3 ms·

He won't buy Twitter because it has a bot problem. Just kidding, he will buy Twitter and turn it into the everything app and it will be awesome. September 202

He won't buy Twitter because it has a bot problem. Just kidding, he will buy Twitter and turn it into the everything app and it will be awesome. September 2022 vs October 2022 -------- Elon will fire 75% of Twitter October statement. Elon will not fire most of Twitter (November). Look, stupid media was tricked by Rahul Ligma. Elon fires 75% of Twitter (December)

yanderekko 4y ago
>He won't buy Twitter because it has a bot problem. I'm not asking for examples of Musk being wrong about something and correcting himself. I think it's commonly assumed that Musk discovered that this argument would not hold up in court, so he pivoted accordingly. >Elon will not fire most of Twitter (November). Look, stupid media was tricked by Rahul Ligma. This is a better example. Could you link a statement to this effect directly?
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > I'm not asking for examples of Musk being wrong about something and correcting himself. He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract. How many times does he have to change his mind before you accept this fact? The number of times he two-faced flip flopped on the Twitter buyout is insane. I've lost count of examples.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract. Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. Rejecting a purchase where there's a hidden defect is not flip-flopping, the fact that you can't see the obvious weakness of this example is telling. btw, where's the statement that Elon said that he would not be firing most of Twitter? Again, that seems to be a much better example.... if you can provide it. But maybe you can't?
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip You are running away from this point. So I'll go focus on this one thank you. Because you know the Twitter buyout has more waffles and flip flops than you care to defend. BTW, the contract waived Elons right to research Twitter's books. Suddenly, after signing the contract, he flip flopped on that point too.
    - nemothekid 4y ago
      >Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. This does not make Elon look any better. Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. The first intent to buy was incredibly unusual in the first place because he did not ask for any due-diligence. If I tell you I will buy your car, no questions asked, and then show up and start complaining about the headlights, that is flip-flopping. It's why the whole thing went to court. Do you really think normal M&A doesn't include due-diligence? Regardless, the "hidden" issues were a scapegoat. It is far more likely that he wanted to backout because the entire tech sector crashed and 44B was now an insane premium (SNAP, which was worth ~30B at the time is now 15B).
      - yanderekko 4y ago
        >Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. Really? He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? That seems very unlikely to me.
        nemothekid 4y ago
        >He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? Yes. This was a huge deal, I don't know how you missed it. It's also why no one believed he could get out of it. That's why he had to tried sue to cancel the deal instead of just, cancelling the deal? It wasn't even clear that if he managed to prove TWTR had misled investors that could cancel the deal. [1] https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblower-acquisition-due-diligence-security-spam-bots/ https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblow... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-team-suboptimal-twitter-legal-battle-2022-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-...
- flir 4y ago
  Let it go. He's not worth defending. And sealioning's just dull, dull, dull.
throwaway894345 4y ago
I thought the court ordered Musk to buy Twitter? I wasn't paying terribly close attention, so maybe I misunderstood something? Also, what was the November statement where Musk said he wouldn't fire most of Twitter? I missed that one.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > I thought the court ordered Musk to buy Twitter? Because Elon Musk signed an ironclad contract promising to buy Twitter. > Also, what was the November statement where Musk said he wouldn't fire most of Twitter? I missed that one. Look up the Rahul Ligma stuff. He was implying that all the media got it wrong and he wasn't going to fire Twitter employees. To Turns out the media was right. Musk was planning to fire them the whole time and Musk was just doing his usual distraction shenanigans.
  - throwaway894345 4y ago
    > Because Elon Musk signed an ironclad contract promising to buy Twitter. Right, but I hope you can see how "a court prevented him from changing his mind about the acquisition" is different than "he changed his mind again and decided to buy Twitter after all". > Look up the Rahul Ligma stuff. I did a bit of Googling, but I don't see what you're alluding to (there's a lot of coverage of Twitter drama involving Ligma, apparently). :/
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      If I go to a car dealer and sign on the dotted line to buy a car, I've committed to buying the car. It doesn't matter if tomorrow, before I've taken delivery, I decide I hate that car brand and want a different one. You don't get to "change your mind" AFTER you sign the contract!
      - throwaway894345 4y ago
        I've been explicit twice that I'm not arguing about whether or not Musk tried to renege on his contract, but for the third time: I'm questioning the parent's claim about whether he reneged and then changed his mind __again__. That said, if you commit to buying a car, but the car that is delivered to you is not what you ordered, you absolutely are not compelled to take delivery--this is basically what Musk was asserting: that the Twitter that was advertised was not the Twitter that was being delivered. Apparently it was looking like the court wasn't buying that claim, which spurred Musk to move forward with the acquisition.

yanderekko 4y ago

>He won't buy Twitter because it has a bot problem. I'm not asking for examples of Musk being wrong about something and correcting himself. I think it's commonly assumed that Musk discovered that this argument would not hold up in court, so he pivoted accordingly. >Elon will not fire most of Twitter (November). Look, stupid media was tricked by Rahul Ligma. This is a better example. Could you link a statement to this effect directly?

dragontamer 4y ago
> I'm not asking for examples of Musk being wrong about something and correcting himself. He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract. How many times does he have to change his mind before you accept this fact? The number of times he two-faced flip flopped on the Twitter buyout is insane. I've lost count of examples.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract. Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. Rejecting a purchase where there's a hidden defect is not flip-flopping, the fact that you can't see the obvious weakness of this example is telling. btw, where's the statement that Elon said that he would not be firing most of Twitter? Again, that seems to be a much better example.... if you can provide it. But maybe you can't?
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip You are running away from this point. So I'll go focus on this one thank you. Because you know the Twitter buyout has more waffles and flip flops than you care to defend. BTW, the contract waived Elons right to research Twitter's books. Suddenly, after signing the contract, he flip flopped on that point too.
  - nemothekid 4y ago
    >Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. This does not make Elon look any better. Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. The first intent to buy was incredibly unusual in the first place because he did not ask for any due-diligence. If I tell you I will buy your car, no questions asked, and then show up and start complaining about the headlights, that is flip-flopping. It's why the whole thing went to court. Do you really think normal M&A doesn't include due-diligence? Regardless, the "hidden" issues were a scapegoat. It is far more likely that he wanted to backout because the entire tech sector crashed and 44B was now an insane premium (SNAP, which was worth ~30B at the time is now 15B).
    - yanderekko 4y ago
      >Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. Really? He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? That seems very unlikely to me.
      - nemothekid 4y ago
        >He specifically claimed that the offer was truly unconditional, no matter what sort of fraud or criminality might be occurring within Twitter? Yes. This was a huge deal, I don't know how you missed it. It's also why no one believed he could get out of it. That's why he had to tried sue to cancel the deal instead of just, cancelling the deal? It wasn't even clear that if he managed to prove TWTR had misled investors that could cancel the deal. [1] https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblower-acquisition-due-diligence-security-spam-bots/ https://fortune.com/2022/08/23/twitter-elon-musk-whistleblow... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-team-suboptimal-twitter-legal-battle-2022-9 https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-calls-elon-musk-legal-...
flir 4y ago
Let it go. He's not worth defending. And sealioning's just dull, dull, dull.

throwaway894345 4y ago

I thought the court ordered Musk to buy Twitter? I wasn't paying terribly close attention, so maybe I misunderstood something? Also, what was the November statement where Musk said he wouldn't fire most of Twitter? I missed that one.

dragontamer 4y ago
> I thought the court ordered Musk to buy Twitter? Because Elon Musk signed an ironclad contract promising to buy Twitter. > Also, what was the November statement where Musk said he wouldn't fire most of Twitter? I missed that one. Look up the Rahul Ligma stuff. He was implying that all the media got it wrong and he wasn't going to fire Twitter employees. To Turns out the media was right. Musk was planning to fire them the whole time and Musk was just doing his usual distraction shenanigans.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Because Elon Musk signed an ironclad contract promising to buy Twitter. Right, but I hope you can see how "a court prevented him from changing his mind about the acquisition" is different than "he changed his mind again and decided to buy Twitter after all". > Look up the Rahul Ligma stuff. I did a bit of Googling, but I don't see what you're alluding to (there's a lot of coverage of Twitter drama involving Ligma, apparently). :/
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    If I go to a car dealer and sign on the dotted line to buy a car, I've committed to buying the car. It doesn't matter if tomorrow, before I've taken delivery, I decide I hate that car brand and want a different one. You don't get to "change your mind" AFTER you sign the contract!
    - throwaway894345 4y ago
      I've been explicit twice that I'm not arguing about whether or not Musk tried to renege on his contract, but for the third time: I'm questioning the parent's claim about whether he reneged and then changed his mind __again__. That said, if you commit to buying a car, but the car that is delivered to you is not what you ordered, you absolutely are not compelled to take delivery--this is basically what Musk was asserting: that the Twitter that was advertised was not the Twitter that was being delivered. Apparently it was looking like the court wasn't buying that claim, which spurred Musk to move forward with the acquisition.