3 ms·

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 th

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?
  - JamesSwift 4y ago
    The section you mention is immediately preceded with their (personal) opinion on why this was satisfactory: > This information is derivative of the information Mr. Musk first sought in Sections 1.01-1.03 of the May 19 diligence request list. Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. In other words, they sent the monthly rollup and he wants the daily breakdown. They further argue all throughout that they feel that the data requested would not even service the stated purpose, and they want to exercise their discretion to withhold in certain ways. In addition to them explicitly saying "we still believe hes acting in an adversarial role so we are trying to close the deal but are still aware he might end up trying to start a competing product instead". Obviously theres two sides to it, but when you sit down and read the public statements Twitter makes an _extremely_ convincing argument up-to-and-including screenshotting Musks own public tweets about the whole affair. In comparison, Musks SEC statements I would classify as "throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks" with very little explicit justification on why legally he is correct. The entire evidence presented by him is > Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%. i.e. we arent at all going to outline anything higher than 5%, just that its "wildly" higher and we are basing this on Musks "strong belief based on preliminary analysis".

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?
- JamesSwift 4y ago
  The section you mention is immediately preceded with their (personal) opinion on why this was satisfactory: > This information is derivative of the information Mr. Musk first sought in Sections 1.01-1.03 of the May 19 diligence request list. Although Twitter has provided certain summary data regarding the mDAU calculations, Twitter has not provided the complete daily measures as requested. In other words, they sent the monthly rollup and he wants the daily breakdown. They further argue all throughout that they feel that the data requested would not even service the stated purpose, and they want to exercise their discretion to withhold in certain ways. In addition to them explicitly saying "we still believe hes acting in an adversarial role so we are trying to close the deal but are still aware he might end up trying to start a competing product instead". Obviously theres two sides to it, but when you sit down and read the public statements Twitter makes an _extremely_ convincing argument up-to-and-including screenshotting Musks own public tweets about the whole affair. In comparison, Musks SEC statements I would classify as "throwing shit against a wall and seeing what sticks" with very little explicit justification on why legally he is correct. The entire evidence presented by him is > Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%. i.e. we arent at all going to outline anything higher than 5%, just that its "wildly" higher and we are basing this on Musks "strong belief based on preliminary analysis".