4 ms·

> Musk should just pay the break fee of $1bn, and renegotiate for $42.69 or whatever meme number he fancies. Why pay $42bn total for something when you can get

> Musk should just pay the break fee of $1bn, and renegotiate for $42.69 or whatever meme number he fancies. Why pay $42bn total for something when you can get it for $30bn. I just assumed this is his plan here? He manipulates the market with his shenanigans and trash talking, lowers the price of Twitter by a massive amount, then buys it for a bargain.

fullshark 4y ago
He breaks, says his independent investigation says 5-30% of Twitter is bots. Price tanks even further than natural market would dictate. Buy at a much lower price.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  I'm dying to know how they're defining "bots" for this purpose and whether it's specifically defined in the agreement. I suspect a (perhaps feigned) argument over the scope of the definition will be the deal's undoing.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  There is no way the bot share is so low among active users? When I look at replies to some celeb tweet there are so many obvious bots.
  - swores 4y ago
    And yet you've probably never seen my tweets, because I'm generally not replying to celebs' tweets. Bots (owners) are trying harder than most people to maximise their visibility before getting banned, so it's expected that you would notice a higher proportion than they actually represent. That's not to say I have any reason to think the bot share isn't higher, just I don't think it's possible for any single person to judge anywhere near accurately considering the huge scale of Twitter and that therefore any one of us users is only seeing a tiny, tiny fraction of the accounts/tweets being posted.
  - abnry 4y ago
    Conditional probabilities. Celeb replies is the most likely place you'll find bots.
  - rtkwe 4y ago
    Maybe consider where you're looking is more likely to attract bot replies? It's like an NFT discord you're more likely to see spam for eventual rugs because they're hunting people already proven to be likely to invest in stupid NFTs. Step off celebrity twitter and there's a lot less bot activity because it's less profitable to spam there.

fullshark 4y ago

He breaks, says his independent investigation says 5-30% of Twitter is bots. Price tanks even further than natural market would dictate. Buy at a much lower price.

elliekelly 4y ago
I'm dying to know how they're defining "bots" for this purpose and whether it's specifically defined in the agreement. I suspect a (perhaps feigned) argument over the scope of the definition will be the deal's undoing.
rightbyte 4y ago
There is no way the bot share is so low among active users? When I look at replies to some celeb tweet there are so many obvious bots.
- swores 4y ago
  And yet you've probably never seen my tweets, because I'm generally not replying to celebs' tweets. Bots (owners) are trying harder than most people to maximise their visibility before getting banned, so it's expected that you would notice a higher proportion than they actually represent. That's not to say I have any reason to think the bot share isn't higher, just I don't think it's possible for any single person to judge anywhere near accurately considering the huge scale of Twitter and that therefore any one of us users is only seeing a tiny, tiny fraction of the accounts/tweets being posted.
- abnry 4y ago
  Conditional probabilities. Celeb replies is the most likely place you'll find bots.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  Maybe consider where you're looking is more likely to attract bot replies? It's like an NFT discord you're more likely to see spam for eventual rugs because they're hunting people already proven to be likely to invest in stupid NFTs. Step off celebrity twitter and there's a lot less bot activity because it's less profitable to spam there.