Merged: Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Advertisers care too. Which impacts shareholders as well.

Not really. Advertisers care about the return on their investment. This is the ironic thing: the number of bots doesn't matter.

Advertisers pay Twitter a certain amount and then they see people coming from Twitter to buy their products. They can measure the effectiveness of advertising on Twitter without knowing anything about how many Twitter users are really bots. If a company says "we'll buy an ad on Twitter for $1,000 and we will consider it successful if we make $100k of sales". If they make the target, it doesn't matter if 10 bots, 1,000 bots or a trillion bots were served the advert, it's a success.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

I can't find the video now, but earlier this week, Musk said during a broadcast that "everyone who uses twitter knows how many bots there are" (paraphrasing). This would be really bad for his case, as he now cannot claim that he had been misled by the information Twitter gave to him.

Also the contract to purchase twitter was written very much in twitters favor, he was buying it as is. Andrew Torres from Opening Arguments has said he would never let a client sign a contract like the one Musk signed.

In a just world he would be screwed, but the decade or so of litigation that will be coming from this will mitigate that.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

I can't find the video now, but earlier this week, Musk said during a broadcast that "everyone who uses twitter knows how many bots there are" (paraphrasing). This would be really bad for his case, as he now cannot claim that he had been misled by the information Twitter gave to him.

Lol! Didn’t he attempt to use some software that flagged HIS account as a bot? I mean, it is definitely bot-like. He seems to have the discursive style of a bot with everything he says starting from a kind of hard reset.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Not really. Advertisers care about the return on their investment. This is the ironic thing: the number of bots doesn't matter.

Advertisers pay Twitter a certain amount and then they see people coming from Twitter to buy their products. They can measure the effectiveness of advertising on Twitter without knowing anything about how many Twitter users are really bots. If a company says "we'll buy an ad on Twitter for $1,000 and we will consider it successful if we make $100k of sales". If they make the target, it doesn't matter if 10 bots, 1,000 bots or a trillion bots were served the advert, it's a success.

Well, no. A lot of what advertisers do, and pay for, is create impressions that they hope turn into sales down the road. They don't need to pay off with immediate conversions. It's great if they do, but mostly they won't, certainly not for an advertiser like, say, Coca Cola or Toyota. For them, how many actual people they reach is a key metric. That's how TV advertising has always worked. Yeah, some sales can be tracked to specific ads, but for all the stuff that can't be, bots are still relevant.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Mudge has shown up to confuse things.

What the Twitter whistleblower could mean for Elon Musk's takeover deal

Quote:

Elon Musk's monthslong effort to buy — and then to get out of buying — Twitter has been marked by a range of unexpected twists. Now, a stunning whistleblower disclosure from the company's former security lead Peiter Zatko is almost certain to become the latest complication.

[ponderingturtle]

Twitter approves Musks bid to buy it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/twit...e-company.html

[angrysoba]

So…. After months of trying to back out of the Twitter deal, Elon Musk has abruptly said that he will buy Twitter (bots be damned, I guess).

I wonder if this is because his “peace proposal” for Ukraine which meant giving up Crimea and re-running the Russian referendums under UN supervision on land Russia invaded and seized, and a promise to be neutral in future was met with such scorn and derision that he just wants to ban all the people who laughed at him and called him rude names.

[marting]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Twitter approves Musks bid to buy it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/13/twit...e-company.html

Looks like he saw the writing on the wall that he was going to lose in Chancery Court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/04/twit...0-a-share.html

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by marting

Looks like he saw the writing on the wall that he was going to lose in Chancery Court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/04/twit...0-a-share.html

I was looking at the comments on a youtube channel full of Musk fanbois yesterday. They seem to be spinning it as some kind of massive victory for Musk, which I find hilarious. They were speculating that he may have negotiated the price down, which cannot possibly be the case because a) he's signed a contract and b) that would invalidate the shareholder vote and probably open him and Twitter up to law suits.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

I was looking at the comments on a youtube channel full of Musk fanbois yesterday. They seem to be spinning it as some kind of massive victory for Musk, which I find hilarious. They were speculating that he may have negotiated the price down, which cannot possibly be the case because a) he's signed a contract and b) that would invalidate the shareholder vote and probably open him and Twitter up to law suits.

Facts and fanbois are never in the same room.

[HansMustermann]

A word that I learned from Cracked comes to mind: Tinkerbellend. Elon Musk seems to think he'll die if he didn't troll the internet with some ridiculous idea or stunt for more than a month.

[arthwollipot]

What is an 'everything app' and why does Elon Musk want to make one?

Quote:

On Tuesday, Elon Musk announced he would go ahead with his original $US44 billion ($67 billion) bid to buy Twitter.

The purchase would be an "accelerant" for X — the "everything app", he said.

But what is an everything app, and what does it do?

tl;dr he wants to add lots of new functions to Twitter. Because that always works well.

[Checkmite]

There are now some reports that after Musk capitulated to Twitter, one of the original financiers of his bid pulled their support, leaving Musk personally on the hook for another $1B of the price.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

What is an 'everything app' and why does Elon Musk want to make one?

tl;dr he wants to add lots of new functions to Twitter. Because that always works well.

Apparently it did for WeChat in China. Although Wikipedia also says this:

Quote:

User activity on WeChat is analyzed, tracked and shared with Chinese authorities upon request as part of the mass surveillance network in China

For the new Twitter super app, replace "Chinese authorities" and "in China" with "Elon Musk" and "of Elon Musk" respectively.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

For the new Twitter super app, replace "Chinese authorities" and "in China" with "Elon Musk" and "of Elon Musk" respectively.

Which is one reason why I think the Musk deal will end up killing Twitter. We're less tolerant of that sort of thing in the West. At least, in theory.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Which is one reason why I think the Musk deal will end up killing Twitter. We're less tolerant of that sort of thing in the West. At least, in theory.

Lol, exhibit A... TikTok.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Jim_MDP

Lol, exhibit A... TikTok.

Like I said, in theory.

[Jim_MDP]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Like I said, in theory.

[TragicMonkey]

When will the puffy-faced money clown go away? I'm tired of hearing about him. He is less amusing than most other clowns. The clown from It is less irritating.

[The Great Zaganza]

In two weeks.
Always two weeks

[jeremyp]

What are the chances of Musk consummating* this deal on October 28th? If he fails to follow through, how is the judge in the trial going to view it?

*I find that choice of word quite amusing as when this deal goes through, the only people who won't be shafted are Twitter's ex-shareholders.

[eerok]

oops, wrong thread

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

What are the chances of Musk consummating* this deal on October 28th? If he fails to follow through, how is the judge in the trial going to view it?

*I find that choice of word quite amusing as when this deal goes through, the only people who won't be shafted are Twitter's ex-shareholders.

I give the chance for the deal going through less than 1 in 10.
Musk might be on the hook for $1 billion, but he can delay that litigation forever, settling for maybe $200 million in ten years.

paying for Twitter out of his own pocket (because all the financing schemes have fallen through) would be way more expensive.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I give the chance for the deal going through less than 1 in 10.
Musk might be on the hook for $1 billion, but he can delay that litigation forever, settling for maybe $200 million in ten years.

No. Musk is on the hook for $44 billion. He signed the contract to buy Twitter. The $1 billion only counts in certain circumstance e.g. the government makes a law that says he's not allowed to buy Twitter.

If he fails to complete the deal by October 28, he is likely in very hot water. The trial was supposed to have started by then and was only delayed to give him a chance to live up to his promise. The judge is unlikely to be amused.

Quote:

paying for Twitter out of his own pocket (because all the financing schemes have fallen through) would be way more expensive.

Yes and if he fails to buy Twitter, the court has the ability to seize his assets to force him to buy Twitter.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

No. Musk is on the hook for $44 billion. He signed the contract to buy Twitter. The $1 billion only counts in certain circumstance e.g. the government makes a law that says he's not allowed to buy Twitter.

If he fails to complete the deal by October 28, he is likely in very hot water. The trial was supposed to have started by then and was only delayed to give him a chance to live up to his promise. The judge is unlikely to be amused.



Yes and if he fails to buy Twitter, the court has the ability to seize his assets to force him to buy Twitter.

not going to happen.
Twitter would have to prove that, after Musk rejected them, no one else would ever consider buying them, and they can't continue their business without a buyout/merger.
At most, Twitter could sue for compensation of their shareholders for the difference of the share price offered by Musk and the price at which they are trading now.

But it is almost unheard of for a Court to force a merger between unwilling partners.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

But it is almost unheard of for a Court to force a merger between unwilling partners.

Wouldn't this just be 1 unwilling partner? It seems like Twitter is certainly full speed ahead.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

not going to happen.
Twitter would have to prove that, after Musk rejected them, no one else would ever consider buying them, and they can't continue their business without a buyout/merger.
At most, Twitter could sue for compensation of their shareholders for the difference of the share price offered by Musk and the price at which they are trading now.

But it is almost unheard of for a Court to force a merger between unwilling partners.

No. You do not understand. Musk has effectively already bought Twitter. He signed a contract to do so. If this case actually gets to court, there are only two possible outcomes: Musk wins the case or Musk buys the company. The Delaware Chancery Court which is hearing the case has forced people to complete buyout deals before. In fact the judge in this case has done it.

I think the most likely outcome is that Musk and Twitter settle out of court for a sum less than $44 billion but significantly more than $1 billion.

[eerok]

Twists and turns.

US might bail Musk out by blocking Twitter deal over national security (arstechnica.com)

Pretty speculative at this point.

[marting]

Looks to me like Musk is trying to get the deal killed indirectly. Like the 75% layoff talk. And he may be welcoming the national security angle as well. That way he gets out of the court mandating the deal go forward.

[eerok]

I have selfish reasons for hoping that the deal collapses: I'm sick of idiots wielding power and influence.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by eerok

I have selfish reasons for hoping that the deal collapses: I'm sick of idiots wielding power and influence.

Twitter right now wields power and influence, and it's being run by idiots. Are you not paying attention?

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Twitter right now wields power and influence, and it's being run by idiots. Are you not paying attention?

I think Musk would be worse than the current idiots, though it's true he's often all talk.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by eerok

I think Musk would be worse than the current idiots, though it's true he's often all talk.

Why? It's not like Musk would be actually running the place. He's only one guy, and he's busy enough already. There's actually very little he would actually be doing as owner of Twitter. The biggest thing would be who he hires to actually run the place for him, and I don't expect whoever that is to do any worse than the current crop. In part because it would be difficult to.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why? It's not like Musk would be actually running the place. He's only one guy, and he's busy enough already. There's actually very little he would actually be doing as owner of Twitter. The biggest thing would be who he hires to actually run the place for him, and I don't expect whoever that is to do any worse than the current crop. In part because it would be difficult to.

I'm sure he'd try to impose his stupid ideas about moderation and free speech. Wasn't that the point of this shemozzle in the first place?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by eerok

I'm sure he'd try to impose his stupid ideas about moderation and free speech.

Yup. Free speech is totally stupid. So glad Twitter doesn't currently value free speech.

[eerok]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yup. Free speech is totally stupid. So glad Twitter doesn't currently value free speech.

What a bizarre opinion.

[novaphile]

Originally Posted by eerok

What a bizarre opinion.

Ooooooh.

Epic fail.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by eerok

What a bizarre opinion.

Make up your mind.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why? It's not like Musk would be actually running the place. He's only one guy, and he's busy enough already. There's actually very little he would actually be doing as owner of Twitter. The biggest thing would be who he hires to actually run the place for him, and I don't expect whoever that is to do any worse than the current crop. In part because it would be difficult to.

Actually, I think he would find it a pretty difficult job setting out what he wants from the platform.

The thing that people complain about are usually in opposition.

People complain it is either too censorious, or not enough. The Terms and Conditions either allow too much harassment, too much doxing, too much dog-piling etc... or they prevent freedom of expression, and see too many people kicked off the platform, usually with some kind of uneven political slant being blamed.

Maybe Elon Musk can set the culture that pleases enough of its user base to accommodate them in such a way that people think Twitter is an improved platform, but I think it is unlikely.

[grunion]

With Zuck and The Musketeer competing for Incel Mastermind Of The Universe title, a lot of money, labor and resources are being bet on the public’s continuing willingness to have their relationships snooped on and commoditized for such shallow, glum and sophomoric forms of entertainment.