5 ms·

> They claim that “according to their ongoing reviews and subjective numbers” less than 5% of accounts they qualify as an monetizeable user are “false or spam”.

> They claim that “according to their ongoing reviews and subjective numbers” less than 5% of accounts they qualify as an monetizeable user are “false or spam”. Yes, it's just a short version for the sake of the discussion. Let's just say this number is not 5%. It's 30% when evaluated by an independent third party. Other comments claim that this number can be 90% 80% and it wouldn't matter. Twitter would be relieved of all responsibilities because they said it was "subjective". This is where I disagree. > You’d also have to show that Twitter knew that their process and judgement were flawed to the point of deliberately being deceptive. This is where the discovery comes from. You'd imagine it is impossible, but it's not. It may be still hard, sure, but not impossible. Twitter would be requested to open up all emails/docs for discovery to both sides of lawyers. Twitter has 8000 employees(?). You can bet there will be at least one person pointing out in the email/doc that "hey, our approach of evaluating numbers doesn't look right, and here's why....". Then, that person has been ignored. Twitter would be requested to open up data for discovery for third parties to investigate. Coming up with a number like this will inevitably have multiple valid approaches. An independent third party can easily pick a more conservative approach (because you are supposed to err on the side of less attractive when reporting earnings). Then, pairing this with Twitter execs ignoring that one concern from employee can result in a really bad situation for execs. Apart from that, opening up emails like this would incriminate a lot of other unrelated stuffs like employees know about Russian bots that swayed the election results, employees know about fake news but not doing anything about it.

ncallaway 4y ago
> Other comments claim that this number can be 90% 80% and it wouldn't matter. I don't see any other comments saying the number can be 90% or 80% (other than mine, where I was pointing out the difference between before removal and after removal). Can you cite Which comments specifically are you referring to and whihc part of them you're disagreeing with? I'm just not seeing that. I mean, it's fine for you to disagree with _that_, but it seems like you're disagreeing with a straw-man. > You'd imagine it is impossible, but it's not I wouldn't imagine it would be impossible. I think it's unlikely, but it's always possible that Twitter is perpetrating a deliberate fraud in its SEC filings. My priors on that are pretty small (1-5%?), but sure, of course it's possible. If Twitter is actually perpetrating a deliberate fraud, and Elon is able to get the goods in discovery, then sure he'll likely win the case. That's a really high bar, though, and does not square with your prior argument that if a third-party analysis comes to a 30% bot number, then the SEC will bring charges. That's simply not sufficient to cause the SEC to bring charges. Rather, you would need the additional evidence you think might come out in discovery. My point is this: "The true bot number is 30%" and "The true bot number is 30%, and Twitter knew that and deliberately lied in its SEC filings" are two different statements. One is sufficient to bring a charge, and the other is not. > You can bet there will be at least one person pointing out in the email/doc that "hey, our approach of evaluating numbers doesn't look right, and here's why....". Then, that person has been ignored. Is is possible? Sure, of course. Would I put a bet on that exact scenario happening? Probably not. Seems just as likely that someone sends the email that "our approach doesn't look right, and here's why...", and someone engages and responds with "I disagree, that methodology does X, and we chose to do Y because Z, but let's talk about it". Or, I could also see absolutely nothing internal on this because it's a box-ticking exercise as part of their SEC filings and nobody internal really cares. > Coming up with a number like this will inevitably have multiple valid approaches. The problem is that its not enough to show that someone else has a different valid approach. The need in court (and for the SEC) would be to show that Twitter's approach is not valid. It's really not enough to show that Twitter could have made different choices and got a different outcome. You need to show that Twitter's approach and outcome was unreasonable. Anyway, my fundamental disagreement with your statement is that a "bot rate" of 30% automatically implies fraud and an SEC charge. I don't think it's that simple.

ncallaway 4y ago

> Other comments claim that this number can be 90% 80% and it wouldn't matter. I don't see any other comments saying the number can be 90% or 80% (other than mine, where I was pointing out the difference between before removal and after removal). Can you cite Which comments specifically are you referring to and whihc part of them you're disagreeing with? I'm just not seeing that. I mean, it's fine for you to disagree with _that_, but it seems like you're disagreeing with a straw-man. > You'd imagine it is impossible, but it's not I wouldn't imagine it would be impossible. I think it's unlikely, but it's always possible that Twitter is perpetrating a deliberate fraud in its SEC filings. My priors on that are pretty small (1-5%?), but sure, of course it's possible. If Twitter is actually perpetrating a deliberate fraud, and Elon is able to get the goods in discovery, then sure he'll likely win the case. That's a really high bar, though, and does not square with your prior argument that if a third-party analysis comes to a 30% bot number, then the SEC will bring charges. That's simply not sufficient to cause the SEC to bring charges. Rather, you would need the additional evidence you think might come out in discovery. My point is this: "The true bot number is 30%" and "The true bot number is 30%, and Twitter knew that and deliberately lied in its SEC filings" are two different statements. One is sufficient to bring a charge, and the other is not. > You can bet there will be at least one person pointing out in the email/doc that "hey, our approach of evaluating numbers doesn't look right, and here's why....". Then, that person has been ignored. Is is possible? Sure, of course. Would I put a bet on that exact scenario happening? Probably not. Seems just as likely that someone sends the email that "our approach doesn't look right, and here's why...", and someone engages and responds with "I disagree, that methodology does X, and we chose to do Y because Z, but let's talk about it". Or, I could also see absolutely nothing internal on this because it's a box-ticking exercise as part of their SEC filings and nobody internal really cares. > Coming up with a number like this will inevitably have multiple valid approaches. The problem is that its not enough to show that someone else has a different valid approach. The need in court (and for the SEC) would be to show that Twitter's approach is not valid. It's really not enough to show that Twitter could have made different choices and got a different outcome. You need to show that Twitter's approach and outcome was unreasonable. Anyway, my fundamental disagreement with your statement is that a "bot rate" of 30% automatically implies fraud and an SEC charge. I don't think it's that simple.