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

541–550 of 585 posts

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

#541

Post by chx »

judge2020 wrote: post #449
chx wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://thenextweb.com/news/elon-musk-telsa-shares-loan-twit...

> Musk's equity commitment now stands at $33.5 billion

> May 26, 2022

> But in the latest filing, he’s completely removed this loan in the financing plan to acquire the social media company.

If he needs to sell thirty billion dollars worth of Tesla shares it is going to devalue the stock quite a bit. That's a full day volume of trading.

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

#542

Post by jjeaff »

eru wrote: post #443
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 instea…

I'd say they are more like the property managers that also hold some ownership of the property. The janitors at Twitter HQ are like the janitor that cleans a property.

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

#543

Post by kukx »

tikiman163 wrote: post #523
kukx wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think his ratio of good to bad business decisions is even average then you haven't been paying attention. Tesla has nearly gone bankrupt repeatedly, and it's stock price has largely risen the most after Musk was removed from controlling the company as a result of a series of tweets that were considered illegal attempts at manipulating the stock market. In point of fact, Musk still controls SpaceX and internal…

You are basically making a claim that he is a bad businessman without mentioning that he is one of the richest people in the world. Why should anyone take your arguments seriously?

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

#544

Post by parineum »

vitus wrote: post #445
parineum wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

wouldn't the "damages" be the difference between today's price and the price it would be today had there been no actions by Musk?

I'm having trouble finding a shareable link but it's clear he had an effect on the price when he made the offer and when he pulled out but, to me, TWTR appears to have gained in value compared to AMZN, GOOG and AAPL YTD.

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

#545

Post by throwoutway »

cyanydeez wrote: post #536
throwoutway wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IANAL, but I think it makesMore sense if you separate it into: 1. due diligence as a buyer (contract) to review additional information, ask questions etc 2. using public information to purchase as an investor (he was) for a public company regulated by SEC I think the claim is not that he has the right to #1 (he didn’t) but that #2 was false and has been false. No idea if contract laws let #2 get him off the hook thou…

All that matters, against musk, is that however twitter claimed to count it's users was infact, how they counted. Musk wanted to invent some means to count users in an effort to demonstrate fraud. But that's not fraud. Just because musk provides an alternate means to count users, doesn't demonstrate fraud. Full stop. Unless he proves that they didn't count the way they claim, he has not claim. Waiving he due diligenc…

I was not defending Musk, just trying to explain what he might be “thinking”.

I see you’re point though. I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud?

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

#546

Post by plorg »

eastbound wrote: post #84
zinekeller wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are a monetizable user on Twitter if you just log in and read tweets. Actually, even logged-out users (until they forced everyone to log in to read timelines) are monetizable, so Musk is really trying to make something to get out.

I’m surprised that someone clever enough to run a business, takes that excuse to get out of a deal. He must have been tired. Any businessman who gets into such a position, even by mistake, would have at least taken this opportunity to require Twitter’s methodology on counting bots an expose its flaws. The claim would be something tangible like “This account is a bot and your criteria falsely counts it as a user.” Not…

A large portion of Twitter's complaint is describing how many times they tried to explain their methodology to him, including in written documentation that he admits he didn't read.

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

#547

Post by ergocoder »

NotTameAntelope wrote: post #535
ergocoder wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If twitter bot number is, say, 30%, you mean twitter will not be charged by SEC? Yeah, I disagree.

You can disagree all you want, Twitter made it clear its bot number could be wildly off. It never lied and the SEC understands that (unlike you). Buying into Elon Musk’s bullshit is a gigantic waste of time.

> You can disagree all you want

Everyone can disagree at any time. It's a discussion forum where diverse opinions are welcome.

Are you gonna yell "water is wet" next?

> Twitter made it clear its bot number could be wildly off

An example:

NVIDIA made it clear that they don't have full and accurate information of what their buyers use their chips for. Maybe some customers buy NVIDIA to hold and do chicken dance? who cares?

Yet they were charged by SEC for not identifying that a large chunks of their buyers used it for crypto mining. Because this misled investors and shareholders on the company's outlook.

The disclaimer doesn't protect the company from reporting wildly inaccurate numbers.

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

#548

Post by judge2020 »

chx wrote: post #541
judge2020 wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://thenextweb.com/news/elon-musk-telsa-shares-loan-twit... > Musk's equity commitment now stands at $33.5 billion > May 26, 2022 > But in the latest filing, he’s completely removed this loan in the financing plan to acquire the social media company. If he needs to sell thirty billion dollars worth of Tesla shares it is going to devalue the stock quite a bit. That's a full day volume of trading.

The market won't react harshly given it'd only happen if compelled by court order, and it still would simply be stock transferred to the banks with the banks selling it off over years to recoup their loan amount.

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

#549

Post by ergocoder »

ncallaway wrote: post #537
ergocoder wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If twitter bot number is, say, 30%, you mean twitter will not be charged by SEC? Yeah, I disagree.

> If twitter bot number is, say, 30% Can you define with specificity what the “twitter bot number” is? Because Twitter doesn’t claim that 5% or fewer of accounts are bots. They claim that “according to their ongoing reviews and subjective numbers” less than 5% of accounts they qualify as an monetizeable user are “false or spam”. Twitter could be 90% bots and spam, and not be even slightly inaccurate in their statemen…

> They claim that “according to their ongoing reviews and subjective numbers” less than 5% of accounts they qualify as an monetizeable user are “false or spam”.

Yes, it's just a short version for the sake of the discussion.

Let's just say this number is not 5%. It's 30% when evaluated by an independent third party.

Other comments claim that this number can be 90% 80% and it wouldn't matter. Twitter would be relieved of all responsibilities because they said it was "subjective".

This is where I disagree.

> You’d also have to show that Twitter knew that their process and judgement were flawed to the point of deliberately being deceptive.

This is where the discovery comes from. You'd imagine it is impossible, but it's not. It may be still hard, sure, but not impossible.

Twitter would be requested to open up all emails/docs for discovery to both sides of lawyers.

Twitter has 8000 employees(?). You can bet there will be at least one person pointing out in the email/doc that "hey, our approach of evaluating numbers doesn't look right, and here's why....". Then, that person has been ignored.

Twitter would be requested to open up data for discovery for third parties to investigate.

Coming up with a number like this will inevitably have multiple valid approaches. An independent third party can easily pick a more conservative approach (because you are supposed to err on the side of less attractive when reporting earnings). Then, pairing this with Twitter execs ignoring that one concern from employee can result in a really bad situation for execs.

Apart from that, opening up emails like this would incriminate a lot of other unrelated stuffs like employees know about Russian bots that swayed the election results, employees know about fake news but not doing anything about it.

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

#550

Post by NotTameAntelope »

ergocoder wrote: post #547
NotTameAntelope wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can disagree all you want, Twitter made it clear its bot number could be wildly off. It never lied and the SEC understands that (unlike you). Buying into Elon Musk’s bullshit is a gigantic waste of time.

> You can disagree all you want Everyone can disagree at any time. It's a discussion forum where diverse opinions are welcome. Are you gonna yell "water is wet" next? > Twitter made it clear its bot number could be wildly off An example: NVIDIA made it clear that they don't have full and accurate information of what their buyers use their chips for. Maybe some customers buy NVIDIA to hold and do chicken dance? who ca…

The disclaimer absolutely protects the company from reporting a wildly “inaccurate” subjective number, which is apparently a concept you simply do not understand.
Post reply on HN