3 ms·

They both are frauds. Twitter has been fudging for years. Elon being disingenuous about the entire deal. Twitter is arguing in their case “even though we had

They both are frauds. Twitter has been fudging for years. Elon being disingenuous about the entire deal. Twitter is arguing in their case “even though we had no reason to, we were still providing your team with everything and all data” while at the same time definitely not doing that. They flat out admit to refusing to share how the sampling was calculated for their mDAU number for the past 5 years. They say “it’s a super secret sauce to our success and Elon said he would start his own Twitter if this deal doesn’t happen and that is why we won’t share it but can share the entirety of Twitter data instead.” Oof. Chop heads at Twitter and fire the lawyers. Don’t have to be a rocket scientist to read between those lines… Just feel bad for the normal every single day employees. If you’re not jumping ship, you are going down whichever way this lawsuit/deal closes.

anonymousab 4y ago
> while at the same time definitely not doing that. Their filling shows that they absolutely did do that. Every time it was requested of them. >They flat out admit to refusing to share how the sampling was calculated for their mDAU number for the past 5 years. They provided several meetings, invitations to meetings, and outright extended breakdowns of exactly how it all works. Musk, for whatever reason, admitted to not even reading any of the information. That's a smoking gun towards the invalidity of his claims, especially about Twitter's cooperation. They were answering all of his requests this whole time, and just letting him run his mouth and lie unopposed on Twitter about them cooperating. I suspect Bob Swan will have a lot to say about the situation if he gets roped in as a witness, and it does not seem like it will be good for Musk.
- WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
  > Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. (note this is the last sentence of a footnote buried away in their argument)
TigeriusKirk 4y ago
For what it's worth, I'm pretty much of the same opinion after reading their filing. On the surface they're all growly and aggressive, but between the lines they're dancing all around the questions of mdau and bots. Whole lot of misdirection going on. I have no idea how this will turn out, but I believe their numbers are a lot shakier than I did before I read the filing.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  It's a public filing. They said they showed him (them) how it worked in several meetings. They were never going to explain it all in a public filing.
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  Id be interested to know specifically which lines you are reading between because the lines I read were very explicit statements like "we sent the methodology for mDAU calculation" and "in July he admitted that he never read the detailed breakdown on methodology we sent months ago" and "he backed out of meetings where we were supposed to explain this even more to him". So yes, please let me know which lines exactly.
  - WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
    It's okay in life to not be polarized and take sides on things. Both can be shady, both can be great, and both can be mediocre. For your own "between the lines" reading start at 90. Remember this is Twitter legal making their case. Fair to say that is probably a slanted/biased write up of the timeline until we can see a defendant response. This is probably interpreted different by everyone (especially with love/hate Elon blinders on) hence the "between the lines" commentary. However, here is the main funny and a tiny footnote I found hidden away -- which makes sense given this is their case/argument against him, so they probably don't want to draw too much attention to this in the big fun copy: > Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. If they are willing to share anything/everything, seems like this one would be very easy to pass along, no?
threeseed 4y ago
> Twitter has been fudging for years. Evidence for this. Advertisers wouldn't be too pleased obviously.
- undersuit 4y ago
  I wonder how many advertising firms are both making ads for their clients and fielding bots for their clients.

anonymousab 4y ago

> while at the same time definitely not doing that. Their filling shows that they absolutely did do that. Every time it was requested of them. >They flat out admit to refusing to share how the sampling was calculated for their mDAU number for the past 5 years. They provided several meetings, invitations to meetings, and outright extended breakdowns of exactly how it all works. Musk, for whatever reason, admitted to not even reading any of the information. That's a smoking gun towards the invalidity of his claims, especially about Twitter's cooperation. They were answering all of his requests this whole time, and just letting him run his mouth and lie unopposed on Twitter about them cooperating. I suspect Bob Swan will have a lot to say about the situation if he gets roped in as a witness, and it does not seem like it will be good for Musk.

WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
> Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. (note this is the last sentence of a footnote buried away in their argument)

TigeriusKirk 4y ago

For what it's worth, I'm pretty much of the same opinion after reading their filing. On the surface they're all growly and aggressive, but between the lines they're dancing all around the questions of mdau and bots. Whole lot of misdirection going on. I have no idea how this will turn out, but I believe their numbers are a lot shakier than I did before I read the filing.

danielmarkbruce 4y ago
It's a public filing. They said they showed him (them) how it worked in several meetings. They were never going to explain it all in a public filing.
JamesSwift 4y ago
Id be interested to know specifically which lines you are reading between because the lines I read were very explicit statements like "we sent the methodology for mDAU calculation" and "in July he admitted that he never read the detailed breakdown on methodology we sent months ago" and "he backed out of meetings where we were supposed to explain this even more to him". So yes, please let me know which lines exactly.
- WORMS_EAT_WORMS 4y ago
  It's okay in life to not be polarized and take sides on things. Both can be shady, both can be great, and both can be mediocre. For your own "between the lines" reading start at 90. Remember this is Twitter legal making their case. Fair to say that is probably a slanted/biased write up of the timeline until we can see a defendant response. This is probably interpreted different by everyone (especially with love/hate Elon blinders on) hence the "between the lines" commentary. However, here is the main funny and a tiny footnote I found hidden away -- which makes sense given this is their case/argument against him, so they probably don't want to draw too much attention to this in the big fun copy: > Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. If they are willing to share anything/everything, seems like this one would be very easy to pass along, no?

threeseed 4y ago

> Twitter has been fudging for years. Evidence for this. Advertisers wouldn't be too pleased obviously.

undersuit 4y ago
I wonder how many advertising firms are both making ads for their clients and fielding bots for their clients.