Non paywall article about this. Did not know Liv Boree and Grimes were bffs
It seems like Elon is going down the Tony Hsieh path. We can only hope.
Wishcasting VCs think WE GOT THEM
https://twitter.com/davidsacks/status/1548337296763600903?s=21&t=tKXpJ0yrVUZSXUHHy9oAzg
That’s all he’s got? Yikes. “I’m buying twitter to get rid of the bots. Also I can’t believe this bot problem, nobody told me.” Note there is still no evidence. “But they don’t use AI.” He has to prove a material adverse effect. “I will do better” is a reason to buy the company, it is not a (recognized legal) reason to walk from the deal.
This really just comes down to whether the court thinks it can enforce specific performance. What if they order it and Elon says fuck you no? They can’t risk that working!
Before opening the article I was sure there would be at least one reference to Burning Man. Was not disappointed.
1 Like
This isn’t going full NBZ but you are on the way. Let’s call it half.
I believe this is what I posted several hundred posts upthread. “Fuck you, no” is undefeated when used by billionaires.
And Trump too.
1 Like
I see what you did there.
100 accounts per day is almost certainly statistically significant over a medium time period.
Yes. And what’s more, Twitter’s SEC filings are pretty transparent about the process they were using. The implication Musk keep making that they were misrepresenting something is completely false. The claims they made regarding bots was basically “by this imperfect methodology we use we think bots are around 5%.” If Musk thought bots were a big risk he should have planned a due diligence, this is the exact type of thing it’s for.
So basically, Musk went on some kind of narcotics bender, bought twitter, and then sobered up and realized he fucked up and everything else has followed? Like that’s pretty much got to be what happened, right?
4 Likes
Well, probably not coke but I’m sure he’s taking some high end recently designed nootropic that’s basically coke
2 Likes
Yes, exactly this.
Rails yes, guardrails no
7 Likes
All articles from knowledgeable people seem to indicate Musk is toast if this gets to a decision. Only hope he has is that twitter settles for less to avoid a lengthy court case with possible damaging info to them.
One mentioned that they only allowed someone to walk away with just paying the break fee once when the contract waived due diligence.
Also she is limiting briefs to a maximum of 280 characters
21 Likes
Man Levin’s column today basically sums up my take. I’ve bought approximately 1000 shares between $34-$38 because I think they’re probably going to win the specific performance or it is at least much better than a coin flip and I think TWTR isn’t going down another $16-20 per share if they lose, which is how much it will go up if they win.
It is crazy to me that the stock is still trading in the mid 30s. The only thing that gives me a lot of concern is why hasn’t more smart money piled in on Twitter since everything is out there publicly.
Levine for the millionth time: the bot discussion is nonsense. LOL journalism, their only competence is stenography, no wonder they just write whatever bullshit Republicans say.
In some parallel universe, Elon Musk’s dispute with Twitter Inc. is about how many bots there are on Twitter. In that universe, Twitter’s merger agreement with Musk contains a representation that no more than 5% of Twitter’s monetizable daily active users, or mDAUs, are bots, Musk’s obligation to close the merger is contingent on this representation being true, and Musk has discovered that it is wrong. Therefore he is able to walk away from the agreement, and maybe even sue Twitter for damages for misleading him.
In our actual universe none of this is true. In the real world, Musk signed a merger agreement with Twitter, and it was publicly filed, and you can read it here. That merger agreement does not mention bots at all . In pursuing and signing this deal, Musk was excited about “defeating” the bots, sure, but he didn’t care how many there were. (The more of them there are, the more glory in defeating them.) He did not do any due diligence on the number of bots before signing the agreement, nor did he ask Twitter to make any promises about how many bots there were. Nothing in the negotiations over the deal, or in the merger agreement itself, was in any way contingent on anything at all about bots.
And
This is extremely dumb and I wish I had not written it. But I feel like almost everything that I see about this dispute takes place in the alternate universe, the one where Twitter and Musk are going to court to determine once and for all how many bots there are. They just aren’t. In our actual universe, Twitter has made only extremely cautious and limited representations about how it counts bots . And Musk is mad that the bot-counters didn’t count bots the way he wanted them to. He met with Twitter’s management, and they explained how they count bots, and he was horrified. He came away from their meeting thinking that he could do a better job of fighting spam at Twitter, by sprinkling some machine learning on the spam or whatever. That’s great! That’s why he wanted to buy Twitter! And why he should have to!