Musk Acquires Twitter

[zantax]

@tnt

@zantax

Internal company documents, whistleblower, third party evaluation of the number of bots.

There is no legal requirement that I am aware of that bots be tracked a specific way and reported truthfully.

Do you understand what due diligence is for?

If you were thinking of buy a shoe store, and the owner says ‘we do so well because thousands of people walk past our store every day - it’s a great location!’

You - like Musk - sign an agreement of sale waiving due diligence, then you realize no one walks past the store.

You can’t back out. You should have gone to the store and counted how many people walked past it.

And if the shoe store in it’s public filings overestimated the number of customers?

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@tnt

@zantax

Internal company documents, whistleblower, third party evaluation of the number of bots.

There is no legal requirement that I am aware of that bots be tracked a specific way and reported truthfully.

Do you understand what due diligence is for?

If you were thinking of buy a shoe store, and the owner says ‘we do so well because thousands of people walk past our store every day - it’s a great location!’

You - like Musk - sign an agreement of sale waiving due diligence, then you realize no one walks past the store.

You can’t back out. You should have gone to the store and counted how many people walked past it.

And if the shoe store in it’s public filings overestimated the number of customers?

Musk waived due diligence.

No one made him do that.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

And if the shoe store in it’s public filings overestimated the number of customers?

Then maybe the shoe store will get into trouble with whatever government agency regulates shoe stores.

But it wouldn’t any difference regarding the sale.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@tnt

@zantax

Internal company documents, whistleblower, third party evaluation of the number of bots.

There is no legal requirement that I am aware of that bots be tracked a specific way and reported truthfully.

Do you understand what due diligence is for?

If you were thinking of buy a shoe store, and the owner says ‘we do so well because thousands of people walk past our store every day - it’s a great location!’

You - like Musk - sign an agreement of sale waiving due diligence, then you realize no one walks past the store.

You can’t back out. You should have gone to the store and counted how many people walked past it.

And if the shoe store in it’s public filings overestimated the number of customers?

Musk waived due diligence.

No one made him do that.

That doesn’t indemnify them from fraud.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

That doesn’t indemnify them from fraud.

Where does “fraud” come into play here? Who was defrauded?

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

That doesn’t indemnify them from fraud.

Where does “fraud” come into play here? Who was defrauded?

Musk if twitter lied about it’s number of users since that is the key to the companies valuation.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@tnt

@zantax

Internal company documents, whistleblower, third party evaluation of the number of bots.

There is no legal requirement that I am aware of that bots be tracked a specific way and reported truthfully.

Do you understand what due diligence is for?

If you were thinking of buy a shoe store, and the owner says ‘we do so well because thousands of people walk past our store every day - it’s a great location!’

You - like Musk - sign an agreement of sale waiving due diligence, then you realize no one walks past the store.

You can’t back out. You should have gone to the store and counted how many people walked past it.

And if the shoe store in it’s public filings overestimated the number of customers?

Musk waived due diligence.

No one made him do that.

That doesn’t indemnify them from fraud.

Musk had an oppurtunity to look into the concern before the deal became more finalized.

He waived that.

It is like buying a used car as is, refusing the test drive and complaining that the brakes don’t work.

[zantax]

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@Jezcoe

@zantax

@tnt

@zantax

Internal company documents, whistleblower, third party evaluation of the number of bots.

There is no legal requirement that I am aware of that bots be tracked a specific way and reported truthfully.

Do you understand what due diligence is for?

If you were thinking of buy a shoe store, and the owner says ‘we do so well because thousands of people walk past our store every day - it’s a great location!’

You - like Musk - sign an agreement of sale waiving due diligence, then you realize no one walks past the store.

You can’t back out. You should have gone to the store and counted how many people walked past it.

And if the shoe store in it’s public filings overestimated the number of customers?

Musk waived due diligence.

No one made him do that.

That doesn’t indemnify them from fraud.

Musk had an oppurtunity to look into the concern before the deal became more finalized.

He waived that.

It is like buying a used car as is, refusing the test drive and complaining that the brakes don’t work.

Dealer is still going to be in trouble if he rolled back that odometer. Or told him the brakes do work knowing they didn’t.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

Musk if twitter lied about it’s number of users since that is the key to the companies valuation.

First of all - no, it isnt. The number of spam accounts or bots has little to no effect on the companies valuation.

Second, Musk made the offer to Twitter, not the other way around. Twitter wasn’t offering itself for sale - and didn’t make Musk any promises regarding the number of spam accounts to convince him to make an offer.

In order for fraud to have occurred, not only would Musk have to show that he relied on Twitter’s SEC filings regarding its spam accounts when he made the offer - he’d also have to prove that Twitter filed false SEC quarterly documents with the intent to entice him into buying the company.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Dealer is still going to be in trouble if he rolled back that odometer. Or told him the brakes do work knowing they didn’t.

Buyer Beware.

This is on Musk… and he hasn’t even been able to prove his concern.

[Jezcoe]

@TheDoctorIsIn

The number of spam accounts or bots has little to no effect on the companies valuation.

It was Musk that set Twitter’s valuation when he declared to buy it at a certain price and that was his best and final offer… his words.

[zantax]

ludicrous to assert number of actual users doesn’t matter

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

ludicrous to assert number of actual users doesn’t matter

It is ludicrous to assert that Elon Musk only became aware of the existence of spam accounts after he proffered his offer.

[zantax]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

ludicrous to assert number of actual users doesn’t matter

It is ludicrous to assert that Elon Musk only became aware of the existence of spam accounts after he proffered his offer.

I’m sorry are existence and number of synonyms?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@zantax

I’m sorry are existence and number of synonyms?

In this case, yes.

Musk did not gain any “new” information between when he proffered his offer and today.

[Jezcoe]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@zantax

ludicrous to assert number of actual users doesn’t matter

It is ludicrous to assert that Elon Musk only became aware of the existence of spam accounts after he proffered his offer.

Maybe since his offer was made on Apr 14th when Twitter was trading at $45.08 and he had to make a 420 joke so he went up to $54.20 he might have made the most expensive pot smoking joke ever.

Guys… I am starting to think that his business acumen might not be on the level.

[Nemesis]

There is no doubt that Musk is a genius when it comes to creating and delivering on a vision. He is the very archetype of an entrepreneur but that does not mean he is some-kind of 3D financial chess player.

Musk is a disruptor and iterator by nature and he saw an opportunity to disrupt and iterate Twitter for financial gain. Nothing wrong with that.

Whether or not he had any intention of buying Twitter is irrelevant becsuse he now finds himself floundering a bit because he is struggling to bootstrap the purchase and so now is looking for ways to remove himself from having to purchase Twitter.

He made some fundamental mistakes with the contract he signed but that is on him. No one forced him to do a hostile tskeover. If Musk was so concerned with bots why did he offer such a massive amount for the company? Where was his due diligence prior to making the offer?

The “bot” issue only became a thing when his method of financing started to fall apart.

If he walks away he will owe $1 billion, Twitter will go after him, settle out of court and still rake in a massive amount from him.

Just because he is a world class entrepreneur does not mean he is a canny businessman. The two are very different skills.

[Guntsu]

But he is the richest man in the world! That means he can do anything!

[vaard]

If only he had access to lawyers to review the contract before he signed it…

[Samm]

@tnt

@Samm

Yeah, profanity and prurient speech is very different from freedom of expression of ideas and opinions.

How so?

Profanity is a style of speech, not the content of the speech. I would have thought you would have learned that from your mother.

@tnt

@Samm

Musk does not care for the former because it interferes with the latter.

How do you know this? Has he spoken on profanity or duct content?

Yes, when he first talked about buying control of Twitter and was asked specifically about that aspect of free speech. I don’t know what you mean by “duct content.”