5 ms·

"His teams tokens were apparently rate-limited at some point and it took a while for Twitter to give him access to all data, a.k.a. 'the firehose'." Here's the

"His teams tokens were apparently rate-limited at some point and it took a while for Twitter to give him access to all data, a.k.a. 'the firehose'." Here's the thing though: None of that data was required to close the deal. Musk had no diligence rights, he explicitly gave them up, and the contract clearly says so. He doesn't get to do regular diligence through that clause, it's meant to cover the literal things necessary to close the deal (like financing info or whatever). So Twitter didn't have to provide anything here, and certainly not access to the firehose. His response is going to be smacked down pretty hard by a chancellor - it's 100% nonsense.

throwoutway 4y ago
IANAL, but I think it makesMore sense if you separate it into: 1. due diligence as a buyer (contract) to review additional information, ask questions etc 2. using public information to purchase as an investor (he was) for a public company regulated by SEC I think the claim is not that he has the right to #1 (he didn’t) but that #2 was false and has been false. No idea if contract laws let #2 get him off the hook though
- cyanydeez 4y ago
  All that matters, against musk, is that however twitter claimed to count it's users was infact, how they counted. Musk wanted to invent some means to count users in an effort to demonstrate fraud. But that's not fraud. Just because musk provides an alternate means to count users, doesn't demonstrate fraud. Full stop. Unless he proves that they didn't count the way they claim, he has not claim. Waiving he due diligence clause is what makes his claims a non issue.
  - throwoutway 4y ago
    I was not defending Musk, just trying to explain what he might be “thinking”. I see you’re point though. I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud?
    - blitzar 4y ago
      > I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud? They could know the formula was wrong - inherently every measurement is wrong to some extent which is why you see a +/- error, that is not fraud. For it to be fraud, they would need to measure it in the way they claim to, get a result they dont like, and report it as <5% anyway (with intent to defraud people). Which could happen in theory, but seems highly unlikely.

throwoutway 4y ago

IANAL, but I think it makesMore sense if you separate it into: 1. due diligence as a buyer (contract) to review additional information, ask questions etc 2. using public information to purchase as an investor (he was) for a public company regulated by SEC I think the claim is not that he has the right to #1 (he didn’t) but that #2 was false and has been false. No idea if contract laws let #2 get him off the hook though

cyanydeez 4y ago
All that matters, against musk, is that however twitter claimed to count it's users was infact, how they counted. Musk wanted to invent some means to count users in an effort to demonstrate fraud. But that's not fraud. Just because musk provides an alternate means to count users, doesn't demonstrate fraud. Full stop. Unless he proves that they didn't count the way they claim, he has not claim. Waiving he due diligence clause is what makes his claims a non issue.
- throwoutway 4y ago
  I was not defending Musk, just trying to explain what he might be “thinking”. I see you’re point though. I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud?
  - blitzar 4y ago
    > I guess he’d have to prove they used a formula that they knew was wrong for it to be fraud? They could know the formula was wrong - inherently every measurement is wrong to some extent which is why you see a +/- error, that is not fraud. For it to be fraud, they would need to measure it in the way they claim to, get a result they dont like, and report it as <5% anyway (with intent to defraud people). Which could happen in theory, but seems highly unlikely.