17 ms·
Not only that, his biggest argument for buying Twitter was literally that there were too many bots and that he would solve it. Now that he's waived due-diligenc
by phailhaus 4y ago
Not only that, his biggest argument for buying Twitter was literally that there were too many bots and that he would solve it. Now that he's waived due-diligence and the market is tanking, he's "concerned" about the number of bots? It's such transparent BS that it's embarrassing.
- bitshiftfaced 4y agoI don't have a horse in this race, but I don't follow your reasoning. If you thought there was a large bot problem, part of the appeal would be that there's an opportunity to fix that problem. That would increase the value of the company after you've fixed the problem. Assuming that's the case, then finding out there's not a big bot problem would mean there's not as much of an opportunity.
- mikkergp 4y agoIf that's the case, then there is missing information that you should have done due diligence for?
- wollsmoth 4y agoyeah, maybe he could have spent a little time looking into this stuff before committing. Oh well, I'm sure his lawyers are happy to take the billable hours!
- bitshiftfaced 4y agoEh, should've done my homework before commenting. Looks like Twitter has been saying 5% since well before Musk made the deal.
- moralestapia 4y agoIt comes down to not being able to state that he was unaware of a bot problem (as an argument for walking out of the deal) if he has very publicly said that he's doing this because of and to fix the bot problem.
- phailhaus 4y ago> Assuming that's the case, then finding out there's not a big bot problem would mean there's not as much of an opportunity. But that's not what he's saying, he's saying "the bot problem is way worse than you're saying, therefore the $54.20 price is too high."