7 ms·

"The whistleblower also says Twitter executives don't have the resources to fully understand the true number of bots on the platform, and were not motivated to.

by tyjen 4y ago

"The whistleblower also says Twitter executives don't have the resources to fully understand the true number of bots on the platform, and were not motivated to." I imagine this hurts Twitter's defense against Musk from pulling out of the takeover deal, or, is this whistleblower's account inadmissible?

lapcat 4y ago
Why would it be inadmissible? Mudge could be subpeonaed, just like Jack was just subpeonaed.
- paulgb 4y ago
  Indeed, he just was. https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1562069657582018560 https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1562069657582018560 (That account tweets bloomberg alerts)
  - lapcat 4y ago
    Wow, that was quick!
mrpopo 4y ago
I am willing to take a shot in the dark on this story, and say that this is the whole point. I don't see why this story would get shared and amplified so much otherwise.
zimpenfish 4y ago
> I imagine this hurts Twitter's defense against Musk from pulling out of the takeover deal Not really because they have consistently said "this is what we do, it's a finger in the air estimate based on sampling, it might be right, it might be wildly wrong, there's no agreed methodology for this". For someone to then go "they don't fully understand the true number of bots! GOTCHA!" is dumb because it's literally just pointing out exactly what they've said in their SEC filings since 2013.
- dd36 4y ago
  So many people don’t understand this. It’s not even clear if Musk does.
  - Cederfjard 4y ago
    Of course he does. He's just grasping at straws to get out of the mess he's created for himself.
    - dd36 4y ago
      I don't know. If he did, I feel like he wouldn't have acted so impulsively in his solicitation and outlined that in his contract.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Musk has problems with impulse control. That's why he publicly called a literal hero of dying children a "pedophile". If he didn't have money he would likely not be able to keep friendships functional, because he doesn't know how to interact with other people in a healthy way. I don't understand how you can look at his public behavior and think anything else. The only alternative is that he thought doing shitty things was a rational way to improve his situation, and I personally think that's a worse option
- lapcat 4y ago
  The really damning part of the whistleblower's statements isn't about the bots, it's about Twitter executives misleading the board of directors and stockholders. That's what could aid Musk at trial.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  If the executives did not make a meaningful effort to count them, that is fairly damning, given how much the stock price swings on the count. Nobody said it was easy, but it's certainly harder if you don't try.
lifeinthevoid 4y ago
It's probably not coincidence that that piece is in there ...
- dehrmann 4y ago
  Unless the bot problem regularly gets in users' way, this isn't really what you want to blow the whistle on--hard problems are hard. You bring this up to damage Twitter.
ethnt 4y ago
It truly doesn't matter, given Musk waived due diligence. Unless the number of bots is enormous (think 75% or more) then it won't make a material difference.
HillRat 4y ago
Twitter's always hedged their bot stats with the MDAU caveat (e.g., "we're not estimating all the bots who log into Twitter, just the ones that are meaningful for advertising and revenue purposes"), so while these allegations are not at all helpful, they're not necessarily a serious blow to Twitter's position (Mudge is a hacker, not a contracts attorney, and a lot of the allegations he makes regarding regulatory law aren't necessarily supported by his evidence). However, there's enough here, provided by a highly-credible technical expert, and under consideration by the US Congress, that Musk's litigation team has a strong opportunity to find at least something that holds up as a material misrepresentation, even if relatively minor, and then link it to the broader effect of this document, which could very well rise to the level of a material adverse effect. So, where bots are concerned, bad but not disastrous; for everything else -- well, let's just say that Musk's litigation team are burning incense to the gods this morning, while a whole bunch of Twitter execs are going to be spending the next few weeks getting grilled by their own retained counsel, at an even more exorbitant hourly rate than they were paying before.
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
I read some good commentary on this that I agree with. From a purely legal perspective, this really shouldn't matter much. As has been pointed out many times, Musk explicitly waived due diligence when he signed the contract. Also, it's still laughable to think that Musk's real reason for wanting to get out of the deal is the bot problem (instead of the obvious reason of the market tanking), when Musk himself made the argument that a big benefit of him buying Twitter is that he would be able to clean up the bot problem in the first place. From the court-of-public-opinion, though, I think it does give Musk more leverage for a negotiated settlement to get out of the deal, which is really what he wants. I don't think Musk really thinks he can win in Delaware, but the longer he drags things out and the more pain he causes Twitter the more incentive they have to negotiate cancelling the deal.
nullc 4y ago
Musk needs twitter to have willfully misrepresented and concealed, not merely to have had estimates that they admitted were nothing more than estimates.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mzs 4y ago
This aspect of the story was entirely predictable: >Musk lawyer Alex Spiro said they want to talk to Twitter whistleblower. “We have already issued a subpoena for Mr. Zatko, and we found his exit and that of other key employees curious in light of what we have been finding.” https://twitter.com/donie/status/1562056198425288704 https://twitter.com/donie/status/1562056198425288704

by tyjen 4y ago

lapcat 4y ago

Why would it be inadmissible? Mudge could be subpeonaed, just like Jack was just subpeonaed.

paulgb 4y ago
Indeed, he just was. https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1562069657582018560 https://twitter.com/deitaone/status/1562069657582018560 (That account tweets bloomberg alerts)
- lapcat 4y ago
  Wow, that was quick!

mrpopo 4y ago

I am willing to take a shot in the dark on this story, and say that this is the whole point. I don't see why this story would get shared and amplified so much otherwise.

zimpenfish 4y ago

> I imagine this hurts Twitter's defense against Musk from pulling out of the takeover deal Not really because they have consistently said "this is what we do, it's a finger in the air estimate based on sampling, it might be right, it might be wildly wrong, there's no agreed methodology for this". For someone to then go "they don't fully understand the true number of bots! GOTCHA!" is dumb because it's literally just pointing out exactly what they've said in their SEC filings since 2013.

dd36 4y ago
So many people don’t understand this. It’s not even clear if Musk does.
- Cederfjard 4y ago
  Of course he does. He's just grasping at straws to get out of the mess he's created for himself.
  - dd36 4y ago
    I don't know. If he did, I feel like he wouldn't have acted so impulsively in his solicitation and outlined that in his contract.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Musk has problems with impulse control. That's why he publicly called a literal hero of dying children a "pedophile". If he didn't have money he would likely not be able to keep friendships functional, because he doesn't know how to interact with other people in a healthy way. I don't understand how you can look at his public behavior and think anything else. The only alternative is that he thought doing shitty things was a rational way to improve his situation, and I personally think that's a worse option
lapcat 4y ago
The really damning part of the whistleblower's statements isn't about the bots, it's about Twitter executives misleading the board of directors and stockholders. That's what could aid Musk at trial.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
bpodgursky 4y ago
If the executives did not make a meaningful effort to count them, that is fairly damning, given how much the stock price swings on the count. Nobody said it was easy, but it's certainly harder if you don't try.

lifeinthevoid 4y ago

It's probably not coincidence that that piece is in there ...

dehrmann 4y ago
Unless the bot problem regularly gets in users' way, this isn't really what you want to blow the whistle on--hard problems are hard. You bring this up to damage Twitter.

ethnt 4y ago

It truly doesn't matter, given Musk waived due diligence. Unless the number of bots is enormous (think 75% or more) then it won't make a material difference.

HillRat 4y ago

Twitter's always hedged their bot stats with the MDAU caveat (e.g., "we're not estimating all the bots who log into Twitter, just the ones that are meaningful for advertising and revenue purposes"), so while these allegations are not at all helpful, they're not necessarily a serious blow to Twitter's position (Mudge is a hacker, not a contracts attorney, and a lot of the allegations he makes regarding regulatory law aren't necessarily supported by his evidence). However, there's enough here, provided by a highly-credible technical expert, and under consideration by the US Congress, that Musk's litigation team has a strong opportunity to find at least something that holds up as a material misrepresentation, even if relatively minor, and then link it to the broader effect of this document, which could very well rise to the level of a material adverse effect. So, where bots are concerned, bad but not disastrous; for everything else -- well, let's just say that Musk's litigation team are burning incense to the gods this morning, while a whole bunch of Twitter execs are going to be spending the next few weeks getting grilled by their own retained counsel, at an even more exorbitant hourly rate than they were paying before.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

I read some good commentary on this that I agree with. From a purely legal perspective, this really shouldn't matter much. As has been pointed out many times, Musk explicitly waived due diligence when he signed the contract. Also, it's still laughable to think that Musk's real reason for wanting to get out of the deal is the bot problem (instead of the obvious reason of the market tanking), when Musk himself made the argument that a big benefit of him buying Twitter is that he would be able to clean up the bot problem in the first place. From the court-of-public-opinion, though, I think it does give Musk more leverage for a negotiated settlement to get out of the deal, which is really what he wants. I don't think Musk really thinks he can win in Delaware, but the longer he drags things out and the more pain he causes Twitter the more incentive they have to negotiate cancelling the deal.

nullc 4y ago

Musk needs twitter to have willfully misrepresented and concealed, not merely to have had estimates that they admitted were nothing more than estimates.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mzs 4y ago

This aspect of the story was entirely predictable: >Musk lawyer Alex Spiro said they want to talk to Twitter whistleblower. “We have already issued a subpoena for Mr. Zatko, and we found his exit and that of other key employees curious in light of what we have been finding.” https://twitter.com/donie/status/1562056198425288704 https://twitter.com/donie/status/1562056198425288704