4 ms·

What makes you say this? Ie that they have been misrepresenting the number.

yucky 4y ago
Daily Active Users are reported in every earnings call, since that is one of the foundational metrics used to determine value of the platform, and the officers (at least, probably the Board as well) have known the bots were a much bigger chunk of that total than they have been letting on. They didn't "come clean" until Musk moved forward on his offer. I think that may open them up to legal liability from the shareholders. From the outside at least, it looks like fraud.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  What does "come clean" mean? They are standing behind their existing filings. There is no evidence that they are wrong other than Elon claiming he can't verify it.
  - yucky 4y ago
    >They are standing behind their existing filings. My understanding is they have historically said bots are around 5% of users on their earnings calls, are you saying that they are still sticking by that number? I don't think anybody believes that number including Twitter, hence the potential liability. I'm not a lawyer or a Twitter shareholder though so it's not something I care enough about to debate I suppose.
    - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
      Yes, they are sticking to that number. Less than 5% of the reported users. Reported by them. There is no evidence they don't believe it. Why would they not believe it? If they genuinely thought the number was higher, they'd just report a lower number of active users. They might have been just straight up lying. But it's not a given, and not even especially likely.
      - yucky 4y ago
        >Less than 5% of the reported users. Reported by them. I don't know what this means. They report on DAU in their earnings calls, and apparently those numbers were far from accurate once Musk and his people peeked under the hood. If that's the case, they may have legal liability for fraud.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        It means the following: There might be 1 trillion twitter accounts. 10 billion of them might tweet on any given day. Twitter might decide 300 million of them are real and report that number. 9.7 bill accounts, or 97% of them might be spam. Twitter's number of 5% is based off their reported number. So 15 mill of the 300 mill aren't real. As long at 285m are real (2.85% of total tweeting accounts), they are reporting it correctly.
        yucky 4y ago
        That's not the argument being made though. Their argument is that Twitter has refused to hand over more than a cherrypicked data sample rather than a full data set. The argument is the full data set shows they've been defrauding shareholders by lying about the extent of the bot problem, and Twitter refusing to let the new owner see the actual DAU data is more proof of fraud. So if it goes to court Twitter could likely be compelled to open the hood, and if they are in fact hiding something then they'll opt to settle with Musk rather than prove the fraud. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's important to be upfront about what the accusation actually is.
        danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        Did you read the letter sent? That argument is one of several arguments.
        4y ago

Daily Active Users are reported in every earnings call, since that is one of the foundational metrics used to determine value of the platform, and the officers (at least, probably the Board as well) have known the bots were a much bigger chunk of that total than they have been letting on. They didn't "come clean" until Musk moved forward on his offer. I think that may open them up to legal liability from the shareholders. From the outside at least, it looks like fraud.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago
What does "come clean" mean? They are standing behind their existing filings. There is no evidence that they are wrong other than Elon claiming he can't verify it.
- yucky 4y ago
  >They are standing behind their existing filings. My understanding is they have historically said bots are around 5% of users on their earnings calls, are you saying that they are still sticking by that number? I don't think anybody believes that number including Twitter, hence the potential liability. I'm not a lawyer or a Twitter shareholder though so it's not something I care enough about to debate I suppose.
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    Yes, they are sticking to that number. Less than 5% of the reported users. Reported by them. There is no evidence they don't believe it. Why would they not believe it? If they genuinely thought the number was higher, they'd just report a lower number of active users. They might have been just straight up lying. But it's not a given, and not even especially likely.
    - yucky 4y ago
      >Less than 5% of the reported users. Reported by them. I don't know what this means. They report on DAU in their earnings calls, and apparently those numbers were far from accurate once Musk and his people peeked under the hood. If that's the case, they may have legal liability for fraud.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        It means the following: There might be 1 trillion twitter accounts. 10 billion of them might tweet on any given day. Twitter might decide 300 million of them are real and report that number. 9.7 bill accounts, or 97% of them might be spam. Twitter's number of 5% is based off their reported number. So 15 mill of the 300 mill aren't real. As long at 285m are real (2.85% of total tweeting accounts), they are reporting it correctly.
        yucky 4y ago
        That's not the argument being made though. Their argument is that Twitter has refused to hand over more than a cherrypicked data sample rather than a full data set. The argument is the full data set shows they've been defrauding shareholders by lying about the extent of the bot problem, and Twitter refusing to let the new owner see the actual DAU data is more proof of fraud. So if it goes to court Twitter could likely be compelled to open the hood, and if they are in fact hiding something then they'll opt to settle with Musk rather than prove the fraud. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it's important to be upfront about what the accusation actually is.
        danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        Did you read the letter sent? That argument is one of several arguments.
        4y ago