Well it’s official. After weeks of hints Elon Musk is officially attempting to back out of the deal to acquire Twitter.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3 ... y-twitter/

- it’s possible he’s telling the truth and is correct about his complaints. It’s also possible no amount of reassurance would suffice because he’s decided to make this his out.
- it’s possible his financing evaporated with both Twitter and Tesla’s stock dropping in recent months. I’ve no idea how liquid his wealth is, but it is known that a great deal of his wealth isn’t liquid. It’s in stocks.
- it’s possible all he wanted was the fight. And the Twitter board acquiesced instead of fighting.
- it’s certain that there will be some well-paid attorneys as Twitter will challenge this in court

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

This is pure fodder for comedians - now that it’s coming out this guy has fathered 10 kids and still going (twins with an exec at one of his companies last year), cue the child support jokes.

c933103 wrote:

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

I've already seen some light speculation based on a reported drop of twitters stock price that its a ploy to come back in a few months and get them cheaper. Doubt that would work but who knows anymore, dude is going to get nailed by the FTC at some point anyway.

This is the only thing he's ever pulled out of in his life.

This is going to be humorous. They got him to man up and sign a contract giving them 44 billion dollars. Money that he has! Money that is under contract, to them! Lawyers are salivating on both sides. A wing of a law school will be built thanks to this one.

Elon is kinda smart, but 44 billion attracts lawyers who will make him wish he was never born. This is the opposite of smart.

LCDFlight wrote:

This is going to be humorous. They got him to man up and sign a contract giving them 44 billion dollars. Money that he has! Money that is under contract, to them! Lawyers are salivating on both sides. A wing of a law school will be built thanks to this one.

Elon is kinda smart, but 44 billion attracts lawyers who will make him wish he was never born. This is the opposite of smart.

Hilarious and accurate take. Hubris has a way of knocking even very smart people down a peg.

LabQuest wrote:

This is the only thing he's ever pulled out of in his life.

You win the internet! Bravo

Aaron747 wrote:

LCDFlight wrote:

This is going to be humorous. They got him to man up and sign a contract giving them 44 billion dollars. Money that he has! Money that is under contract, to them! Lawyers are salivating on both sides. A wing of a law school will be built thanks to this one.

Elon is kinda smart, but 44 billion attracts lawyers who will make him wish he was never born. This is the opposite of smart.

Hilarious and accurate take. Hubris has a way of knocking even very smart people down a peg.

Agreed, and call it schadenfreude but that’s the main reason I’m paying attention. I’ve never used Twitter, never intend to…and in some sick strange twist of fate I don’t need to because so many other outlets report what some self-enchanted bozo tweeted yesterday, FFS.

Nobody can discount that Elon Musk saw a market. But he developed with a lot of federal and state subsidies that he now trolls his fans about saying how unfair it is that other companies are now getting, He’s clearly a megalomaniac (how many other automotive CEOs can you name unless you are interested in cars…). And frankly he’s in bed with the Chinese. Tesla is the ONLY car company being allowed to operate without a local joint venture — that isn’t happening because the Chinese are enamored with Tesla products…but hey, he clearly gets in bed with a lot of people.

Color me surprised.

I didn't like the idea of Twitter becoming Elon's thing so to me it's a good thing.

With that said I'm pretty sure he's right about the amount of fake accounts...

In Elon's Twitter acquisition complaint to the SEC, he listed the materials he says they didn't hand over, which put them in material breach. Among them was the Goldman-Sachs business model contracted by the Twitter board. They gave him the Goldman report of the results, but Elon wants the full model so he can determine its validity.

The list is quite long, so seems like a reverse paper blizzard tactic. Basically he requests enough materials that Twitter would have to refuse some requests, then he claims breach.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data ... ex99-p.htm

One thing that's for sure, there will be a lawsuit over the offer agreement breaking fee, and whether or not the claims of false accounts is legitimate enough to get out of the fee. Can't decide if I'm looking forward to that trial or not.

I figured Musk would back out. He was too full of crap for this purchase and landed far more headaches than product on this one. The lawyers will have a field day.

I hope they take him to the cleaners!! And I don’t even have Twitter haha

luckyone wrote:

Well it’s official. After weeks of hints Elon Musk is officially attempting to back out of the deal to acquire Twitter.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3 ... y-twitter/

- it’s possible he’s telling the truth and is correct about his complaints. It’s also possible no amount of reassurance would suffice because he’s decided to make this his out.
- it’s possible his financing evaporated with both Twitter and Tesla’s stock dropping in recent months. I’ve no idea how liquid his wealth is, but it is known that a great deal of his wealth isn’t liquid. It’s in stocks.
- it’s possible all he wanted was the fight. And the Twitter board acquiesced instead of fighting.
- it’s certain that there will be some well-paid attorneys as Twitter will challenge this in court

I have another one. He is intentionally playing games with and manipulating the stock price to his benefit. This would be a pump and dump and that is illegal. He has done it with crypto and that is unregulated but he is arrogant enough to think he can get away with it here.

For the richest man in the world where other companies are quickly catching up to Tesla. For the richest man in the world he has a lot of time on his hands to even consider buying Twitter. He should be involved with his companies and not caring about Twitter at all.

StarAC17 wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Well it’s official. After weeks of hints Elon Musk is officially attempting to back out of the deal to acquire Twitter.

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3 ... y-twitter/

- it’s possible he’s telling the truth and is correct about his complaints. It’s also possible no amount of reassurance would suffice because he’s decided to make this his out.
- it’s possible his financing evaporated with both Twitter and Tesla’s stock dropping in recent months. I’ve no idea how liquid his wealth is, but it is known that a great deal of his wealth isn’t liquid. It’s in stocks.
- it’s possible all he wanted was the fight. And the Twitter board acquiesced instead of fighting.
- it’s certain that there will be some well-paid attorneys as Twitter will challenge this in court

I have another one. He is intentionally playing games with and manipulating the stock price to his benefit. This would be a pump and dump and that is illegal. He has done it with crypto and that is unregulated but he is arrogant enough to think he can get away with it here.

For the richest man in the world where other companies are quickly catching up to Tesla. For the richest man in the world he has a lot of time on his hands to even consider buying Twitter. He should be involved with his companies and not caring about Twitter at all.

My hypothesis is that it was financially worthwhile but the drop in tech stock price in general market and rising interest rate in recent months make the proposed acquisition at the price being given unviable.

c933103 wrote:

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

This bodes ill for any other potential buyer. Assuming Elon Musk's numbers are reliable about the proportion and total number of fake accounts, other potential buyers will want to pay a lower price to acquire Twitter.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

c933103 wrote:

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

This bodes ill for any other potential buyer. Assuming Elon Musk's numbers are reliable about the proportion and total number of fake accounts, other potential buyers will want to pay a lower price to acquire Twitter.

The deal was set when the tech stock market was still hot, cheap money were still abundant on the market, and interest rate for leveraged transaction was still low. The situation have changed much now. Even if there are others who want to buyout Twitter and even if not for the problems pointed out by Elon Musk, it is unlikely that they would offer anywhere near the price they would have offered a few months ago.

In a remarkable show of irony, Trump has now called Musk a "bullsh*t artist" after his decision not to buy Twitter:

"You know, he said the other day, ‘Oh, I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, ‘I didn’t know that, he told me he voted for me.’ So he’s another bullshit artist, but he’s not gonna be buying it. "

Pot... meet kettle...


https://www.nme.com/news/music/donald-t ... ly-3265766

alfa164 wrote:

In a remarkable show of irony, Trump has now called Musk a "bullsh*t artist" after his decision not to buy Twitter:

"You know, he said the other day, ‘Oh, I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, ‘I didn’t know that, he told me he voted for me.’ So he’s another bullshit artist, but he’s not gonna be buying it. "

Pot... meet kettle...


https://www.nme.com/news/music/donald-t ... ly-3265766

Never is a friend of fairer weather than Mr. Trump -- even if he is right in this instance.

alfa164 wrote:

In a remarkable show of irony, Trump has now called Musk a "bullsh*t artist" after his decision not to buy Twitter:

"You know, he said the other day, ‘Oh, I’ve never voted for a Republican.’ I said, ‘I didn’t know that, he told me he voted for me.’ So he’s another bullshit artist, but he’s not gonna be buying it. "

Pot... meet kettle...


https://www.nme.com/news/music/donald-t ... ly-3265766

Wait...me agreeing with Trump for once?

As far as the "deal" itself - we all know Musk was bluffing the whole time. He never intends to buy Twitter but rather just want himself to stay in the news.

Fake accounts is just a BS excuses ultimately - more like the whole deal doesn't make any financial sense, plus Musk how got 9 kids he has to feed.

The SEC sent Musk a letter in early June, when he tweeted the poop emoji and said the Twitter deal could not move forward. They asked if his intention was to not complete the deal. He said no at the time, but of course has now tried to withdraw. So more shenanigans.

c933103 wrote:

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

The stock price drop is a convenient (strawman) reason. Musk expressed his concerns about the real number of accounts early on before the significant drop in share price.

Larnaca wrote:

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

The stock price drop is a convenient (strawman) reason. Musk expressed his concerns about the real number of accounts early on before the significant drop in share price.

Can you point to where he expressed concern about the number of bots prior to the drop in share price.

I'm looking at a timeline online https://abcnews.go.com/Business/timelin ... d=86611191. The first mention of his concern is May 13th through a tweet. The stock price on that date was $40.72 - $13.48 below his offered price of $54.20. That reflected a loss of 10.3B

Larnaca wrote:

c933103 wrote:

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

Musk himself said very publicly that he was buying Twitter to get rid of the bots so that doesn't add.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022 ... 723616001/

JJJ wrote:

Larnaca wrote:

c933103 wrote:

As mentioned in previous related thread, I feel his motive to withdraw from this acquisition is probably finance-centric, given how much tech stocks dropped since the announcement

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

Musk himself said very publicly that he was buying Twitter to get rid of the bots so that doesn't add.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022 ... 723616001/

You are combining two separate items, one of which had nothing to do with the company’s valuation.

Getting rid of the bots (Musks goal according to you) and legitimate accounts (which is needed to value the company) are two different things entirely.

Twitter knows they have a bot issue. The Issue is that the original estimate of legitimate accounts differs greatly from the revised number and therefore doesn’t justify the original price.

Larnaca wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Larnaca wrote:

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

Musk himself said very publicly that he was buying Twitter to get rid of the bots so that doesn't add.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022 ... 723616001/

You are combining two separate items, one of which had nothing to do with the company’s valuation.

Getting rid of the bots (Musks goal according to you) and legitimate accounts (which is needed to value the company) are two different things entirely.

Twitter knows they have a bot issue. The Issue is that the original estimate of legitimate accounts differs greatly from the revised number and therefore doesn’t justify the original price.

Depends on whose estimate. Twitter's estimate hasn't changed much, Elon's is far different. But Elon is the buyer and said initially the Twitter purchase wasn't about money, it was about censorship and free speech. That topic is now dropped, and the money issue has risen to the fore.

dalmit wrote:

Larnaca wrote:

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

The stock price drop is a convenient (strawman) reason. Musk expressed his concerns about the real number of accounts early on before the significant drop in share price.

Can you point to where he expressed concern about the number of bots prior to the drop in share price.

I'm looking at a timeline online https://abcnews.go.com/Business/timelin ... d=86611191. The first mention of his concern is May 13th through a tweet. The stock price on that date was $40.72 - $13.48 below his offered price of $54.20. That reflected a loss of 10.3B

You do realize he offered to buy the company at a 38% premium. Using your thought process, he would have lost 38% immediately day 1.

The stock declined only $4.32 between the day he announced his intent to buy the company ($45.08) until the day he announced his intention to back out ($40.72). The $13.48 you are referencing includes his 38% premium.

Larnaca wrote:

You do realize he offered to buy the company at a 38% premium. Using your thought process, he would have lost 38% immediately day 1.

The stock declined only $4.32 between the day he announced his intent to buy the company ($45.08) until the day he announced his intention to back out ($40.72). The $13.48 you are referencing includes his 38% premium.

Okay, so he lost 38% immediately day 1. He thought the price would rise to match his offer and it never did. Buyers remorse set in.

I think Elon saw himself being welcomed as the hero that would use his billions to restore free speech to the Internet. But then found he faced substantial opposition, even from within Twitter itself. At that point, the glamor was gone and it was just about the money. It was never a good deal financially, and without the PR value there was no upside for him. And so here we are.

Larnaca wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Larnaca wrote:

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

Musk himself said very publicly that he was buying Twitter to get rid of the bots so that doesn't add.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2022 ... 723616001/

You are combining two separate items, one of which had nothing to do with the company’s valuation.

Getting rid of the bots (Musks goal according to you) and legitimate accounts (which is needed to value the company) are two different things entirely.

Twitter knows they have a bot issue. The Issue is that the original estimate of legitimate accounts differs greatly from the revised number and therefore doesn’t justify the original price.

So buyers remorse? Despite publicly saying several times "it was not about the economics"?

You can read the Twitter lawsuit in full, including some internal communications.

https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07 ... 0interests.

Sure, it's Twitter's version but it's pretty cut and dry:

That price, presented by Musk on a take-it-or-leave-it basis in an unsolicited public offer, represented a 38% premium over Twitter’s unaffected share price. The other terms Musk offered and agreed to were, as he touted, “seller friendly.” There is no financing contingency and no diligence condition. The deal is backed by airtight debt and equity commitments. Musk has personally committed $33.5 billion.

"No financing contingency and no diligence condition".

Also quite revealing to see the gap between happy tweeting Musk and private text Musk.

Larnaca wrote:

dalmit wrote:

Larnaca wrote:

There is merit behind his concerns. When you buy a company with an expectation of a certain number of accounts / customers. However, when you find out that X percentage of them are not real, then there is merit behind it.

The stock price drop is a convenient (strawman) reason. Musk expressed his concerns about the real number of accounts early on before the significant drop in share price.

Can you point to where he expressed concern about the number of bots prior to the drop in share price.

I'm looking at a timeline online https://abcnews.go.com/Business/timelin ... d=86611191. The first mention of his concern is May 13th through a tweet. The stock price on that date was $40.72 - $13.48 below his offered price of $54.20. That reflected a loss of 10.3B

You do realize he offered to buy the company at a 38% premium. Using your thought process, he would have lost 38% immediately day 1.

The stock declined only $4.32 between the day he announced his intent to buy the company ($45.08) until the day he announced his intention to back out ($40.72). The $13.48 you are referencing includes his 38% premium.

38% premium is usual. But looking at other comparable tech stocks, like Facebook Meta's, most of them have further dropped like 25% or so in the past few months. So using more recent market price as base line the price he would have to be paying would be like 70% if not more, considering Twitter's market price was actually somewhat lower when Musk started accumulating stocks.

LittleFokker wrote:

One thing that's for sure, there will be a lawsuit over the offer agreement breaking fee, and whether or not the claims of false accounts is legitimate enough to get out of the fee. Can't decide if I'm looking forward to that trial or not.

This will be fascinating. It is worth a lot of court time for $1 billion. Just looking at Twitter's stock price shoes the roller coaster this has been (by that I mean financially and emotionally).

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/stockde ... uration=3M


For that much money, both sides will play dirty. For both, an out of court settlement would be best. Some of the outlandish theories on what could happen amuse me.

This will be months of entertainment.

Lightsaber

Important to understand that Musk traded away his rights to terminate due to diligence or finances, in return for Twitter immediately agreeing to the deal on a Sunday, before the market opened on Monday.

Under that much time pressure, Twitter protected itself with provisions that would make it extremely difficult for Musk to back out. His lawyers had to be telling him not to do that, but in typical arrogance, he thought he could force Twitter to do his bidding

Now the shoe is on the other foot, Twitter can force him to either complete the merger, or pay the $1B penalty. His claim of breach based on a materially adverse effect, is baseless because he gave up those termination rights. Twitter has a ton of evidence for what they provided to him, which went way beyond their obligations under the agreement.

But he will now spend millions fighting it in court, until they reach some sort of settlement. The whole thing is an epic disaster.

Avatar2go wrote:

Important to understand that Musk traded away his rights to terminate due to diligence or finances, in return for Twitter immediately agreeing to the deal on a Sunday, before the market opened on Monday.

Under that much time pressure, Twitter protected itself with provisions that would make it extremely difficult for Musk to back out. His lawyers had to be telling him not to do that, but in typical arrogance, he thought he could force Twitter to do his bidding

Now the shoe is on the other foot, Twitter can force him to either complete the merger, or pay the $1B penalty. His claim of breach based on a materially adverse effect, is baseless because he gave up those termination rights. Twitter has a ton of evidence for what they provided to him, which went way beyond their obligations under the agreement.

But he will now spend millions fighting it in court, until they reach some sort of settlement. The whole thing is an epic disaster.

As someone who does greatly admire Musk for SpaceX, while knowing he has a childish, sometimes vindictive streak in him, I cannot for the life of me think just why he wants to enter the Big Tech/Social Media quagmire.
Maybe it's because my view of that sector ranges from agnostic to hostile, (my own view is that these, not just Twitter, are monopolistic new technologies that need the treatment Teddy Roosevelt gave to the new technology monopolies of his era).

Surely the huge task he has with SpaceX, plus keeping Tesla on the road, is enough even for his hyperactive brain?
It's just hard to see the Musk who allows even amateur reporters/content providers long in depth interviews with SpaceX, coming across as thoughtful and logical.
Tangible and great progress in one, the worlds's biggest toilet wall on the other side, the latter even had it gone smoothly makes him even more prone to distractions.

GDB wrote:

As someone who does greatly admire Musk for SpaceX, while knowing he has a childish, sometimes vindictive streak in him, I cannot for the life of me think just why he wants to enter the Big Tech/Social Media quagmire.
Maybe it's because my view of that sector ranges from agnostic to hostile, (my own view is that these, not just Twitter, are monopolistic new technologies that need the treatment Teddy Roosevelt gave to the new technology monopolies of his era).

Surely the huge task he has with SpaceX, plus keeping Tesla on the road, is enough even for his hyperactive brain?
It's just hard to see the Musk who allows even amateur reporters/content providers long in depth interviews with SpaceX, coming across as thoughtful and logical.
Tangible and great progress in one, the worlds's biggest toilet wall on the other side, the latter even had it gone smoothly makes him even more prone to distractions.

I can't believe the guy who programmed his cars to make fart noises isn't as mature and sagacious as he appears to be!

GDB wrote:

As someone who does greatly admire Musk for SpaceX, while knowing he has a childish, sometimes vindictive streak in him, I cannot for the life of me think just why he wants to enter the Big Tech/Social Media quagmire.
Maybe it's because my view of that sector ranges from agnostic to hostile, (my own view is that these, not just Twitter, are monopolistic new technologies that need the treatment Teddy Roosevelt gave to the new technology monopolies of his era).

Surely the huge task he has with SpaceX, plus keeping Tesla on the road, is enough even for his hyperactive brain?
It's just hard to see the Musk who allows even amateur reporters/content providers long in depth interviews with SpaceX, coming across as thoughtful and logical.
Tangible and great progress in one, the worlds's biggest toilet wall on the other side, the latter even had it gone smoothly makes him even more prone to distractions.

I think Musk technically is very good, very sharp. He has a broad and deep understanding of technology. But that also gives him a sizable ego, and the problems start when that gets in the way.

In the case of Twitter, it was more ego motivated than technical or financial. All the things you're saying about why it's not a good idea, came home to roost once he set his ego aside. For a brief time, he was going to right a great wrong, in his eyes. Plus given that Twitter is essentially his media department, assure himself a public speaking platform. But alas, it's not that easy, you can't just buy Twitter and make it do what you want. Far more complex than that.

Avatar2go wrote:

GDB wrote:

As someone who does greatly admire Musk for SpaceX, while knowing he has a childish, sometimes vindictive streak in him, I cannot for the life of me think just why he wants to enter the Big Tech/Social Media quagmire.
Maybe it's because my view of that sector ranges from agnostic to hostile, (my own view is that these, not just Twitter, are monopolistic new technologies that need the treatment Teddy Roosevelt gave to the new technology monopolies of his era).

Surely the huge task he has with SpaceX, plus keeping Tesla on the road, is enough even for his hyperactive brain?
It's just hard to see the Musk who allows even amateur reporters/content providers long in depth interviews with SpaceX, coming across as thoughtful and logical.
Tangible and great progress in one, the worlds's biggest toilet wall on the other side, the latter even had it gone smoothly makes him even more prone to distractions.

I think Musk technically is very good, very sharp. He has a broad and deep understanding of technology. But that also gives him a sizable ego, and the problems start when that gets in the way.

In the case of Twitter, it was more ego motivated than technical or financial. All the things you're saying about why it's not a good idea, came home to roost once he set his ego aside. For a brief time, he was going to right a great wrong, in his eyes. Plus given that Twitter is essentially his media department, assure himself a public speaking platform. But alas, it's not that easy, you can't just buy Twitter and make it do what you want. Far more complex than that.

Is it? Here I was under the impression that Twitter is trying to be sold to Elon. Why wouldn’t he be able to do what he pleases with it? It would be his personal property.

Newark727 wrote:

GDB wrote:

As someone who does greatly admire Musk for SpaceX, while knowing he has a childish, sometimes vindictive streak in him, I cannot for the life of me think just why he wants to enter the Big Tech/Social Media quagmire.
Maybe it's because my view of that sector ranges from agnostic to hostile, (my own view is that these, not just Twitter, are monopolistic new technologies that need the treatment Teddy Roosevelt gave to the new technology monopolies of his era).

Surely the huge task he has with SpaceX, plus keeping Tesla on the road, is enough even for his hyperactive brain?
It's just hard to see the Musk who allows even amateur reporters/content providers long in depth interviews with SpaceX, coming across as thoughtful and logical.
Tangible and great progress in one, the worlds's biggest toilet wall on the other side, the latter even had it gone smoothly makes him even more prone to distractions.

I can't believe the guy who programmed his cars to make fart noises isn't as mature and sagacious as he appears to be!

I didn’t even know about that, not really being too knowledgeable about Tesla, has he fixed that pick up truck yet after that demo of its durability went a bit wrong?
He has used Twitter, when the subject of SpaceX, cleverly to engage, yet also has made a fool of himself at times on it too.
But why buy it? Because he’s a ‘free speech warrior’?
One thing the world does not need is another billionaire claiming they are hard done by.

LCDFlight wrote:

Is it? Here I was under the impression that Twitter is trying to be sold to Elon. Why wouldn’t he be able to do what he pleases with it? It would be his personal property.

For the same reason the Twitter board cannot just do as it pleases. For the same reason that Trump cannot declare himself President. There are laws and other people, other users, other viewpoints to consider.

Musk would not have been able to institute the opinion free-for-all he envisioned. There are laws that govern some speech, which Twitter has followed. Musk could not change that. So he changed his vision to what is lawful . But there are user views and tolerances that govern participation as well. Without user participation, Twitter has no value.

When Twitter terminated Trump's account, most users did not leave, because they fundamentally agreed that it was way past time. He was given far too much leeway. This is seen also in the failure of Trump's own startup to attract a significant group of users. Users have the power of choice.

Similarly when Trump held his rally and sent his supporters to the Capital, the reaction was swift and damning, and has resulted in the current hearings. Most people would not participate or go along, not even the majority of his staff, as we see in the hearings. Again, people have the power of choice.

The same thing would happen to Musk. Twitter staff and users would not go along.

Twitter agreed to be purchased under pressure and a huge offer, which had to be accepted for the well being of investors. But which heavily enjoined Musk, to make sure he would not play games, and would provide the financing and investor wealth he promised. And so here we are.

Musk today challenged the Twitter CEO to a public debate on the bot issue. This is an attempt to take the dispute out of the courtroom and into the public domain, where his fanbase will help him.

He also said the deal can move forward if the bot issue is resolved to his satisfaction. But of course that won't happen, because he won't accept Twitter's numbers. Most recently he has claimed that 85% of Twitter users are bots.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/06/elon-mu ... -bots.html

Avatar2go wrote:

Musk today challenged the Twitter CEO to a public debate on the bot issue. This is an attempt to take the dispute out of the courtroom and into the public domain, where his fanbase will help him.

He also said the deal can move forward if the bot issue is resolved to his satisfaction. But of course that won't happen, because he won't accept Twitter's numbers. Most recently he has claimed that 85% of Twitter users are bots.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/08/06/elon-mu ... -bots.html

Musk is basically saying that he never did his own due diligence prior to making his bid, and that is not going to stand in court.

casinterest wrote:

Musk is basically saying that he never did his own due diligence prior to making his bid, and that is not going to stand in court.

He explicitly waived his right of diligence in an effort to pressure the Twitter board into accepting his deal over a weekend, before markets could respond the following Monday. So he got what he himself wanted, but the board locked him into an airtight contract.

He has no one but himself to blame for the current circumstances. But is trying to push the blame onto Twitter.

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Musk is basically saying that he never did his own due diligence prior to making his bid, and that is not going to stand in court.

He explicitly waived his right of diligence in an effort to pressure the Twitter board into accepting his deal over a weekend, before markets could respond the following Monday. So he got what he himself wanted, but the board locked him into an airtight contract.

He has no one but himself to blame for the current circumstances. But is trying to push the blame onto Twitter.

I am a twitter user. Sad to say he did have good ideas, some of which the company was going to work at (for e.g. giving people more than 280 characters to work with.), the edit function. At times, we write something and either forget words (I do it all the time) or some other grammatical mistake or whatever. And that window of opportunity was gonna remain open for around 15-20 minutes. Even if these two features were put in, you would see lot of dynamism building. Unforunately, it seems after no merger, all the proposed features shared seem to have been put on the back burner.

pune wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Musk is basically saying that he never did his own due diligence prior to making his bid, and that is not going to stand in court.

He explicitly waived his right of diligence in an effort to pressure the Twitter board into accepting his deal over a weekend, before markets could respond the following Monday. So he got what he himself wanted, but the board locked him into an airtight contract.

He has no one but himself to blame for the current circumstances. But is trying to push the blame onto Twitter.

I am a twitter user. Sad to say he did have good ideas, some of which the company was going to work at (for e.g. giving people more than 280 characters to work with.), the edit function. At times, we write something and either forget words (I do it all the time) or some other grammatical mistake or whatever. And that window of opportunity was gonna remain open for around 15-20 minutes. Even if these two features were put in, you would see lot of dynamism building. Unforunately, it seems after no merger, all the proposed features shared seem to have been put on the back burner.

Twitter can and will still make improvements where needed, but Musk overpaid initially, and he is trying to get out of it because he didn't understand his own lessons from paypal

casinterest wrote:

pune wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

He explicitly waived his right of diligence in an effort to pressure the Twitter board into accepting his deal over a weekend, before markets could respond the following Monday. So he got what he himself wanted, but the board locked him into an airtight contract.

He has no one but himself to blame for the current circumstances. But is trying to push the blame onto Twitter.

I am a twitter user. Sad to say he did have good ideas, some of which the company was going to work at (for e.g. giving people more than 280 characters to work with.), the edit function. At times, we write something and either forget words (I do it all the time) or some other grammatical mistake or whatever. And that window of opportunity was gonna remain open for around 15-20 minutes. Even if these two features were put in, you would see lot of dynamism building. Unforunately, it seems after no merger, all the proposed features shared seem to have been put on the back burner.

Twitter can and will still make improvements where needed, but Musk overpaid initially, and he is trying to get out of it because he didn't understand his own lessons from paypal

My limited point is and was that those features have been on the minds of Twitter users for years. Twitter never responded to them enthusiastically till Musk intervened, and now it seems it is going on the backburner. The platform virtually has no competition. If one were to take an American example, it is like Ma Bells but before they were sliced upon by the telecom regulator in the U.S.

pune wrote:

casinterest wrote:

pune wrote:

I am a twitter user. Sad to say he did have good ideas, some of which the company was going to work at (for e.g. giving people more than 280 characters to work with.), the edit function. At times, we write something and either forget words (I do it all the time) or some other grammatical mistake or whatever. And that window of opportunity was gonna remain open for around 15-20 minutes. Even if these two features were put in, you would see lot of dynamism building. Unforunately, it seems after no merger, all the proposed features shared seem to have been put on the back burner.

Twitter can and will still make improvements where needed, but Musk overpaid initially, and he is trying to get out of it because he didn't understand his own lessons from paypal

My limited point is and was that those features have been on the minds of Twitter users for years. Twitter never responded to them enthusiastically till Musk intervened, and now it seems it is going on the backburner. The platform virtually has no competition

Meaning it works nicely enough. Competition in the broader social media space is fierce.

JJJ wrote:

pune wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Twitter can and will still make improvements where needed, but Musk overpaid initially, and he is trying to get out of it because he didn't understand his own lessons from paypal

My limited point is and was that those features have been on the minds of Twitter users for years. Twitter never responded to them enthusiastically till Musk intervened, and now it seems it is going on the backburner. The platform virtually has no competition

Meaning it works nicely enough. Competition in the broader social media space is fierce.

If there is a reason for newer features, then there will be a competitor soon enough.

Elon Musk has probably seen some data to want to back out. Lets wait for the courts to decide. Elon can go ahead and solve world hunger though

https://tickernewsng.com/if-wfp-can-describe-twitter-thread-exactly-how-6b-will-solve-world-hunger-elon-musk

casinterest wrote:

JJJ wrote:

pune wrote:

My limited point is and was that those features have been on the minds of Twitter users for years. Twitter never responded to them enthusiastically till Musk intervened, and now it seems it is going on the backburner. The platform virtually has no competition

Meaning it works nicely enough. Competition in the broader social media space is fierce.

If there is a reason for newer features, then there will be a competitor soon enough.

Yes, but may take years or even decades to make an impact. The reason being the hold, and is no way given. Nokia had a hold over the entire telecom system for a decade before Samsung challenged them. That's a whole decade. now the Chinese are challenging and winning over Samsung, but if you look at what the Chinese are doing, they are playing more on prices rather than adding new features and whatnot. The only innovation I have seen from the Chinese is the 120 W fast charger by Xiaomi in Xiaomi 11T pro and, then comes oneplus pro that are 65w chargers and then back to Samsung with its 45w charger (think one of its phones has it, rest all are 25W charging.) I do hope the industry does move to 120W charging sooner than later, would make things far easier.