Article

2022-05-13 Science & Technology

Elon Musk Says Twitter Deal Is ‘Temporarily on Hold' on recalculating how many bots/fake accounts there are

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DarthVader 2022-05-13 10:11|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 It almost looks like a fake that exposed:
(1) the way they tamped down conservative numbers and elevated liberal ones (2) the vast number of bots that made most of the platform a joke (3) that the company was run by pro-censorship lefties.

If it was a fake all along, well done.

Posted by ruprecht 2022-05-13 10:19|| 2022-05-13 10:19|| Front Page Top

#2

Could this review result in proof that Twitter staff manipulated commentary, Free Speech and violated customer civil rights on a massive scale, in order to push a deviant and politically subversive agenda?

Posted by NN2N1 2022-05-13 10:43|| 2022-05-13 10:43|| Front Page Top

#3 Tim Pool breaks it down

Posted by DarthVader 2022-05-13 11:35|| 2022-05-13 11:35|| Front Page Top

#4 This might be a masterpiece of business manipulation. Expose Twitter for the sham, propaganda network it was, force out the Marxists at the leadership levels, expose the financial boodoggle it always was, and then pull out of the deal. Brilliant and far cheaper than actually buying a now decimated organ of leftist influence.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2022-05-13 11:37|| 2022-05-13 11:37|| Front Page Top

#5 It would be proof of stock price manipulation and contract negotiations in bad faith.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 11:57|| 2022-05-13 11:57|| Front Page Top

#6 Sounds like BS from Musk. Everyone knows that Twitter from Day One has been bot-central. Most of the early estimates were that 25% of Twitter traffic was bots. It must be significantly higher today.

Musk is likely trying to weasel out of the deal. Probably worried about the value of his Tesla shares.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 12:05|| 2022-05-13 12:05|| Front Page Top

#7 Sure, anon, sure.

Posted by Rob Crawford 2022-05-13 12:12|| 2022-05-13 12:12|| Front Page Top

#8 I don'r know Ab. Musk didn't make make those billions worrying about climate change. I employ no one. He employs what, tens of thousands ?

I'll have to give him credit for putting beans on the tables.

Posted by Besoeker 2022-05-13 12:14|| 2022-05-13 12:14|| Front Page Top

#9 Everyone knows that Twitter from Day One has been bot-central.

Likely, the price depends on the number of actual users. That takes it from a vague "everyone knows" to a factual matter for the SEC or whoever is riding herd on this.

Posted by SteveS 2022-05-13 12:24|| 2022-05-13 12:24|| Front Page Top

#10 Musk has said before this that he would end the bots. Exposing the fraud Twitter did and force the SEC's hand to investigate them like Enron will accomplish that for a cool billion if he doesn't buy it.

Either way, Twitter is done.

Posted by DarthVader 2022-05-13 12:26|| 2022-05-13 12:26|| Front Page Top

#11 The purchase price was connected to the value of the stock, and padding the value of a stock in a publicly traded company is a big no-no.

For fun, if the FEC wants to call it a monopoly, and some 25%+ of traffic is fraudulent, which is a crime in this sense, then there would need to be a full investigation and disclosure of said public company as to who and how many were involved in said financial fraud.

Furthermore, advertisers may be a bit upset that they were billed for 25% or more traffic than they actually received.

Purchase price gets halved, the poison pills get exposed or even charged, and the FEC has to back off or start rolling heads. Could even start throwing hatchets for Brand Libel. Looks like Musk went Super Saiyan.

If I went to buy a building, and it said in the contract the seller stated the electrical system had been replaced 5 years ago up to code, and my team goes in and finds not only is that not the case, but some still has that horsehair insulation creating a clear and present fire danger, I'd have their balls and a mount and my lawyers throwing darts for the rest of the negotiations.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 12:30|| 2022-05-13 12:30|| Front Page Top

#12 *SEC

"Stream of Consciousness"

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 12:31|| 2022-05-13 12:31|| Front Page Top

#13 Programmatic advertisers and their trading desk partners have long known that social media sites like Yelp, Twitter, YouTube etc are full of bots. Comes with the territory. In any case they have a long standing remedy -- they negotiate clawbacks all the time.

Musk is either being naive (very unlikely) or raising a known, obvious, easily-remedied issue as a smokescreen to torch the deal.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 12:44|| 2022-05-13 12:44|| Front Page Top

#14 Pick up Twitter on the cheap, let the government fire the poison pills, and have detractors by the balls?

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 12:54|| 2022-05-13 12:54|| Front Page Top

#15 the price depends on the number of actual users
That's true of pre-revenue startups. Not true for mature publicly traded giant companies, whose investors apply standard financial valuation multiples

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 12:58|| 2022-05-13 12:58|| Front Page Top

#16 Musk wants subscriptions, say $1/mo to drive profitability. Users would, I think, then have the option of blocking any non subscription comment from their feed.

Unless the bots can steal credit cards, they are not going to be subscribers. That is one important reason why it is vital to find out how many bots are on twitter.

Posted by Lord Garth 2022-05-13 13:10|| 2022-05-13 13:10|| Front Page Top

#17 To be clear the user base is one input into the revenue forecast, which is one input into the DCF calculation. Musk is advised by Goldman Sachs. They publish a report in February that valued Twitter at $30 a share. Musk has of course seen Goldman's pro formas and knows in great detail how many real, daily active users there are. He's blowing smoke as he so often does.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 13:11|| 2022-05-13 13:11|| Front Page Top

#18 twitter had an account verification system b 2009 but it was flawed and they did a re boot of this in 2021 with additional measures

they did not, as near as I can determine, announce the results of this reboot but nevertheless, still say that there are 200M+ real live tweeters

Posted by Lord Garth 2022-05-13 13:21|| 2022-05-13 13:21|| Front Page Top

#19 Twitter addressed the issue to their advertisers' and their investors' satisfaction three years ago. They've been reporting "Monetizable" DAUs [daily active users] to Wall Street every quarter since Q1 2019.

This is an 11th-hour bullshit issue, Musk's stunt, that no one in finance or advertising takes seriously.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 13:23|| 2022-05-13 13:23|| Front Page Top

#20 He's obviously trying to renegotiate the price. NASDAQ's in free fall. His own bankers said in February that a realistic price was $30 a share. $54 a share is a bad joke. Musk is trying to avoid overpaying by 2x.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 13:46|| 2022-05-13 13:46|| Front Page Top

#21 Pretty sure I'd want an 11th hour potential escape clause based on my own audit rather than an internal investigation in an industry, as you point out, riddled with fraud. Especially one which carries a lot of water and has got the wink wink nod over the last three years especially.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 13:47|| 2022-05-13 13:47|| Front Page Top

#22 This is an 11th-hour bullshit issue, Musk's stunt, that no one in finance or advertising takes seriously.

Musk is trying to avoid overpaying by 2x.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 13:48|| 2022-05-13 13:48|| Front Page Top

#23 Dude.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 13:49|| 2022-05-13 13:49|| Front Page Top

#24 I should say he's trying but failing: he's negotiating in bad faith. He didn't raise the issue -- which is not a real issue to begin with since the company flattened it years ago -- when he made his bid; in fact he waived due diligence.

He's clumsily welshing on the deal because his investors are upset that he's taking his eye off the ball at his real company, whose shares are tanking now.

Dude.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 14:24|| 2022-05-13 14:24|| Front Page Top

#25 "Dude" - I know you have the guy, but he's making a complete ass of himself. The company did not demand $54 a share; he offered $54.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 14:26|| 2022-05-13 14:26|| Front Page Top

#26 *love the ~~guy~~ dude

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 14:30|| 2022-05-13 14:30|| Front Page Top

#27 I don't have the guy. I don't love the guy. Not even sure I have anything more than respect for a successful businessman in a strong anti-business, especially independent business environment.

Just pointing out in your discussion, as the left like to put it, about what others should think, you keep eating your pickle.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 15:02|| 2022-05-13 15:02|| Front Page Top

#28 He stupidly refuses due diligence.
He unwisely ignored his own bankers.
He recklessly made an absurdly inflated offer in a market that's falling like a knife -- an offer that required him to sell Tesla shares, alarming his institutional investors.

Now he's putting forth a transparently ridiculous story about a bogus, non-issue. And once again landing himself in hot water with the SEC.

I don't have anything against him and am no fan of the SEC, but he's made a fool of himself. And Twitter will emerge unscathed, free of adult supervision, and remain the cesspool of the internet.

Because Musk completely botched the acquisition. No, I'm not happy about this.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 15:30|| 2022-05-13 15:30|| Front Page Top

#29 We still need killfiles here.

Posted by Rob Crawford 2022-05-13 15:36|| 2022-05-13 15:36|| Front Page Top

#30 This is due diligence.

I don't back anything tax dollar and green, so you don't know me from jack shit.

I'm just saying you these appraisals sound like the MBAs mother used to warn me about.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 15:40|| 2022-05-13 15:40|| Front Page Top

#31 It's standard due diligence to verify the metrics that underpin a valuation. One of the reasons, beyond FTC reviews, that M&As don't close quickly. For online services, which Twatter is, those include things like real user count, revenue per user, engagement numbers, user churn, etc., etc. Having two execs whose purview would include such numbers depart at the same time as Musk throws an exception is suggestive that not all the numbers verified. Now they get to do an audit on the data supporting those numbers. Could bust the deal, but hasn't yet.

Source: Been there, done that, in a prior life.

Posted by Nero 2022-05-13 15:41|| 2022-05-13 15:41|| Front Page Top

#32 It was MUSK who refused due diligence in his amended 13-D filing on April 20!

The filing states: “the Proposal was also subject to the completion of financing and business due diligence, but it is no longer subject to financing as a result of the Reporting Person’s receipt of the financing commitments described below and is no longer subject to business due diligence.”

Musk himself refused to do ordinary research ie due diligence into a $44 billion acquisition!

He's behaved incredibly foolishly. He's let down millions of people who wanted to see the Twitter stables cleaned out. And now he's going to reward those little assholes with a $1billion breakup fee. This really sucks. Musk is to blame for all of this mess.

Posted by Albemarle Ulease2342 2022-05-13 15:58|| 2022-05-13 15:58|| Front Page Top

#33 Let me know if I understand this right.

Clawbacks would be when TVcompany says 200million are going to watch this Olympics advertising slot, yet only 2million show up, which an advertiser could call for a re-appraisal.

Bots would be promising those 200million views, and when only 2million show up, 198million fake viewers are created out of whole cloth to make that viewership 200million. Advertiser pays for the 200million price scheduling, even though there were only 2million actual views.

Posted by swksvolFF 2022-05-13 16:01|| 2022-05-13 16:01|| Front Page Top

#34

My understanding is there was a clause of a $1 Billion penalty if he pulls out of the deal.

BUT!!!
I tend to see a brilliant businessman in Musk.
So I am leaning towards him playing a bigger card game than we see on the table.

Posted by NN2N1 2022-05-13 17:22|| 2022-05-13 17:22|| Front Page Top

22:56 Super Hose
22:17 Airandee
21:54 trailing wife
21:53 Greater the Anonymous5721
21:02 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
20:59 Jefe101
20:54 Bubba Lover of the Faeries8843
20:25 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
20:18 swksvolFF
19:40 Matt
19:31 Frank G
19:25 trailing wife
18:56 Frank G
18:39 Seeking Cure For Ignorance
18:35 swksvolFF
18:21 swksvolFF
17:48 Albemarle Ulease2342
17:36 NN2N1
17:33 Mullah Richard
17:22 NN2N1
17:21 Nero
17:15 Chris
17:11 magpie
17:07 Papa Cooky