Elon Musk – Twitter deal can't proceed until it has less than 5% fake accounts
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
E: Given I can't find sources on this right now (gosh, Google really has gone to the shitter; I can't find the SEC filing for the final deal despite several tortured queries) I'll say, take this with a pinch of salt. If I find a source I'll post it.
E2: I finally found it: the same non-disparagement clause allows for Elon to tweet whatever he wants about the deal. Section 6.8 in https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522...
Seems like "do not disparage the Company" might be at risk with:
>20% fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be much higher.
>My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate.
>Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO publicly refused to show proof of <5%.
>This deal cannot move forward until he does.
Maybe in a bull market. During bull markets people were singing the praise of Enron CEO too, not to mention Lehman Brothers CEO.
A bear market changes the perception and a techno-utopian cult leader can very rapidly become a security fraudster.
If they do indeed have such an incentive, it would be very hard to tell using the company’s representations and their own internal metrics would likely implicitly bias away from seeing what was there.
This is also the parsimonious explanation for the junk filling Amazon and, say, the Apple store. While it is optimal for users to have the level of spam at zero, it may be optimal for the purveyors for the level to be above zero.
Forgive my ignorance, but aren’t all users “unreal” in the sense that they’re not paying and often not posting to any significant group? Hasn’t the internet trained people to ignore ads? Or is twitter seen as just the 21st century cable news channel?
Wasn’t there a meme that half of all advertising was ineffective but nobody knew which half?