Musk wants public debate with Twitter CEO instead of that upcoming court trial

[Lightwreather]

Summary

Elon Musk, unsatisfied with the ongoing court case over his attempt to break a $44 billion merger contract with Twitter, has challenged Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal to a public debate.

"I hereby challenge @paraga to a public debate about the Twitter bot percentage, Let him prove to the public that Twitter has <5% fake or spam daily users!", Musk wrote in a tweet on Saturday.

 

Quotes

Quote

Of course, a Musk/Agrawal debate is unlikely to happen, and Musk's proposed debate would not be likely to prove any facts about Twitter spam that couldn't be proven at trial. Musk, Agrawal, or both could also choose to testify at the upcoming trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery. CNBC reported, unsurprisingly, that a "source close to the company says a debate is not going to happen outside of a pending trial."

Despite Musk's claimed eagerness to prove his point in a public debate, he tried to have that trial delayed until February 2023. Judge Kathaleen McCormick rejected Musk's request for a delay while granting Twitter's motion to expedite the trial, now scheduled to begin on October 17. "The reality is delay threatens irreparable harm to the sellers," McCormick said in her ruling.

 

 

My thoughts

Meh. tbh, I couldn't care less, I don't use Twitter on a daily basis nor do I care much about this drama. But either way, this statement feels fishy and gives me, "I can't win at court, so might as well try and lie about it in a public debate where such stuff is not easily verifiable. Plus, if they don't agree, I can use this against them" kinda vibes.

 

Sources

ArsTechnica

Twitter

[BetteBalterZen]

13 minutes ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

... I couldn't care less...

I agree!

F*ck Twitter

[mr moose]

you should care,  Between twitter and facebook they have private control over what information majority of he voting population receive.  This effects you whether you use twitter or not.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Musk: "Let the court of public opinion be the judge!"

image curtsy of DallE2. Prompt: "courtroom. judges loom over accused with audience. medieval mosaic."

[BetteBalterZen]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

you should care,  Between twitter and facebook they have private control over what information majority of he voting population receive.  This effects you whether you use twitter or not.

Everything is a controlled outcome anyways in the end, so no, I do not care. 

[wanderingfool2]

4 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

Meh. tbh, I couldn't care less, I don't use Twitter on a daily basis nor do I care much about this drama. But either way, this statement feels fishy and gives me, "I can't win at court, so might as well try and lie about it in a public debate where such stuff is not easily verifiable. Plus, if they don't agree, I can use this against them" kinda vibes.

I'm surprised this is news worthy.  It's not a surprise though he wanted to public debate because he knows the answer will be no, Twitter has already requested things in the trial be redacted.  They even used that tactic to delay the release of his counter response (while they crafted their own statement that they release prior).  There is at least some of the details that came from the counter filing though.

 

I mean out of everything that came out in regards to this deal; it really seems like Twitter has been sweeping things under the rug (and making public statements that that appear as if they were being honest all along).

 

e.g. 3 days after the deal was signed was when they decided to file with the SEC that their mdau (effectively daily active users) was wrong...they were double counting people (well they were actually counting some people a lot of times than double).  They use mdau in terms of advertisements as well, so getting that number wrong isn't a mean nothing type of term.  Actually they got the mdau wrong by 6% (overestimated) which is what they also use towards advertisers.

 

There was also the accusation that the "firehose" data that they claimed to have given him was misconfigured so you couldn't use a computer analysis on it (which sort of makes it near impossible to check for spam accounts...even on top of the fact they didn't apparently give IP's or verification info).

 

They also apparently refused to detail how they calculate the mdau, which is very important because they base their spam % off of that as well.

 

 

Overall though, this seems like a who cares kind of thing.  I mean if people choose to go after that tweet, then might as well also go after the tweet that he is still open to making the deal happen but they have to actually give him the data proving that their numbers are correct.  Apparently some of the data they gave him

 

[ComradeIT]

I wanna debate Elon Musk. Put me in, coach. 

[Ultraforce]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

you should care,  Between twitter and facebook they have private control over what information majority of he voting population receive.  This effects you whether you use twitter or not.

But a debatee would do absolutely nothing. Elon Musk wagging around his **** or trying to do a public debate doesn't make it legally binding. He signed a contract and there's a court case about him breaking the contract and that's what decides what will happen.

[TetraSky]

Don't care as well. But this just screams "I know I'm gonna lose in court so I'm trying to find a way out of it".

He already got the "proof" he asked, but it didn't match with his pre-existing bias so he rejected it, he's just reaping what he sowed.

[wanderingfool2]

22 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

He already got the "proof" he asked, but it didn't match with his pre-existing bias so he rejected it, he's just reaping what he sowed.

Well I mean you are assuming that, which isn't necessarily the case.  As was stated, they literally changed the mdau numbers...which was that they were 6% off in terms of active users they already had.  They apparently haven't given him the complete metrics on how they come to their numbers, so a proper analysis can't be done.  If you look at the complaint as well, when they touted giving firehose data it apparently it was configured in a way that made it very difficult to do machine analysis on it.

 

They also apparently base spam off the mdau, so those 6% would be "real" users (I think they have to do phone verification and such to use it in method that overcounted).  That means by practice the mdau had 6% additional active users there were def. not bots.

 

If they consider mdau to not include accounts they think might be bots, then the % actually greatly increases...but again, Twitter didn't disclose that.

[CTR640]

Why did Elon want to buy Twitter in the first place?? It's not like Twitter is worth that much money and it's a platform full of trash.

Was it an impulsive buy? Or he smoked too much strong plants to make his brain roast? Or someone did a Bill Cosby on him to make him not remember why he wants to buy it?

[Sauron]

lmao, "1v1 me bro"

 

what's wrong Elon, scared of the trial?

7 minutes ago, CTR640 said:

Why did Elon want to buy Twitter in the first place??

he probably didn't, he said he did to get an attention boost which in the past has worked to pump his stocks. in this case he forgot that contract law exists. he also wanted to shift attention from the credible sexual harassment allegations against him that surfaced around that time.

[Brooksie359]

48 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I mean you are assuming that, which isn't necessarily the case.  As was stated, they literally changed the mdau numbers...which was that they were 6% off in terms of active users they already had.  They apparently haven't given him the complete metrics on how they come to their numbers, so a proper analysis can't be done.  If you look at the complaint as well, when they touted giving firehose data it apparently it was configured in a way that made it very difficult to do machine analysis on it.

 

They also apparently base spam off the mdau, so those 6% would be "real" users (I think they have to do phone verification and such to use it in method that overcounted).  That means by practice the mdau had 6% additional active users there were def. not bots.

 

If they consider mdau to not include accounts they think might be bots, then the % actually greatly increases...but again, Twitter didn't disclose that.

Tbh legally he waved due diligence when he signed the agreement to buy meaning which basically makes alot of this not even relevant tbh. Idk why he would do such a stupid thing as it basically means he agreed to buy twitter as is regardless of what he finds later. 

[CTR640]

37 minutes ago, Sauron said:

lmao, "1v1 me bro"

 

what's wrong Elon, scared of the trial?

he probably didn't, he said he did to get an attention boost which in the past has worked to pump his stocks. in this case he forgot that contract law exists. he also wanted to shift attention from the credible sexual harassment allegations against him that surfaced around that time.

So he never even intented to buy it?

 

And lol at "1v1 me bro". Throwing crap like "ez bro, 1-0 gg noob. 1-2 ez i fucked your mom and dad bro"

 

Would be interesting if Elon loses the case and will get forced to pay up.

[porina]

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Tbh legally he waved due diligence when he signed the agreement to buy meaning which basically makes alot of this not even relevant tbh. Idk why he would do such a stupid thing as it basically means he agreed to buy twitter as is regardless of what he finds later. 

I don't like the guy, I don't understand him. Not taking away from his achievements as he did something right to get where he is now. From my perspective, he doesn't seem like the sort of person who should be in the type of leadership position he has. I feel given the circumstances, this is the sort of thing that needs to be settled in court. Both sides will be held to account for the accuracy of information they provide.

[GoodBytes]

He just wants attention. In addition, most people who aren't affected won't be posting things that defend Twitter. You'll only get, mostly, attackers against Twitter.

 

Elon Musk is an extravagant person (it is his personality). He likes constant positive attention towards him. Most people tend to not like to be surrounded by such people and that is fine.  I don't either. 

 

All this Twitter shenanigan, to me, is exactly that. It's quiet time for him, and needs attention on him for something. It didn't go out as he planned, and trying to twist and turn things in hope to get out of this mess, and have positive feedback pointed towards him.

 

So personally, I never cared about the whole story. He wants to buy Twitter, ok good for him. He doesn't want too anymore, that's fine. We all change our minds. Of course, like a restock fee on a product return, they are fees when you go too far in the acquiring of company, and he has to pay them. Sucks, but that is life.

[Arika]

Just fine him for god's sake, are we really going to see the courts force someone to buy something they no longer want?

[AnonymousGuy]

At his level of wealth he cares more about public attention whoring than he does about paying whatever the exit fee is for breaking the contract.  $100M to him is spare change and probably a good value for the publicity he's getting.

 

So none of this is a surprise.  I'm 50/50 he only started this whole boondogle to pump up their stock price to collect a free 10% pump-n-dump return.

[onlybuilt4cubanxlinx]

So many delusional fucks getting way too much airtime in America. 

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Tbh legally he waved due diligence when he signed the agreement to buy meaning which basically makes alot of this not even relevant tbh. Idk why he would do such a stupid thing as it basically means he agreed to buy twitter as is regardless of what he finds later. 

Well I mean Twitter says he waived due diligence, which he acknowledged in the counter suit as being true, but at the same time they also mention the logic behind it.

 

Being that it can be a costly and time consuming process, and instead and I quote from the counter suit "contractual representations that the information they relied upon in deciding to acquire Twitter is accurate".

 

To quote a bit more

Quote

In Section 4.6(a), the Musk Parties secured a representation from Twitter that its SEC filings—and thus its userbase disclosures and identification of mDAU as a key metric are accurate. Twitter represented that “none of the Company SEC Documents at the time it was filed . . . contained any untrue statement of a material fact”

So again, 3 days after the contract was signed they changed the SEC filing for mDAU by 6%.  It's going to come down to does it have a material effect.

 

2 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Just fine him for god's sake, are we really going to see the courts force someone to buy something they no longer want?

That assumes that Musk will be the losing party, also fine him for what?  As far as I know,  he didn't directly break any laws.

 

Like honestly, Twitter has done some super shady stuff by the sounds of it in regards to this merger.

[Ultraforce]

49 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Just fine him for god's sake, are we really going to see the courts force someone to buy something they no longer want?

Honestly, I'm going to say that there's a really real possibility that if he refuses to settle that he in fact will have to buy Twitter. While civil cases are usually just for money with mergers and purchasing companies, that's not always the case. Usually it's the seller who might try to walk back a deal, but in Delaware which I believe is where the civil suit will be taking place there was In RE IBP INC. v. Tyson Foods &nbsp;INC. With Tyson Foods the big chicken company buying IBP the largest beef packer and second-largest pork processor in the USA. Tyson tried to back out of the deal but when in court it was shown they didn't have a substantive good reason and were doing so in order to try and buy IBP at a lower price later, the result of the judgement was specific performance. That being that the court ordered Tyson to buy IBP at the originally agreed upon price.

 

29 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

That assumes that Musk will be the losing party, also fine him for what?  As far as I know,  he didn't directly break any laws.

He'd be paying for breach of contract as he has admitted to breaching the contract basically

[pas008]

38 minutes ago, Ultraforce said:

 

He'd be paying for breach of contract 

But what about the data they sent him

 

Wrong and/or be used wouldn't that be a beach of contract also?

[Ultraforce]

12 minutes ago, pas008 said:

But what about the data they sent him

 

Wrong and/or be used wouldn't that be a beach of contract also?

Note:  Not a Lawyer and for the twitter stuff I don't remember the explanation quite as well as for the whole thing where there have been lawsuits where people are forced to go through with a merger. But I believe that while if the data they sent was inaccurate it would possibly be considered a breach it would be considered not substantial enough to be able to leave the contract. So they would maybe need to reduce the price of twitter by a billion or so, but unless it's something like over 50% bots it would not be a substantial breach.

[Spotty]

Seems like he knows legally speaking he might not have a good position to stand on and is hoping to win the argument in the court of public opinion. Either that or he's just jealous of how much attention the public heard v Depp trial received and now wants to create his own public shitshow.

[Kisai]

18 hours ago, J-from-Nucleon said:

 

My thoughts

Meh. tbh, I couldn't care less, I don't use Twitter on a daily basis nor do I care much about this drama. But either way, this statement feels fishy and gives me, "I can't win at court, so might as well try and lie about it in a public debate where such stuff is not easily verifiable. Plus, if they don't agree, I can use this against them" kinda vibes.

 

 

18 hours ago, mr moose said:

you should care,  Between twitter and facebook they have private control over what information majority of he voting population receive.  This effects you whether you use twitter or not.

 

13 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm surprised this is news worthy.  It's not a surprise though he wanted to public debate because he knows the answer will be no, Twitter has already requested things in the trial be redacted. 

 

Here's the thing. 

 

We should not care. Twitter is a private company, and it chooses to do nothing about bots and spam. Hell, nearly everything I block on twitter is those obnoxious "3-image spam" accounts.

 

But it does so at it's own peril. The same goes for facebook, twitch, youtube, tiktok, and any other social media platform driven by user generated content.

 

You want bots. But only official bots (eg ones that represent Coca Cola and Nestle), not bots astroturfing by pretending to be users. Twitter is very useful at being a first-contact for support. It however is not wonderful about it. It's own spam controls often hinder this effort. So without a way to go "this is the official support account of X" somewhere in it's system, those reach-outs will not reach users whining about them, and if those users have mistakenly (or purposely) blocked those accounts, then they won't reach them either.

 

But that's about  as much of leeway I'm willing to give bots. If someone is playing an ARG, or a RP/ERP account, or some kind of research tool (eg Microsoft Tay) those should be flagged, BY THE USER that the account is fiction/no human exists, so that people following or engaging with it are reminded not to take things the (bot) says personally, trying to start a fight with it will only result in you looking foolish.

 

But any other allegation of "fake users" I is just a ploy to go "help help, I'm being repressed" or "the platform I choose to say outlandish things on, is censoring me", when the reality is that some of these people self-owned and self-canceled themselves from the platform and have nobody to cry to, because nobody cares that they were canceled from the platform. Nobody.

 

If you want to be a bully on the internet, you will repeatedly be ejected from the communities you engage with, even your own. I even had to do this to one site I operate, where the site changed hands and then we had to mute/scrub the previous owner's interactions from the site because the content providers were feeling uneasy about their presence. They continue to complain about on twitter to this day, yet THEY are the cause of their own misery.