when they're not allowed to persecute people they don't like.

Post reply on HN