Why is twitter so desperate to sell to Musk? Are they really out of ideas? If they just want to squeeze out an extra $11.50 / share I can think of tons of ways to do it, they don't have to just copy Facebook's monetization model. They could let people buy followers; they could add an onlyfans clone to the service; charge a monthly fee for premium features; charge a premium to be the first to know about trending topics - could be useful for news orgs, hedge funds, governments, etc; do what cameo does, let users pay popular accounts to make customized videos and take a cut of revenue. This is just off the top of my head, if you're just trying to squeeze money out of the rock and don't really care about long term brand impact I feel like they can get a lot more than $11.50 / share.
Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
511–520 of 585 posts
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#512Why is twitter so desperate to sell to Musk? Are they really out of ideas? If they just want to squeeze out an extra $11.50 / share I can think of tons of ways to do it, they don't have to just copy Facebook's monetization model. They could let people buy followers; they could add an onlyfans clone to the service; charge a monthly fee for premium features; charge a premium to be the first to know about trending topic…
What makes you think the features you suggested are worth $11.50 a share? Some of them I think would tank the share price like buying followers so they’d have to be worth even more. There are 765 million twitter shares.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#513Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a demonstrated fact that traditional conservatives are punished for expressing the opinion that Donald Trump is obscene and distasteful.
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.
It's a demonstrated fact that unhinged hyperbole isn't a demonstrated fact.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#514Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well, the agreement has Musk making personal financial guarantees.
So, it’s like the thin shell company has agreed to the deal, and Elon Musk has personally guaranteed the financing.
Which means the only specific performance the judge would be mandating from Elon Musk personally would be financial payments. The actual purchasing and paperwork would be done by the shell corporation. The only thing Elon Musk would be ordered to do in his personal capacity would be to write a large check (which, seems to be well within the remit of a judge’s authority over a person without raising 13a concerns).
Like, I agree that ordering specific performance for painting someone’s house is a bit odd and might raise those questions. But, Elon Musk’s only requirement as an individual under this contract is to write a check.
To be honest, I’m pretty skeptical of the analysis of the article you cited. The article says: “ Unfortunately for Twitter, it isn’t Elon Musk Inc. but Elon Musk the individual who offered to buy the company” which is wrong.
It literally is Elon Musk Inc. which is offering to buy twitter (technically X Holdings I, Inc.). See the merger agreement here: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522...
Since that point underlies the entire analysis, it seems… very suspect to me to get that exactly wrong.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#515I 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…
"He signed away any and all rights to due diligence in the agreement." Why do more fraudsters not use contracts If people can sign away due diligence, sign up for a Diamond, get a Lemon, and have no recourse, surely scammers would be doing this instead of structuring their scam in a way that has the potential of sending them to jail
This absolutely happens in commercial contracts. Consumers have more statutory rights, though even for stuff that consumers might buy there are examples, notably property.
“Caveat emptor” has been knocking around as a phrase for two millennia now for a reason.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#516Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the analogy, the contract was done with no intentional representations by the seller at all , and the buyer waived contingencies/bought as-is. It’s almost impossible for a seller to misrepresent anything material in that situation.
The issue being that Twitter actually did (afaik) make various representations about bots, spam, paid actors, etc and the validity of those representations was later called into question. So the analogy as originally proposed at the top of this thread is a misrepresentation.
None beyond their normal public filings I believe, which are highly qualified and if wrong beyond those qualifications they’d have been in hot water a long time ago. In the analogy, it would be like claiming the Public appraisals/tax records with the county were lies all of the sudden (when they aren’t) to try to get out of the deal.
But if you have evidence to the contrary, please post.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#517Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate your analysis, but would like to add that I feel that "traditional conservatives" seem to have largely disappeared or become voiceless not only in the US but also in other places like e.g. the UK. I imagine in decades prior traditional conservatives would have found people like Trump or Boris Johnson obscene and distasteful. However, I don't see many of that old guard speak out against them. It seems wit…
I wonder if the lack of voices you notice is at all related to the well-publicized data indicating conservatives do not feel they can express their opinions publicly without risk of punishment.
I think they’re talking about people like John Major or John McCain; people with conservative views but at least a patina of decency, restraint, and respect for the rule of law. If Boris Johnson and his coterie can express their opinions publicly, Major types certainly can.
It’s just not a winning proposition anymore; there’s not much market for “conservative who is reasonable”.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#518Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all contracts concern promises to do something in the future (e.g., deliver goods, perform services, pay money).
Obviously. A wedding vow is a promise to stay with someone. A prenup is a contract that you will stay with someone but have a clear exit clause. Musk signed a contract with an exit clause. The contract is a complicated document. If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.
> Musk signed a contract with an exit clause.
There are some exit clauses (like Musk not getting financing from his banks) but they don't apply here. Specifically, there's no exit clause for the bot percentage.
> If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.
Are you just trying to change the meaning of the word promise? Most people would agree that if you break a promise you pay a price - it might be a social one in case of a promise between friends. Or it might be a financial price in case of a written & signed promise, a.k.a a contract.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#519I hope this seriously bites Musk in the ass. I hope he's forced to buy it, and then it's such a pain in the ass for him that he immediately tries to turn around and sell only to discover no single entity or investment group wants to privately own Twitter. I hope he makes another dumbass tweet that results in another legal action removing him as the president/ceo/whatever and then decides to just take Twitter public again so he can divest himself.
I hope Twitter users don't have to deal with too much chaos as a result, but if it half bankrupts an idiot who openly accused a rescue diver of being a pedophile, despite knowing nothing about the man, and merely because he told Musk not to interfere with rescue operations, then let Twitter deal with a little chaos.
Re: Twitter says Musk’s spam analysis used tool that called his own account a bot
#520Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously. A wedding vow is a promise to stay with someone. A prenup is a contract that you will stay with someone but have a clear exit clause. Musk signed a contract with an exit clause. The contract is a complicated document. If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card.
> Musk signed a contract with an exit clause. There are some exit clauses (like Musk not getting financing from his banks) but they don't apply here. Specifically, there's no exit clause for the bot percentage. > If it was a promise it could be written on a hallmark card. Are you just trying to change the meaning of the word promise? Most people would agree that if you break a promise you pay a price - it might be a…
This is just pure misinformation.