Elon & Twitter

[Knightshade]

Making claims about the future and being wrong or not following through is different than making false claims about past actions.

I mean if the claim is "We will invent a thing that never existed (self driving cars) by this date" I agree with you.

if the claim is "We will offer cars we already make as loaners" and then you don't do that, I don't.

Ditto things like promising to cover all regions of NA (not just big cities) within 3 to 6 months with service centers back in 2018 and that STILL not being remotely true in 2022. It's not like they need to invent a new technology to build service centers- they just didn't want to spend the $- and had no intention of doing it when he made the claim either.

Don't get me wrong- financially it would've been dumb FOR them to spend all that $ in 2018. But surely Elon was aware of the fact and yet made the claim anyway. And TODAY (or even last year) they certainly had WAY more than enough spare cash to do it, and still haven't.

 

[Daniel in SD]

BINGO. Default for some signal users is auto-delete. And unlike other platforms, on Signal when it is gone, there is no retrieval, ever. The system deletes it from both the sender and receiver, AND it's never placed on any server anywhere. Only way to prove otherwise is to have it screenshotted and save the screenshot.

There is a duty to preserve evidence. Once Musk knew that a lawsuit was likely he should have switched the app to save messages.
Musk also seems to have not produced regular text messages that don't auto-delete. I agree with the analysis that the Chancellor is not going to issue some sort of blanket "adverse inference" she's probably just not going to trust anything Musk says.

I mean if the claim is "We will invent a thing that never existed (self driving cars) by this date" I agree with you.

if the claim is "We will offer cars we already make as loaners" and then you don't do that, I don't.

Ditto things like promising to cover all regions of NA (not just big cities) within 3 to 6 months with service centers back in 2018 and that STILL not being remotely true in 2022. It's not like they need to invent a new technology to build service centers- they just didn't want to spend the $- and had no intention of doing it when he made the claim either.

Don't get me wrong- financially it would've been dumb FOR them to spend all that $ in 2018. But surely Elon was aware of the fact and yet made the claim anyway. And TODAY (or even last year) they certainly had WAY more than enough spare cash to do it, and still haven't.

I think impulsively saying you're going to do something and then not doing it after you actually think about it is still much less bad than lying about the past.

 

[JRP3]

if the claim is "We will offer cars we already make as loaners" and then you don't do that, I don't.

They did offer Tesla loaners just not all the time. I don't have a problem with failing at aspirational goals. I expect a company involved in changing multiple industries to fail to achieve some things.

 

[bkp_duke]

There is a duty to preserve evidence. Once Musk knew that a lawsuit was likely he should have switched the app to save messages.
Musk also seems to have not produced regular text messages that don't auto-delete. I agree with the analysis that the Chancellor is not going to issue some sort of blanket "adverse inference" she's probably just not going to trust anything Musk says.

You MISS the POINT.

You can't preserve crap if it was auto-deleted MONTHS ago, 2 days after it was sent/received.

In case you don't use Signal and don't know how it works - if I am sending someone a message, I can specify that the message is only viewable for a certain time period. After that, it gets deleted, and the recipient cannot over-ride that.

So if Musk sent or received messages back in April that had auto-delete set, and he's told to preserve things in July, he can't preserve something that was long-ago gone.


I have a friend that is in the IT security field. His Signal is setup this way. I can't preserve his messages sent to me, even if I wanted to.

 

[Knightshade]

You MISS the POINT.

You can't preserve crap if it was auto-deleted MONTHS ago, 2 days after it was sent/received.

In case you don't use Signal and don't know how it works - if I am sending someone a message, I can specify that the message is only viewable for a certain time period. After that, it gets deleted, and the recipient cannot over-ride that.

So if Musk sent or received messages back in April that had auto-delete set, and he's told to preserve things in July, he can't preserve something that was long-ago gone.

Except that the claim by twitter is that Musk CONTNUED doing this AFTER he knew he had a duty to preserve.

I have a friend that is in the IT security field. His Signal is setup this way. I can't preserve his messages sent to me, even if I wanted to.

This is false on two levels.

1) That auto-delete is NOT THE DEFAULT SETTING. You have to intentionally set it that way-- and can (and would be legally obligated to) turn it off if you know you have a duty to preserve.

2) You ABSOLUTELY CAN preserve his messages even if HE set them to auto-delete. You can screen shot them.

In fact that's how twitter PROVED Musk was doing this. The other side of the convo had taken a screen shot, and attached it to an email that WAS included in the discovery.

They'd never have caught him in his lie about not using Signal otherwise.

Extra weird- you ALREADY KNEW THAT- in fact you even cited screen shots as a way to do this, like 5 messages ago. Now you pretend you CAN'T preserve it even if you wanted?

I don't have a problem with failing at aspirational goals. I expect a company involved in changing multiple industries to fail to achieve some things.

Again, for stuff like FSD-- sure. NOBODY knows how to do it, so taking too long is expected.

Building a known # of service centers? Not so much.

 

[Daniel in SD]

You MISS the POINT.

You can't preserve crap if it was auto-deleted MONTHS ago, 2 days after it was sent/received.

In case you don't use Signal and don't know how it works - if I am sending someone a message, I can specify that the message is only viewable for a certain time period. After that, it gets deleted, and the recipient cannot over-ride that.

So if Musk sent or received messages back in April that had auto-delete set, and he's told to preserve things in July, he can't preserve something that was long-ago gone.


I have a friend that is in the IT security field. His Signal is setup this way. I can't preserve his messages sent to me, even if I wanted to.

I'm talking about this discussion at Tuesday's hearing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574863203552661505

 

[mongo]

I'm talking about this discussion at Tuesday's hearing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574863203552661505

Is that referringto this?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1573417641481494532

That's a convo started by Marc, Birchall wasn't part of it.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Is that referring to this?

No, this. I don't think the screenshot is public yet. This was revealed at Tuesday's hearing. Sounds like Birschall attached a screenshot of a Signal message between himself and Musk to an email.

2) You ABSOLUTELY CAN preserve his messages even if HE set them to auto-delete. You can screen shot them.

In fact that's how twitter PROVED Musk was doing this. The other side of the convo had taken a screen shot, and attached it to an email that WAS included in the discovery.

They'd never have caught him in his lie about not using Signal otherwise.

 

[JRP3]

Mr. Birchall testified that neither he nor Mr. Musk had ever used Signal

This is actually different than Elon saying he never used Signal. Did Elon himself ever claim he never used Signal?

 

[Knightshade]

This is actually different than Elon saying he never used Signal. Did Elon himself ever claim he never used Signal?

Twitter claims that he said that (multiple times). Though I suppose it's possible that translates as "His lawyers said multiple times he never used it"

Since we don't have full transcripts of everything (many things are still sealed) we can't really know for sure- but it'd be weird for twitter to claim something as being in the record that is not.

And given they also presented evidence of just regular text messages they have proof exist but Musks team failed to provide despite being obliged to (or even acknowledge existence of) the idea they did the same with signal is highly credible. Doubly so since they've got a literal screenshot of such a message.

 

[mongo]

No, this. I don't think the screenshot is public yet. This was revealed at Tuesday's hearing. Sounds like Birschall attached a screenshot of a Signal message between himself and Musk to an email.

Huh, cause that is an email to Birchall with screenshot of Signal.

 

[JRP3]

I expect legal wrangling from the "teams" on both sides. What I don't expect is a blatant lie from Elon. For me there is a clear difference so I'll hold judgement until I see actual proof.

 

[Knightshade]

Relevant-stuff from the newest filings-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575338777404489728

Apparently Elons story after the ask for sanctions on his lying about the signal thing and otherwise hiding/destroying evidence is now "Well, I never used signal to discuss this deal... EXCEPT that one time you caught me doing it with the screen shot....but TOTES no other time!"

Which seems. Dubious AF.

 

[mongo]

Relevant-stuff from the newest filings-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1575338777404489728

Apparently Elons story after the ask for sanctions on his lying about the signal thing and otherwise hiding/destroying evidence is now "Well, I never used signal to discuss this deal... EXCEPT that one time you caught me doing it with the screen shot....but TOTES no other time!"

Which seems. Dubious AF.

Why dubious? Marc is the one who started the Signal conv.
If Elon has the app, but normally uses text/email instead, that makes perfect sense.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Apparently Elons story after the ask for sanctions on his lying about the signal thing and otherwise hiding/destroying evidence is now "Well, I never used signal to discuss this deal... EXCEPT that one time you caught me doing it with the screen shot....but TOTES no other time!"

Which seems. Dubious AF.

The document you're quoting from was a response to an earlier request for sanctions (September 21st). Though I'm guessing the response to the current request for sanctions will be similar (you caught us a second time but that was the only other time he used Signal!).
Page 23 (Redacted version)

 

[JRP3]

Elon saying he didn't use Signal to discuss Twitter deal, (other than that one time, which is sus, but...), is quite different than saying he claimed to have never used Signal.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Huh, cause that is an email to Birchall with screenshot of Signal.

That’s old. Twitter claims to have screenshot of a signal conversation between Musk and Birchall that they discovered last weekend. Musk has not responded to that accusation.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574863203552661505

 

[Buckminster]

Twitter embraces TikTok-style ‘immersive’ video | Engadget

 

[JRP3]

 

[Daniel in SD]

Ok, @bkp_duke, @riverFox, @mongo things got a little confusing because I was referencing a document that we did not have. We now have Twitter's presentation to the court on Tuesday. https://s3.documentcloud.org/docume...-callan-r-jackson-enclosing-copies-of-the.pdf

Musk Affidavit: Aside from the April 25, 2022 message from Andreessen I do not recall having any other communications regarding my planned purchase of Twitter through the Signal app before that point, and I did not communicate regarding Twitter transaction using Signal (or any other messaging service that deletes messages after a period of time) from that point onward.

During Birchall's deposition he says he and Elon use Signal for personal financial matters and that the purchase of Twitter is a personal financial matter. However he does not recall using Signal for discussing the Twitter transaction.

Birchall sent a screenshot of a Signal conversation with Elon to Claassen.

I suspect the Chancellor will be hesitant to trust the testimony of people with such poor memories!