Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon & Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sigh, I guess I have to explain this to Elon again. The monetizable daily active user number is generated by an algorithm designed to exclude bots. There are bots on the platform that are not counted as mDAUs. In fact Twitter has an API which allows bots. Also, do think bots tweet more or less than the average user? I never tweet and I really don’t see a lot of tweets by bots. You are not a representative user of Twitter.
I’m getting a little bit concerned that Elon does not have proof that Twitter submitted fraudulent 10-Ks.
 
I’m getting a little bit concerned that Elon does not have proof that Twitter submitted fraudulent 10-Ks.
Don't worry, it's all part of the plan. He's got this under control. This is "discovery hell."

It is weird though that Elon doesn't seem to understand that 90% of Twitter accounts could be bots and Twitter's mDAU number could easily be about right, no misrepresentation at all. No one cares how many Twitter accounts there are.
 
Sigh, I guess I have to explain this to Elon again. The monetizable daily active user number is generated by an algorithm designed to exclude bots. There are bots on the platform that are not counted as mDAUs. In fact Twitter has an API which allows bots. Also, do think bots tweet more or less than the average user? I never tweet and I really don’t see a lot of tweets by bots. You are not a representative user of Twitter.
I’m getting a little bit concerned that Elon does not have proof that Twitter submitted fraudulent 10-Ks.
Not proof but questions that they could be fraudulent
Onus is on twitter to show that they are not fraudulent
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Daniel in SD
Not proof but questions that they could be fraudulent
Onus is on twitter to show that they are not fraudulent


No, it literally is not

That isn't how any of this works.


Burden of proof is on the one making the claim of fraud. Which is Elon.

Who admitted he doesn't actually have any proof of it in the SEC filing about why he was leaving the deal.

He's mad they won't give him enough access to check, even though legally the time to do that is BEFORE YOU SIGN A MERGER AGREEMENT.


At this point, unless he already has evidence that not only is the # wrong, but it's MASSIVELY wrong, and intentionally and known to be so, is there any case at all.

Then, if he somehow COULD prove all that, he THEN has to prove that represents an MAE-- and based on past cases it's entirely likely he wouldn't be able to do so even if he'd magically cleared all the previous hurdles including the ones he told the SEC he can't actually clear.






I have to think that the court will also not like a company to inflate its value before an acquisition

Twitter has been reporting the same mDAU in the same way since their IPO almost 10 years ago.

This is not a "new" thing for the acquisition and it didn't suddenly change or anything.

And as Daniel points out, many in this thread appear to not understand what that 5% number even claims to be (apart from the fact they then add a disclaimer that even THAT might be quite wrong because it's basically a guess)
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: bkp_duke
Who admitted he doesn't actually have any proof of it in the SEC filing about why he was leaving the deal.

At this point, unless he already has evidence that not only is the # wrong, but it's MASSIVELY wrong, and intentionally and known to be so, is there any case at all.
As I read it, the SEC filling says the opposite.
He did not admit lack of proof, he stated the data Twitter actually provided indicates a >5% figure.

Although Twitter has not yet provided complete information to Mr. Musk that would enable him to do a complete and comprehensive review of spam and fake accounts on Twitter’s platform, he has been able to partially and preliminarily analyze the accuracy of Twitter’s disclosure regarding its mDAU. While this analysis remains ongoing, all indications suggest that several of Twitter’s public disclosures regarding its mDAUs are either false or materially misleading. First, although Twitter has consistently represented in securities filings that “fewer than 5%” of its mDAU are false or spam accounts, based on the information provided by Twitter to date, it appears that Twitter is dramatically understating the proportion of spam and false accounts represented in its mDAU count. Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%. Second, Twitter’s disclosure that it ceases to count fake or spam users in its mDAU when it determines that those users are fake appears to be false. Instead, we understand, based on Twitter’s representations during a June 30, 2022 call with us, that Twitter includes accounts that have been suspended—and thus are known to be fake or spam—in its quarterly mDAU count even when it is aware that the suspended accounts were included in mDAU for that quarter. Last, Twitter has represented that it is “continually seeking to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from the calculation of our mDAU…” But, Twitter’s process for calculating its mDAU, and the percentage of mDAU comprised of non-monetizable spam accounts, appears to be arbitrary and ad hoc. Disclosing that Twitter has a reasoned process for calculating mDAU when the opposite is true would be false and misleading.
 
" causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%."


He can strongly believe all he wants- but he can't prove.

Which is the whole reason he was ASKING FOR MORE ACCESS AND DATA.

Which twitter wasn't actually obligated to provide in the agreement. You ask for that BEFORE YOU MAKE AN OFFER.



Even more baffling is their next claim:
"Twitter includes accounts that have been suspended—and thus are known to be fake or spam"



Suspended means you did something wrong. It does not mean you're a fake account. That claim is just nonsensical.



The third claim isn't any better and amounts to "they say they want to improve their measurements, but we think their current system isn't good" is... not relevant to anything even if 100% true. Especially when they explicitly disclaim, and have for 10 years, that the measurement isn't based on any industry standard, requires a lot of individual judgement, and might be quite wrong.



As others have comments, most of that SEC filing sounds like lawyers whose client wants what he wants and the the lawyers are scrambling to find the barest pretext to keep billing him for it.
 
Your honor, the data we have recieved shows the mDAU figure is false. I would not presume to claim it as false in your court, but that is what the facts, as provided, indicate. We would be happy to review additional data, should Twitter deign to provide it.
 
Moved from Main...

And Twitter lawyers were pretty much required otherwise they would be attacked even more aggressively by their own shareholders for not suing. This is just like how chess is played - you watch your predictions play out because your opponent is never given a choice. 🍿
 
Your honor, the data we have recieved shows the mDAU figure is false.


Judge: You mean the figure they said in SEC filings for 10 years might be wrong is wrong? Do you have any actual evidence (not a "strong feeling") that it's not only MASSIVELY wrong but also fraudulently and willfully wrong, not just "their metrics are poor"?

No?

Then why are you wasting my time with this? Motion for specific performance granted- you must buy at full price as you agreed.
 
Judge: You mean the figure they said in SEC filings for 10 years might be wrong is wrong? Do you have any actual evidence (not a "strong feeling") that it's not only MASSIVELY wrong but also fraudulently and willfully wrong, not just "their metrics are poor"?

No?

Then why are you wasting my time with this? Motion for specific performance granted- you must buy at full price as you agreed.
Your Honor as I just stated, with additional emphasis "the data we have recieved from Twitter shows the mDAU figure is false." If Twitter wishes to rest their case on facts not in evidence, we trust you will give them proper concideration.
 
Your Honor as I just stated, with additional emphasis "the data we have recieved from Twitter shows the mDAU figure is false."


Except it doesn't.

It gives him the "strong feeling" it's false.

That's not remotely sufficient.


Twitter has no legal obligation to debunk someones "strong feeling"

Especially when as established unless it's not just wrong, but MASSIVELY wrong--- and fraudulently and intentionally so then just "being wrong" isn't even relevant.
 
Judge: You mean the figure they said in SEC filings for 10 years might be wrong is wrong? Do you have any actual evidence (not a "strong feeling") that it's not only MASSIVELY wrong but also fraudulently and willfully wrong, not just "their metrics are poor"?
They might have found something. Why would they be so confident in terminating the deal?
 
They might have found something. Why would they be so confident in terminating the deal?


Because Elon doesn't want to pay $54.20 for twitter.

Which I can't blame him for-- but the time to have asked questions to find that out was before you signed a contract to do so.

If they'd "found something" of substance it would be in the SEC letter- to discourage twitter filing a suit at all.

Instead we have Elons "strong feelings" in there.
 
Except it doesn't.

It gives him the "strong feeling" it's false.

That's not remotely sufficient.


Twitter has no legal obligation to debunk someones "strong feeling"

Especially when as established unless it's not just wrong, but MASSIVELY wrong--- and fraudulently and intentionally so then just "being wrong" isn't even relevant.
I shall repeat my statement: "I would not presume to claim it as false in your court, but that is what the facts, as provided, indicate."

To make a claim of fact based on known incomplete data is to open one's self up to accusations of libel, thus one would say "feel" (one's opinion) vs "is" (statement of fact).
 
I shall repeat my statement: "I would not presume to claim it as false in your court, but that is what the facts, as provided, indicate."


I shall repeat mine, more clearly :)

If you're not claiming it's false then there's no case and you are wasting the courts time- the court is not here for fishing expeditions. Summary judgement for twitter, pay them $54.20 a share and GTFO.
 
Because Elon doesn't want to pay $54.20 for twitter.

Which I can't blame him for-- but the time to have asked questions to find that out was before you signed a contract to do so.

If they'd "found something" of substance it would be in the SEC letter- to discourage twitter filing a suit at all.

Instead we have Elons "strong feelings" in there.
Is not wanting to pay an amount reason for confidence?

Twitter promised less than 5 percent of mDAU would be bots, right?

That's what the buyer and seller agreed upon.
If the seller doesn't deliver adequate data/information to prove <5% bots, wouldn't that be a reason to cancel the deal?
 
I shall repeat mine, more clearly :)

If you're not claiming it's false then there's no case and you are wasting the courts time- the court is not here for fishing expeditions. Summary judgement for twitter, pay them $54.20 a share and GTFO.
Stating Twitter lied in the court of public opinion is not equivilent to presenting data to a judge indicating Twitter's SEC filings are materially false.

Recall, Twitter is forcing the issue by suing. Elon has no motivation outside that to further prove Twitter incorrect.
By suing, it forces the question of Elon's grounds for termination. If the data Twitter provided Elon, subsequently used by Elon in court, indicates >>5%, Elon's cancellation is justified. Twitter would need to support their =<5% position with data to the court, which is the data Elon has been requesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.