Social Musk becomes largest shareholder of twitter

[Rob Battisti]

Tesla sells off 75% of its Bitcoin ($936 million), citing liquidity issues

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ost-bitcoin-adds-936-million-to-balance-sheet

also, this is what he said a couple months ago about how they won't be selling any of their bitcoin lol.

They would have had a net negative in cash flow without that sale

 

[chardog]

Except for a fat cock. But that's the one they get on the side without letting Mr. Moneybags know.

if that were the case, i'd have no sex life

 

[deadon]

Should get interesting. Elon files a counter suit.

 

[aries]

Can't we change the title to something more accurate now? 'Elon Musk is full of shit!' or something similar?

 

[deadon]

Can't we change the title to something more accurate now? 'Elon Musk is full of shit!' or something similar?

You seriously think this is over? With tesla back up and the market doing well. I wouldn't get to excited just yet.
Twitter may be willing to drop the price a bit. Discovery has to come into play.
BTW biden just threw musk a big check with the EV bill. Tesla to the moon.

 

[Darkballs]

You seriously think this is over? With tesla back up and the market doing well. I wouldn't get to excited just yet.
Twitter may be willing to drop the price a bit. Discovery has to come into play.
BTW biden just threw musk a big check with the EV bill. Tesla to the moon.

People keep trying to explain to you that Elon is not going to be able to run a wide discovery and publish all of twitters internals/software/code. Discovery will be limited to the issue of the claim, which was that bot #'s were material to the contract, and will be focused around their discussions of them and Elons waiving of due diligence.

He isn't going to get to go on a fishing expedition to expose twitter. He never intended to buy them in the first place. You all got conned. Again.

 

[aries]

People keep trying to explain to you that Elon is not going to be able to run a wide discovery and publish all of twitters internals/software/code. Discovery will be limited to the issue of the claim, which was that bot #'s were material to the contract, and will be focused around their discussions of them and Elons waiving of due diligence.

He isn't going to get to go on a fishing expedition to expose twitter. He never intended to buy them in the first place. You all got conned. Again.

Exactly

 

[aries]

You seriously think this is over? With tesla back up and the market doing well. I wouldn't get to excited just yet.
Twitter may be willing to drop the price a bit. Discovery has to come into play.
BTW biden just threw musk a big check with the EV bill. Tesla to the moon.

Let's see how your post ages in a couple of months. This is up there with Putin's 4D chess imho.

 

[deadon]

Let's see how your post ages in a couple of months. This is up there with Putin's 4D chess.

Did I say putin was playing 4d chess? Naw I didn't.

Not saying this WILL happen but I'm not saying it won't happen either.
So if he loses he has to buy it right?

 

[deadon]

Haha is he trolling? Or does he know he'll have to buy it?

 

[idrankyourbeer]

Should get interesting. Elon files a counter suit.

he may as well be sueing for hurt feelings while he's at it. theyll be throwing lawsuits at each other and dragging this out through the courts for years. doesnt even matter who wins what suit. itll be years, maybe even decades before anybody sees a penny, if that ever even happens

 

[idrankyourbeer]

People keep trying to explain to you that Elon is not going to be able to run a wide discovery and publish all of twitters internals/software/code. Discovery will be limited to the issue of the claim, which was that bot #'s were material to the contract, and will be focused around their discussions of them and Elons waiving of due diligence.

He isn't going to get to go on a fishing expedition to expose twitter. He never intended to buy them in the first place. You all got conned. Again.

this.

 

[BIKES!]

This is why you don't listen to random youtube posters on how the litigation is going to work.

It won't matter if the bot numbers are more than 5%. Everyone playing in this space already knows that there is a bot issue. Everyone has already accounted for that. No advertisers are paying for ads based on number of users. They're paying for ads based on click throughs and conversions. Why? Because advertsiers pay for engagement, not followers.

As far as the lawsuit itself, the general legal opinion out there is that the bot issue doesn't help Musk because he entered the deal knowing that there was a bot issue. He has quotes on the record stating that he believed the bot issue was significant and that part of his reason for buying Twitter was to clean up the bot issue. He cannot subsequently claim that the bot issue is materially adverse event that allows him to walk away from the deal when he also publicly claimed that he was buying Twitter so that he could clean up that very issue.

Delaware's Chancery Court is known for making people abide by these contracts unless there is some extreme problem in play. And litigators in this space say that there isn't, based on what I wrote above.

Lastly, this guy is an idiot if he thinks this isn't going to discovery. Especially considering that Twitter is the one who doesn't want to delay the trial.

TL;DR -- don't listen to non-lawyer youtubers for analysis of complex business and legal proceedings.

It’s called constructive fraud and Twitter is guilty as fuck. You can’t use poor or no controls to validate your user base which is the only base/source of revenue and claim ignorance.

 

[sherdogwantedtonamemekiki]

Sooo, will the Bankrupt Tesla and Musk?

 

[deadon]

Sooo, will the Bankrupt Tesla and Musk?

Hasn't his wealth gone back up? I can't see how that would happen but if it means tesla falls I'm for it.

 

[sherdogwantedtonamemekiki]

Hasn't his wealth gone back up? I can't see how that would happen but if it means tesla falls I'm for it.

Not sure. Haven't been looking into his wealth, in particular. I just want this asshat to loose at least SpaceX because he could cause a Kessler even and fuck humanity over for the rest of existence

 

[HereticBD]

Haha is he trolling? Or does he know he'll have to buy it?

I don't know, but this whole thing reminds me a Loony Tunes gag:

"I will buy Twitter."

"No you won't."

"I will."

"No you won't!"

"I...won't buy Twitter."

"You will."

"I won't."

"Yes you will!"

"No I won't"

"Listen buddy, you're gonna buy Twitter whether you like it or not!"

 

[panamaican]

It’s called constructive fraud and Twitter is guilty as fuck. You can’t use poor or no controls to validate your user base which is the only base/source of revenue and claim ignorance.

It's not constructive fraud. The user base is not the source of revenue. The actual ad buys are the source of revenue. And the ad buys are priced by the advertisers via an auction and then only paid based on whether or not the intended action was taken by the person viewing the ad.

So, let's say you and I are competing to place ads on some twitter page. I bid $1 for the opportunity, you bid $1.50. Twitter didn't set the price, you and I did. Now, you win the bid, so you get top priority for your ads. But you're only paying for ads where the user does something - clicks through to the product, downloads the app, buys something, etc. If the user doesn't perform the action then you don't pay. Now, you can certainly pay to have the number of followers increase but if you think there are a lot of potential bots who will follow you, you price that into your bid.

At every stage of the process, the advertiser has knowledge about what they're getting. they know how many people click through the ads. How many people engage their content. And they can use that information to set the advertising bids at the auction.

I think people believe that Twitter says "We have XXX users so you have to pay us $$ based on that number of users." If that was true then being wrong about the number of users might matter. But Twitter doesn't do that.

It's like a department store being wrong about the number of unique visitors that enter the store daily. The store might be off on the total numbers but the companies that have items on the shelf don't really care about how exact that number is. They care about how many items get sold. It doesn't matter if the store has 5, 10, 15% errors in the daily visitor tally so long as they hit their sales figures. A 3rd party might complain that the daily visitor tally is off but the company's revenue numbers and products sold numbers are the only thing that really matters and those already account for the true visitor numbers.

To use another example. I have a Facebook page that I never use. It shows up on the total numbers list of facebook pages. But since I never buy anything, click anything, do anything through my page, it won't affect any numbers that matter - engagement rates.

Additionally, it's not fraud unless Twitter insists that their numbers are accurate. From everything I've read, they always hedge that their bot numbers are estimates.

 

[BIKES!]

It's not constructive fraud. The user base is not the source of revenue. The actual ad buys are the source of revenue. And the ad buys are priced by the advertisers via an auction and then only paid based on whether or not the intended action was taken by the person viewing the ad.
.

Media buys are predicated entirely on the number of views, impressions and corresponding demographics. I've overseen large media buys for much of my career and if Twitter has overstated all key metrics that media agencies have represented to their clients then they have committed wide spread fraud. This case is about fraud or not. Fraud is difficult to prove so this may be in court for a while. Twitter's lack of effort and controls to quantify active and spam/bot users is constructive fraud in it's finest.

 

[panamaican]

Media buys are predicated entirely on the number of views, impressions and corresponding demographics. I've overseen large media buys for much of my career and if Twitter has overstated all key metrics that media agencies have represented to their clients then they have committed wide spread fraud. This case is about fraud or not. Fraud is difficult to prove so this may be in court for a while. Twitter's lack of effort and controls to quantify active and spam/bot users is constructive fraud in it's finest.

I'm not talking about general media buys. I'm talking about Twitter. There's not point talking in generalities when we know how the company operates. You don't have to believe me. They explain this quite clearly on their website.
https://business.twitter.com/en/help/troubleshooting/bidding-and-auctions-faqs.html

It sounds like you're talking about media buys for magazines, tv shows, newspapers, or websites that don't prioritize engagement where the company is selling ads based on web traffic. Which is not how this works with Twitter.

And there isn't going to be fraud here because Twitter has always said that the number of bots is an estimate. If they want to prove fraud, first they're going to need to show that Twitter actually knows the number and is misrepresenting it to ad buyers, when the truth is probably lcoser to the fact that Twitter doesn't have an exact number either. They and the ad buyer are in equal states of ignorance. Worse case.