3 ms·

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

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".

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".