Twitter ownership

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
RayKeynes
Posts: 314
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 2:14 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by RayKeynes »

Why is now so important whether there are 5% fake profiles or 10%? It was clear form the beginning that Twitter is not worth that amount - and just because markets crashed Elon doesn't want it anymore? :confused
User avatar
ClevrChico
Posts: 2500
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 8:24 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by ClevrChico »

firebirdparts wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:34 am My opinion is, always reject arguments based on imaginary information about "most other people". So I always say no. I find that a lot of discussion on the internet is about incredulity, "other poeple are so stupid" that sort of thing. It's not worthwhile. I would reject an argument structured like "Elon Musk proved an idiot by imaginary information". Not really that good. I see this non-stop in this forum, frankly. "Most people can't do this" and "Most people don't understand this". I don't buy any of it.
Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
Weathering
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by Weathering »

I almost purchased some twtr today in a UMTA account for my 12 year old daughter (already have some ATVI for her).
The spread between the deal price and current market price has gotten quite large (possibly better opportunities elsewhere due to market index movements).

Even though the Saudi’s committed to keeping their shares in the future Twitter, I still think Musk could double cross them in retaliation for the TSLA going private fiasco a few years back.
jebmke
Posts: 15938
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Delmarva Peninsula

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by jebmke »

ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:34 am My opinion is, always reject arguments based on imaginary information about "most other people". So I always say no. I find that a lot of discussion on the internet is about incredulity, "other poeple are so stupid" that sort of thing. It's not worthwhile. I would reject an argument structured like "Elon Musk proved an idiot by imaginary information". Not really that good. I see this non-stop in this forum, frankly. "Most people can't do this" and "Most people don't understand this". I don't buy any of it.
Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
User avatar
arcticpineapplecorp.
Posts: 10244
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2012 9:22 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by arcticpineapplecorp. »

Musk himself decided to forego due diligence before his offer. Had he not done so, he could have thoroughly investigated the company. Friday night he said in a tweet that his “team” would do a study of 100 randomly chosen Twitter profiles to try to confirm they were authentic and asked other users to do the same.

But it was past time for due diligence under the terms of his deal.

“‘Temporarily on hold’ is not a thing,” Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine wrote Friday. “Elon Musk has signed a binding contract requiring him to buy Twitter.” The contract “does not allow Musk to walk away if it turns out that ‘spam/fake accounts’ represent more than 5% of Twitter users,” which was revealed by the company in its quarterly filings last month, Levine added.

When buying a company “you are not supposed to say things that aren’t true and that will affect the stock of a public company that you are trying to buy,” Levine noted. “That is what is usually called ‘securities fraud,’ or what I sometimes like to call ’lite securities fraud.’ Musk has a long history of lite securities fraud.”

source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-mus ... c107737224
see? even really smart people don't always due their homework before investing. some, like musk, can afford not to do their homework. most can not.
It's hard to accept the truth when the lies were exactly what you wanted to hear. Investing is simple, but not easy. Buy, hold & rebalance low cost index funds & manage taxable events. Asking Portfolio Questions | Wiki
stoptothink
Posts: 11507
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by stoptothink »

arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:46 am
Musk himself decided to forego due diligence before his offer. Had he not done so, he could have thoroughly investigated the company. Friday night he said in a tweet that his “team” would do a study of 100 randomly chosen Twitter profiles to try to confirm they were authentic and asked other users to do the same.

But it was past time for due diligence under the terms of his deal.

“‘Temporarily on hold’ is not a thing,” Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine wrote Friday. “Elon Musk has signed a binding contract requiring him to buy Twitter.” The contract “does not allow Musk to walk away if it turns out that ‘spam/fake accounts’ represent more than 5% of Twitter users,” which was revealed by the company in its quarterly filings last month, Levine added.

When buying a company “you are not supposed to say things that aren’t true and that will affect the stock of a public company that you are trying to buy,” Levine noted. “That is what is usually called ‘securities fraud,’ or what I sometimes like to call ’lite securities fraud.’ Musk has a long history of lite securities fraud.”

source: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elon-mus ... c107737224
see? even really smart people don't always due their homework before investing. some, like musk, can afford not to do their homework. most can not.
I would hardly consider a piece from Huffington Post unbiased on this topic. I have a hard time believing this is as simple as this columnist is insisting.
User avatar
JoMoney
Posts: 13478
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:31 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by JoMoney »

Binding contracts are broken all the time, there is always an 'out', but there is a cost and some ways out are more expensive than others.
I don't trust anything I hear from Musk, nor about him from others. I do have an expectation that he is very good at manipulating media and setting up deals that are win-win for him.
I wouldn't be surprised if he is trying to get out of the deal, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he and his financing partners are continuing to purchase shares at the now well below offer price this recent media speculation has instigated.
"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham
runninginvestor
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by runninginvestor »

stoptothink wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 8:35 am
arcticpineapplecorp. wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 7:46 am
[....]
see? even really smart people don't always due their homework before investing. some, like musk, can afford not to do their homework. most can not.
I would hardly consider a piece from Huffington Post unbiased on this topic. I have a hard time believing this is as simple as this columnist is insisting.
[ quote fixed by admin LadyGeek]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ls-twitter

There's Levine's original piece that the huffpost references.
Whakamole
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by Whakamole »

jebmke wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:25 am
ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:34 am My opinion is, always reject arguments based on imaginary information about "most other people". So I always say no. I find that a lot of discussion on the internet is about incredulity, "other poeple are so stupid" that sort of thing. It's not worthwhile. I would reject an argument structured like "Elon Musk proved an idiot by imaginary information". Not really that good. I see this non-stop in this forum, frankly. "Most people can't do this" and "Most people don't understand this". I don't buy any of it.
Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
Reading between the lines, the accusation is that Twitter knows the real number of false/spam accounts, and is making false claims in their financial statements. That gives Musk an out, and Twitter will have bigger problems than a broken deal.
stoptothink
Posts: 11507
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by stoptothink »

Whakamole wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:11 am
jebmke wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:25 am
ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:34 am My opinion is, always reject arguments based on imaginary information about "most other people". So I always say no. I find that a lot of discussion on the internet is about incredulity, "other poeple are so stupid" that sort of thing. It's not worthwhile. I would reject an argument structured like "Elon Musk proved an idiot by imaginary information". Not really that good. I see this non-stop in this forum, frankly. "Most people can't do this" and "Most people don't understand this". I don't buy any of it.
Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
Reading between the lines, the accusation is that Twitter knows the real number of false/spam accounts, and is making false claims in their financial statements. That gives Musk an out, and Twitter will have bigger problems than a broken deal.
Seems like the more logical explanation to me than the world's richest man not doing due any due diligence on a huge purchase.
HawkeyePierce
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:29 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by HawkeyePierce »

stoptothink wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:02 pm
Whakamole wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:11 am
jebmke wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:25 am
ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:34 am My opinion is, always reject arguments based on imaginary information about "most other people". So I always say no. I find that a lot of discussion on the internet is about incredulity, "other poeple are so stupid" that sort of thing. It's not worthwhile. I would reject an argument structured like "Elon Musk proved an idiot by imaginary information". Not really that good. I see this non-stop in this forum, frankly. "Most people can't do this" and "Most people don't understand this". I don't buy any of it.
Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
Reading between the lines, the accusation is that Twitter knows the real number of false/spam accounts, and is making false claims in their financial statements. That gives Musk an out, and Twitter will have bigger problems than a broken deal.
Seems like the more logical explanation to me than the world's richest man not doing due any due diligence on a huge purchase.
It's not. I work in this field. Elon is absolutely full of it here.

It's far from trivial to identify malicious bots at scale. Nobody will ever know the exact number because the number doesn't exist.

Plus, he literally waived due diligence in his purchase agreement. Hard to claim he was hoodwinked after that.
User avatar
telemark
Posts: 3094
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by telemark »

stoptothink wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:02 pm Seems like the more logical explanation to me than the world's richest man not doing due any due diligence on a huge purchase.
Musk's bid legally waives due diligence, so it is already an accomplished fact.
impatientInv
Posts: 220
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2021 1:26 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by impatientInv »

Saga continues. Elon has realized that buying Twitter brings too much heat on him and is bad for his net worth. Question is as he wriggles out of this deal, and the lawsuit that follows, how much would Elon's image be hurt? Being on Twitter is important for Elon, allows him to connect directly with his fans. No easy way out here for Elon.

Much of TSLA's share price is due to Elon's image and promise. Gamma squeeze and superfans have pushed beyond anyone imagined and kept it there. Remember, Elon was trying to take TSLA private at $84/share ($420 pre split). Only time will tell. Q2 will be bad due to China. He always has a next year vision to sell.
Elon Musk is using a 'dog ate the homework' excuse to potentially back out of buying Twitter and there is now a less than 50% chance the deal gets done.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-mus ... 54420.html
VTI, VXUS... No individual stocks.
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 3367
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by firebirdparts »

The gravy seems to be thickening. Elon Musk just acts so much like Elon Musk. You gotta admit, the man believes in Twitter. A lot.
A fool and your money are soon partners
stoptothink
Posts: 11507
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by stoptothink »

HawkeyePierce wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 1:40 pm
stoptothink wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:02 pm
Whakamole wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:11 am
jebmke wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:25 am
ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm

Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
Reading between the lines, the accusation is that Twitter knows the real number of false/spam accounts, and is making false claims in their financial statements. That gives Musk an out, and Twitter will have bigger problems than a broken deal.
Seems like the more logical explanation to me than the world's richest man not doing due any due diligence on a huge purchase.
It's not. I work in this field. Elon is absolutely full of it here.

It's far from trivial to identify malicious bots at scale. Nobody will ever know the exact number because the number doesn't exist.

Plus, he literally waived due diligence in his purchase agreement. Hard to claim he was hoodwinked after that.
IMO, nobody in this thread really knows what is going on (least of all me), but it is fun seeing personal opinions of Elon CLEARLY influencing analysis of this whole debacle. Nothing would surprise me at this point.
Last edited by stoptothink on Mon May 16, 2022 1:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
drk
Posts: 3446
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:33 pm
Location: Overlooking Elliott Bay

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by drk »

gtrplayer wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:15 pm Maybe I’m too cynical on Elon, someone who admittedly had made me money…. But this feels like a classic pump n dump scheme to me. It would not shock me at all to find out he sold some of his current Twitter holdings without informing the public. Then he’ll back out of the deal, saying it turns out 50% or whatever of Twitter users are bots, and the stock will collapse.
That would not surprise me, either. My operating assumption is that he already sold his stake. Combined with the ability to cash out another $8 billion from TSLA without fuss, this will be a neat little transaction after his lawyers negotiate Twitter's board down to accepting a break-up fee of $1,000,000,000,001.
gtrplayer wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:15 pm His ability to pull off the purchase rests
on Tesla’s stock continuing to soar, which it has stopped doing. I’m not convinced Elon even can make the purchase at the moment.
Not so! He hooked up with Jason Calacanis to pawn off preferred stock on Qualified Purchasers who subscribe to his Syndicate email list. This would replace the margin loan against Elon's TSLA shares, while also making this even more like a traditional leveraged buy-out.
elderwise
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:27 am

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by elderwise »

Elon is the dark version of Robin Hood

Or like Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide..doctor by the day slayer by the night.

I don't trust any of his words he may just be an evil genius.

And like a pied piper ppl r blindly following him

Just like how he pumped doge coin and doge Elon..
runninginvestor
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 8:00 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by runninginvestor »

drk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:25 pm
gtrplayer wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:15 pm Maybe I’m too cynical on Elon, someone who admittedly had made me money…. But this feels like a classic pump n dump scheme to me. It would not shock me at all to find out he sold some of his current Twitter holdings without informing the public. Then he’ll back out of the deal, saying it turns out 50% or whatever of Twitter users are bots, and the stock will collapse.
That would not surprise me, either. My operating assumption is that he already sold his stake. Combined with the ability to cash out another $8 billion from TSLA without fuss, this will be a neat little transaction after his lawyers negotiate Twitter's board down to accepting a break-up fee of $1,000,000,000,001.
gtrplayer wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 2:15 pm His ability to pull off the purchase rests
on Tesla’s stock continuing to soar, which it has stopped doing. I’m not convinced Elon even can make the purchase at the moment.
Not so! He hooked up with Jason Calacanis to pawn off preferred stock on Qualified Purchasers who subscribe to his Syndicate email list. This would replace the margin loan against Elon's TSLA shares, while also making this even more like a traditional leveraged buy-out.
Whether he completely backs out, or not, I would guess he'd try to further muddy the waters by negotiating the price downwards.

TWTR is down 27% from when the offer was made. Roughly down $10bil in market cap. His offer was 5% over at the beginning, so really he'd be paying ~32% premium.

TSLA stock is down around the same % in the same time period, which equates to around $280bil but it's volatile right now. In either case, that offer of $54.20, the $0.20 for the 420 lulz is gonna cost him $152million alone (instead of just offering $54). I suppose that's one of the fun jokes you can do with your money at that level of wealth.
Weathering
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by Weathering »

Even though I expect Elon to eventually flee the country over legal matters, I bought some TWTR today for my young daughter. My rationale is that because the Saudi’s own so much TWTR stock, Elon would hurt his other businesses (TSLA’s utility grid battery packs, SpaceX starlink, and fledgling businesses) considerably if he backs out of the TWTR deal. The purchase price could be lowered without affecting the Saudi’s because they will not be selling (already stated in the news). Buying at the price today (<$38) will still provide a good return and I’ll even try to keep her shares active after the deal (small private owner), if possible.
drk
Posts: 3446
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 10:33 pm
Location: Overlooking Elliott Bay

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by drk »

Weathering wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:14 pm I’ll even try to keep her shares active after the deal (small private owner), if possible.
FYI: the minimum purchase is $250k.
z3r0c00l
Posts: 3026
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by z3r0c00l »

The man rarely if every finishes what he starts and seldom follows through on what he says. Ironically, an ideal twitter celebrity but maybe not so great for business.
70% Global Stocks / 25% Bonds / 5% cash
Weathering
Posts: 325
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:20 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by Weathering »

drk wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:37 pm
Weathering wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 4:14 pm I’ll even try to keep her shares active after the deal (small private owner), if possible.
FYI: the minimum purchase is $250k.
Her purchase today was nearly an exact 1/100th of that amount.
User avatar
Random Musings
Posts: 6184
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by Random Musings »

HawkeyePierce wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 1:40 pm
stoptothink wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:02 pm
Whakamole wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:11 am
jebmke wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:25 am
ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm

Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
Reading between the lines, the accusation is that Twitter knows the real number of false/spam accounts, and is making false claims in their financial statements. That gives Musk an out, and Twitter will have bigger problems than a broken deal.
Seems like the more logical explanation to me than the world's richest man not doing due any due diligence on a huge purchase.
It's not. I work in this field. Elon is absolutely full of it here.

It's far from trivial to identify malicious bots at scale. Nobody will ever know the exact number because the number doesn't exist.

Plus, he literally waived due diligence in his purchase agreement. Hard to claim he was hoodwinked after that.
What is a malicious bot? Something that Twitter deems to be so? If the number doesn't exist, my guess it that it is high. People have the right to challenge Elon on various things he has done, but I'll challenge high tech social media that waving their hands that it's "far from trivial" to figure out bot issues doesn't resonate with me when they have had no problem on how to extract about every damn bit of information about people and monetize it. Talk about sin stocks.....

RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ
KyleAAA
Posts: 9106
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by KyleAAA »

stoptothink wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 12:02 pm
Whakamole wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 11:11 am
jebmke wrote: Sat May 14, 2022 6:25 am
ClevrChico wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:07 pm
firebirdparts wrote: Fri May 13, 2022 10:34 am My opinion is, always reject arguments based on imaginary information about "most other people". So I always say no. I find that a lot of discussion on the internet is about incredulity, "other poeple are so stupid" that sort of thing. It's not worthwhile. I would reject an argument structured like "Elon Musk proved an idiot by imaginary information". Not really that good. I see this non-stop in this forum, frankly. "Most people can't do this" and "Most people don't understand this". I don't buy any of it.
Obviously, Musk is not stupid and knew the fake account situation beforehand. My thinking is that maybe this is a way to get out of the purchase or an excuse to save face. I could care less what happens, but it's good entertainment. :sharebeer
All he had to do is read the quarterly reports. The Twit disclaims the 5% number every quarter.
Twitter has protected itself legally with a disclaimer in its quarterly reports saying it could be off by a lot.
“We applied significant judgment, so our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have estimated,” Twitter said in its latest quarterly report.
Reading between the lines, the accusation is that Twitter knows the real number of false/spam accounts, and is making false claims in their financial statements. That gives Musk an out, and Twitter will have bigger problems than a broken deal.
Seems like the more logical explanation to me than the world's richest man not doing due any due diligence on a huge purchase.
No, it's not.
Whakamole
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 9:59 pm

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by Whakamole »

Random Musings wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 5:21 pm What is a malicious bot? Something that Twitter deems to be so? If the number doesn't exist, my guess it that it is high. People have the right to challenge Elon on various things he has done, but I'll challenge high tech social media that waving their hands that it's "far from trivial" to figure out bot issues doesn't resonate with me when they have had no problem on how to extract about every damn bit of information about people and monetize it. Talk about sin stocks.....
It may be technically difficult, but tech companies do technically difficult things every day. Fighting bots may not be something that can easily translate to dollars. On the contrary, it is in the interests of companies like Twitter to look the other way when the price of their stock, and how much advertisers are willing to pay, is based on a high and unrealistic user count.

I wonder if Sarbanes-Oxley applies here.
User avatar
oldcomputerguy
Moderator
Posts: 13989
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2015 6:50 am
Location: Tennessee

Re: Twitter ownership

Post by oldcomputerguy »

A couple of posts accusing Elon Musk of illegal activity have been removed. This discussion has gone way off from the OP's question of ownership and voting control and into a general debate over Twitter, bots, and Elon Musk, and has been locked (topic exhausted, derailed). See: Locked Topics
Moderators or site admins may lock a topic (set it so no more replies may be added) when a violation of posting policy has occurred. Occasionally, even if there are no overt violations of posting policy, a topic (or thread) will reach a point where the information content of the discussion has been essentially exhausted and further replies are much more likely to cause distress to the community than add anything of value.
There is only one success - to be able to spend your life in your own way. (Christopher Morley)
Locked