4 ms·

Of course it makes sense. “Material” is a financial term that is used all the time. It’s not a surprising term at all and fits here. Twitter doesn’t have to be

Of course it makes sense. “Material” is a financial term that is used all the time. It’s not a surprising term at all and fits here. Twitter doesn’t have to be caught in a lie. They can just be caught with having a materially different numbers of fake accounts from their stated numbers. If 25% of the amount you paid to Twitter for ads went to bots and fake accounts, you don’t think that you deserve a refund? You don’t think advertisers would take advantage of that to get refunds? You don’t think the SEC would be interested in this? The whole point is Musk’s team is going to dig up stuff that Twitter won’t want to fix because the cost to find and track it will overweigh the amount of money they make probably. But it will have ramifications in terms of things like refunds and customers leaving the platform entirely. It will make them look really bad. It’s inevitable.

iudqnolq 4y ago
> “Material” is a financial term that is used all the time. It’s not a surprising term at all and fits here. Yes, but it's only well-defined with regard to specific circumstances. It makes no sense to say something material to this deal will inherently be material to completely different circumstances like the contracts signed with advertisers or users.
- remflight 4y ago
  You’re not making any sense. If you’re an advertiser and you’ve been paying for ads, but 25% of the engagement was fake, you won’t ask for a refund? If you’re a new advertiser and you find a platform where 25 % of the engagement is bots, will you want to pay full price?
  - mikeyouse 4y ago
    No because that’s not how advertisers price ads. They measure an ROI on their spends and if it’s greater than 1, they’ll buy another set of ads. If the ROI is >1 with 25% bots on current Twitter, they should be worth much more to Musk Twitter because their current ads will outperform when musk enacts his magic bot preventers.

iudqnolq 4y ago

> “Material” is a financial term that is used all the time. It’s not a surprising term at all and fits here. Yes, but it's only well-defined with regard to specific circumstances. It makes no sense to say something material to this deal will inherently be material to completely different circumstances like the contracts signed with advertisers or users.

remflight 4y ago
You’re not making any sense. If you’re an advertiser and you’ve been paying for ads, but 25% of the engagement was fake, you won’t ask for a refund? If you’re a new advertiser and you find a platform where 25 % of the engagement is bots, will you want to pay full price?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  No because that’s not how advertisers price ads. They measure an ROI on their spends and if it’s greater than 1, they’ll buy another set of ads. If the ROI is >1 with 25% bots on current Twitter, they should be worth much more to Musk Twitter because their current ads will outperform when musk enacts his magic bot preventers.