Elon & Twitter

[ohmman]

Interesting little tidbit:

May 2 (Reuters) - Twitter Inc. estimated in a filing on Monday that false or spam accounts represented fewer than 5% of its monetizable daily active users during the first quarter.

That doesn't necessarily mean fewer than 5% of all users, though. I understand the limits of daily/active but not exactly sure how accounts are qualified as monetizable.

I'm also curious what the SEC will think of a tweet that looks like Elon is testing the waters, watching premarket action, then shoring up that test with a "still committed." To be clear, I'm not saying that was the intent, but I can see a regulatory body looking at it that way.

 

[Knightshade]

I mean, I get the theory that gets them there.... ELON FIXED ROCKETS! ELON FIXED EVS! NOW ELON WILL FIX SOCIAL MEDIA!

Yes, he did 'fix' those- but those are engineering problems based on physical sciences.

Social media is a human nature/behavior/psychology problem. You can't fix it with clever first principles mechanical or computer engineering. And it's a problem that has been around far longer than social media has.

Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question

That's George Home. Writing in 1786

Social Media is exactly that, writ large.

 

[advocate8]

Interesting little tidbit:



That doesn't necessarily mean fewer than 5% of all users, though. I understand the limits of daily/active but not exactly sure how accounts are qualified as monetizable.

I'm also curious what the SEC will think of a tweet that looks like Elon is testing the waters, watching premarket action, then shoring up that test with a "still committed." To be clear, I'm not saying that was the intent, but I can see a regulatory body looking at it that way.

When a company in the delicate part of a massive deal uses a complex string of words like that to describe what should be simply “users” ….they’re def up to something and each word has to be parsed carefully. Monetizable in this case is the pressure point.
It’s like when a politician dangles a compelling single human example in front of you to illustrate some ostensibly widespread phenomena.
The hair should stand up on the back of your neck, and your first question to yourself should be ok, where’s the lie?

 

[Knightshade]

Just to devils advocate a bit.... the language about how many users might be bots?

It's been in Twitters public disclosures for almost a decade.

“We currently estimate that false or spam accounts represent less than 5% of our [monthly active users].”

They repeat a similar claim in all their regular filings and have since that original 2013 one.


Which supports the notion Elon is using this as an excuse (for either leverage for a better price, or getting out of the deal) because this is not new info.

 

[bkp_duke]

Just to devils advocate a bit.... the language about how many users might be bots?

It's been in Twitters public disclosures for almost a decade.



They repeat a similar claim in all their regular filings and have since that original 2013 one.


Which supports the notion Elon is using this as an excuse (for either leverage for a better price, or getting out of the deal) because this is not new info.

It also supports the notion that they haven't actually done much to check how many users are bots.

I've done a few company purchases, and some of those were based upon numbers of users. The is just proper due-diligence to know how many are flesh and blood people vs. computer-generated bots. I've broken contracts before when the customer base wasn't what it was described to be.

 

[TSLA Siempre]

It’s not.
Twitter has not been profitable, it wont be and then there's the fallout for Tesla.
Huge, huge cost with really no pluses.

But…. The fanboys will insist “He’s playing thee dimensional chess!” And come up with some wild theory to explain how this is all rational, and, actually, genius.

I've seen a lot of defenses of Elon's latest moves as this is appropriate due diligence. It is an obvious crock. This was a topic that he spoke about repeatedly during the course of his TWTR pursuit. That he is using it as justification for his 'temporary hold' is disappointing. he had cultivated a reputation for being direct and forthright over many years. This taints that image along with a lot of his recent commentary and behavior.

 

[EVNow]

But still committed to acquisition !

I think it is just a play to reduce price. That $44B tag for Twitter is too high, anyway.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1525080945274998785

 

[EVNow]

Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject. And as people in general, for one reason or another, like short objections better than long answers, in this mode of disputation (if it can be styled such) the odds must ever be against us; and we must be content with those for our friends who have honesty and erudition, candor and patience, to study both sides of the question

That explains every "discussion" I've gotten into on internets over the last 2 decades perfectly.

 

[EVNow]

It also supports the notion that they haven't actually done much to check how many users are bots.

I've done a few company purchases, and some of those were based upon numbers of users. The is just proper due-diligence to know how many are flesh and blood people vs. computer-generated bots. I've broken contracts before when the customer base wasn't what it was described to be.

While this is all true - with Twitter there is an interesting twist.

Everyone knows about bots on Twitter. Infact one of the things Elon talks about is how he will eliminate bots.

Now - Twitter says it has been eliminating bots they can find. So, whatever bots they have not eliminated are those they can't find. So, I think whatever % they come up with are just bots identified with lower certainty that Twitter doesn't want to eliminate (to avoid false positives).

So, what exactly is Elon cribbing about ?

 

[DarkandStormy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517215066550116354

If he was going to defeat the spam bots or die trying, why does their existence even matter in context of the acquisition?

This seems dumb.

 

[goin2drt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517215066550116354

If he was going to defeat the spam bots or die trying, why does their existence even matter in context of the acquisition?

This seems dumb.

Good lord people you are all so sideways that he is buying Twitter you can't see through the forest.

Why does it matter? BECAUSE HE IS A BUSINESSMAN. He is buying a business and a big part of that is based on users and potential advertising revenue. If he is buying something that supposedly has X users but they really only have X-Y then the value of the company is a whole hell of a lot less.

 

[DarkandStormy]

Good lord people you are all so sideways that he is buying Twitter you can't see through the forest.

Why does it matter? BECAUSE HE IS A BUSINESSMAN. He is buying a business and a big part of that is based on users and potential advertising revenue. If he is buying something that supposedly has X users but they really only have X-Y then the value of the company is a whole hell of a lot less.

Elon Musk says Twitter offer not a way to ‘make money’

Elon Musk said his offer to buy Twitter is not a way to “make money,” but rather part of an effort to try to change the platform to be an “inclusive arena for free speech.” “I think it’…

thehill.com

Thought he wasn't doing it to make money, but to preserve free speech? Odd.

 

[ohmman]

Good lord people you are all so sideways that he is buying Twitter you can't see through the forest.

Why does it matter? BECAUSE HE IS A BUSINESSMAN. He is buying a business and a big part of that is based on users and potential advertising revenue. If he is buying something that supposedly has X users but they really only have X-Y then the value of the company is a whole hell of a lot less.

But they are saying they have MORE real users than he assumed. So it seems like that’s the opposite of what you’re suggesting.

 

[azred]

Those of us with FSD Beta — and those trying for six months to get Beta — are used to this stuff. He will say one thing today, another tomorrow and then get distracted by other priorities. As for the projected purchase timeline of later this year, those unfamiliar with Musk Time are about to get an education. Grab your popcorn and a beer!

 

[EVNow]

If he is buying something that supposedly has X users but they really only have X-Y then the value of the company is a whole hell of a lot less.

But they are saying they have MORE real users than he assumed. So it seems like that’s the opposite of what you’re suggesting.

But Elon explicitly talks about bots. And we know Twitter tries to eliminate bots - its not like they know 100M bots exist, but they are happy to just let them be.

The reason Twitter can't eliminate a lot of bots is because they can't make out which are real and which are bots with high enough accuracy - and they don't want to remove real accounts because of false positives.

Elon was supposed to "fix" this issue by using AI that was better at predicting which accounts are bots.

Anyway - that is my take.

 

[goin2drt]

But they are saying they have MORE real users than he assumed. So it seems like that’s the opposite of what you’re suggesting.

ok then it is worth more. My point is it is on pause because a data point that is significant to drive the value is off and not off by a little. It is the same with any company you are going to buy. You do your due diligence and then analyze the data that you were given with that of which you find during your due diligence. When numbers don't jive you PAUSE.

 

[goin2drt]

Elon Musk says Twitter offer not a way to ‘make money’

Elon Musk said his offer to buy Twitter is not a way to “make money,” but rather part of an effort to try to change the platform to be an “inclusive arena for free speech.” “I think it’…

thehill.com

Thought he wasn't doing it to make money, but to preserve free speech? Odd.

You guys have lost your ever living minds. Yeah ok the dude is going to spend $44M and not turn that into something more. Yeah you are right he is a flipping charity. Not sure what world you guys live in but it isn't even in the same solar system as me I guess.

 

[heltok]

Musk Holds All The Cards: We See a Significant Risk That The Twitter Deal Gets Repriced Lower – Hindenburg Research

hindenburgresearch.com

Hindenburg(who exposed Nikola etc) are short Twitter, thinking the deal will not come through or come through at a lower price.

 

[DarkandStormy]

You guys have lost your ever living minds. Yeah ok the dude is going to spend $44M and not turn that into something more. Yeah you are right he is a flipping charity. Not sure what world you guys live in but it isn't even in the same solar system as me I guess.

It's ok to admit Elon makes contradictory statements lol

 

[CyberGus]

I think Elon will just plug Optimus into the Twitter admin console, who will send fleets of robotaxis to the spammer's houses to honk all night