4 ms·

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

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.
        yucky 4y ago
        YEs, the argument that Twitter is knowingly withholding information that would prove Mush right about them defrauding shareholders in regards to actual DAU's. There is no other reason they wouldn't be forthcoming with the full data set to the guy buying it. It's not a stretch to think they're hiding something for a reason.
        danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        They might well be. However, Musk claiming something means very little at this point, and the onus is going to be on him to prove several things here given the fairly water tight nature of the contract.

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.
        yucky 4y ago
        YEs, the argument that Twitter is knowingly withholding information that would prove Mush right about them defrauding shareholders in regards to actual DAU's. There is no other reason they wouldn't be forthcoming with the full data set to the guy buying it. It's not a stretch to think they're hiding something for a reason.
        danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        They might well be. However, Musk claiming something means very little at this point, and the onus is going to be on him to prove several things here given the fairly water tight nature of the contract.