Elon Musk Lawsuit Response: Twitter Trying “To Shroud The Truth About Spam Accounts … To Railroad” Me
“Musk was flabbergasted to learn just how meager Twitter’s process [for measuring spam accounts] was. Human reviewers randomly sampled 100 accounts per day (less than 0.00005% of daily users) and applied unidentified standards to somehow conclude every quarter for nearly three years that fewer than 5% of Twitter users were false or spam.”
I know, I know, you don’t care.
But it matters.
Twitter has sued Elon Musk in Court of Chancery in Delaware, trying to force Musk to close on the deal to purchase Twitter at the inflated price of $54 per share, totaling $44 billion. Musk backed out of the deal, claiming, among other things, that Twitter has failed to provide sufficient or accurate information as to the percentage of Twitter users who are spam or bot accounts. Twitter wants an expedited trial as early as September.
On July 15, 2022, Musk filed his Opposition, which reads in part:
1. This Court should reject Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.’s (“Twitter”) unjustifiable request to rush this $44 billion merger case to trial in just two months. Twitter’s bid for extreme expedition rests on the false premise that the Termination Date in the merger agreement (“Agreement”) is October 24, glossing over that this date is automatically stayed if either party files litigation. By filing its complaint, Plaintiff has rendered its supposed need for a September trial moot.
2. Nor does the remainder of the Motion To Expedite (“MTE”) remotely justify extreme expedition, instead highlighting the complexity of the case and the impossibility of completing discovery on the timeline proposed. In fact, Twitter has engaged in tactical delay for two months by resisting Defendants’ information requests, causing Defendants “obvious prejudice” through an overly compressed schedule. Juwell Invs. Ltd. v. Carlyle Roundtrip, L.P., C.A. No. 2020-0338-JRS, at 92 (Del. Ch. May 14, 2020) (TRANSCRIPT) (“Amex”). Twitter’s sudden request for warp speed after two months of foot-dragging and obfuscation is its latest tactic to shroud the truth about spam accounts long enough to railroad Defendants into closing.
3. The core dispute over false and spam accounts is fundamental to Twitter’s value. It is also extremely fact and expert intensive, requiring substantial time for discovery. Twitter is a social media platform whose self-professed key performance metric is monetizable daily active users (“mDAU”). Since the Agreement was first signed, new facts have come to light that call into doubt the truthfulness of Twitter’s curiously static representation in SEC filings that less than 5% of its accounts are false or spam.
4. On April 28, just three days after signing the Agreement, Twitter restated three years of its mDAU numbers, despite never disclosing the issue to Defendants pre-signing. Post-signing, Defendants promptly sought to understand Twitter’s process for identifying false or spam accounts. In a May 6 meeting with Twitter executives, Musk was flabbergasted to learn just how meager Twitter’s process was. Human reviewers randomly sampled 100 accounts per day (less than 0.00005% of daily users) and applied unidentified standards to somehow conclude every quarter for nearly three years that fewer than 5% of Twitter users were false or spam. That’s it. No automation, no AI, no machine learning.
5. Alarmed, Defendants exercised their information rights to validate Twitter’s user claims. At every turn, however, Twitter deliberately erected artificial roadblocks and frustrated Defendants’ efforts. Indeed, on June 20 Twitter admitted the information it provided “is insufficient to perform the spam analysis. . . .” Put simply, Defendants asked for—and were refused—the same information that Twitter relies on in making its <5% representation. The limited information Twitter has provided calls its representations into serious doubt. Meanwhile, Twitter has adopted significant personnel changes without consent.
6. Resolving these issues will require complex, technical discovery— including the forensic review and analysis of large swaths of data. Twitter’s Complaint only adds to that complexity. Rather than simply challenging Defendants’ termination, Twitter has manufactured a hodgepodge of baseless new claims, none of which were ever noticed.1 The extensive discovery required for all of these claims cannot be completed within six weeks.
[fn. 1 With the sense of humor of a bot, Twitter claims that Musk is damaging the company with tweets like a Chuck Norris meme and a poop emoji. Twitter ignores that Musk is its second largest shareholder with a far greater economic stake than the entire Twitter board.]
The cesspool of broken souls that is Twitter almost certainly has more than 5% bots, spam, and fake accounts. It never was worth what Musk agreed to pay, so it’s unclear why he cut that deal.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I need to read the above article but would really like the Professors opinion on this write up at Conservativetreehouse
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/07/16/richard-baris-outlines-the-theater-of-republican-club-politics/
This is not meant to pick a fight, but just so you know the site has an email address: [email protected]
That’s probably a more effective method.
I didn’t read a word you wrote, but hey, what do you think about this write up from the conservative nuthouse. Yeah. No.
It was worth reading: it’s a warning of what will happen if the GOP takes the House (and Senate) and milquetoast Kevin McCarthy is installed as Speaker/Boehner II (and God help us if that rat McConnell is installed as GOP Senate leader.
Haven’t we already read this story, with Paul Ryan?
Gee Fuzzy…
I always respected the writings of Sundance.
Not to mention that Richard Barris is probably the most accurate and relevant pollster out there …
I was planning on reading the article so suck my big toe
Attaboy — demand that the hosts read what you want to read and then insult them.
By chance, have you ever heard of Dale Carnegie?
That clearly wasn’t for the Professor
Fuzzy insulted the conservative tree house, for unexplained reasons. I guess you missed that.
In fact, every single person I have ever read here that does the same refuses to explain their reasoning. It doesn’t speak well of someone that casts disparaging remarks and then refuses to defend such.
Conservative Nuthouse is responsible for inventing, completely out of whole cloth, the idea that Little Saint Trayvon’s final shopping trip was for the ingredients to make a batch of “lean”, aka “purple drank”. There was never any basis in fact for this claim, and yet it still circulates, because CNH wrote it.
I’ve been over to CTH a couple of times and my head hurt after I was done with that sight.
I’ve never heard it called the conservative nuthouse … but I can appreciate Fuzzy’s comment in the sense that the prolific comment section there brings out the crazy / patriotic zeal in some commenters – even if the articles are informative. CTH remains 1 of the 3 sites I read – along with LI and Epoch Times. I stopped reading a number of them because they were “echo chambers” that clearly borrowed one from another.
Though I still read some CTH articles, many are TLDR for me and I personally find the lens through which some of the articles are written, and amplified in the comments, are just too pessimistic / fatalistic for me. Speaking to that – if we’re not careful, we’ll defeat ourselves with negative discouraging talk. In fact, those “this is what is going to happen” articles that predict frustration, defeat, etc., may serve to usher in that which we dread.
The tone of comments usually follow the tone of the parent article and with an eye toward patterns of behavior, feed and provoke commenters / threads, sort of like Godwin’s law at work. Of course not every thread devolves into accusations of being a Nazi / Hitler, but threads still evolve/devolve according to the tone of the original article and reader comments. That said, in toto, I do think CTH has a nut factor going for it.
I am not a commenter there, but there are plenty of good comments. The number of comments there are significantly higher there than here, so there will be comments that are “out there.” As for the gloom and doom outlook, I can’t think of one scenario that didn’t pan out as predicted, i.e., the Durham investigation, inflation, and more. My take is that Sundance wants people to be prepared. I don’t follow the site for more than one more avenue of information.
I regret that I wasn’t as clear in my comment as I could have been – that I was generalizing about comment sections including CTH, LI, The Epoch Times, and those I used to frequent such as American Thinker, The Gateway Pundit, etc. That I frequent LI, CTH and Epoch means I find those the best of the conservative sites … I just can’t read all the comments because some are repetitive and discouraging which weighs on me.
“crazy / patriotic zeal in some commenters”
I find nothing “crazy” about patriotism, and find it insulting you equate the two.
“too pessimistic / fatalistic for me”
The truth is often painful, and many people prefer to put their head in the sand.
“That said, in toto, I do think CTH has a nut factor going for it.”
I’d say that as a percentage there are more “nuts” commenting here than there.
Another disparaging set of remarks with nothing to substantiate the reasoning.
By the way, I’ve never commented there and read maybe once a week. I sometimes disagree with Sundance, but I never find anything I read disingenuous, misleading, or dishonest.
It’s pretty refreshing to read someone that tells it like it is and is usually right.
I’d suggest many of you can’t handle the truth.
Why are you working yourself up, Barry? I shared my impression after several years of reading a dozen or more conservative news/blog sites as a deeply rooted intuitive and feeling temperament type. That you think I need to “substantiate my reasoning” suggests we are polar opposites on the temperament scale. Not everything can be worked out with a calculator … sometimes an impression – a feeling of negativity / discouragement – just is. So deal with it.
“Why are you working yourself up, Barry?”
Shrug. I often take up for those being misrepresented and or lied about. There is nothing wrong with that. I have as much right to comment about your shortcomings as you do to complain about it.
As for you, you basically said nothing to support your uh, “impressions”. Nada. Zip. And your only answer is nah-nah-nah I don’t have to. Fine, your choice. You cannot and will not intellectually engage.
And that is what I find on this blog every time the conservative treehouse gets disparaged. Crickets.
“polar opposites on the temperament scale”
Yes, clearly. You immediately begin the personal attacks instead of responding intellectually to support your impressions. You pretend to be something you are not.
I wish you’d re-read my original comment with an open mind. In the same way 2 people can watch the same movie, one loved it the other didn’t, likewise a book or song, so it is for me with CTH because some of the articles strike me as through the lens of pessimism / fatalism (i.e., some strike me as conveying hopelessness). When commenters respond in-kind – negatively – and/or sound like a broken record – I take a break from it. It seems like Sundance shares that impression in as much as he periodically publishes the guidelines for the comment section.
“I wish you’d re-read my original comment with an open mind. ”
Ok, done. Again, as I’ve read it 3 times now. It says the same thing and I didn’t call you any names, question your character or any other ill as a result. I questioned what you had to say, your opinion, and expressed the same damn thing I always ask with respect to these type comments –
Explain yourself.
You seem to reject doing that, so fine. You are the same as everyone else.
Maybe somebody someday will explain precisely what it is they have against the “Conservative Nuthouse”, something you expressed yourself when you stated “but I can appreciate Fuzzy’s comment”.
There’s nothing further to be said.
Fuzzy is hiding.
Thanks for re-reading it and your reply, Barry.
Fuzzy, that’s a bad mark. Lots of good and honest information is presented at the conservative tree house.
I’ve noticed that most of those that call it out are left wing enablers, something you are not. I find your take very surprising.
My 2 cents.
The difference between CT and LI is the agenda, plus LI when they publish stuff, it’s rock solid, and they are willing to go to court on it. This is the difference between being run by somebody with a legal background, vs. whatever the background of CT is. CT has an agenda, and they have some type of staff and funding. Their is no way they can do the research and pump out everything they do on a daily basis. I have no idea who is behind CT.
Sundance / CT is a mixed bag. Sometimes he is really on target, and other times not so much. I read it on a daily basis.
LI has done incredible work, and has followed it up by going to court a couple of times. Going to court is not cheap in time or money. And it’s incredible they have done this. The exposures they have been doing on CRT and documentation, are moving the Overton Window.
The article you referenced was interesting, but nothing ground breaking. Basically the GOP Insiders that run the party and channel money and support to their preferred agenda and candidates, Hate Trump and his supporters. And they are more interested in the bottom line, than fighting the culture wars. Uniparty is a good term. So they are trying to maximize their bottom line. They seem more interested in politely surrendering, than fighting and winning elections.
“Sometimes he is really on target, and other times not so much.”
Examples. Everyone disparages but can never provide concrete.
An intelligent person can recognize the in depth of understanding that Sundance brings to the table. It is the same analysis I see from those involved with military intelligence.
Barry, several messages above, you wrote:
“I sometimes disagree with Sundance”
In the message immediately above, you quoted Ray – SoCa who said:
“Sometimes he is really on target, and other times not so much.”
And then you wrote:
“Examples. Everyone disparages but can never provide concrete.”
Could you please provide EXAMPLES of what you disagree with Sundance about, AND, tell us why it’s OK for you to disagree with him, but no one else.
Thanks in advance.
I’m not the one calling Sundance a “nut” Mr E. perhaps that difference escapes you.
There is no one on this planet I agree with 100%. If I call someone a nut then I’ll explain it.
Once more, I didn’t disparage the commentor. Now, since English understanding seems difficult for so many, there is a vast difference in disagreeing with someone and claiming “Sometimes he is really on target, and other times not so much.” All I ask is for clarification and I did so nicely.
I make the assumption that when nothing is forthcoming that you rally just type to type, thinking your saying something when in fact you’re not.
At least milhouse above gives an example. It’s pretty shallow IMO since no one will be 100% correct, but at least he gives a concrete reason.
If you don’t know how the deep state operates, then reading Sundance back several years will provide you with a very concise picture, something you cannot get here or anywhere else. That is of great value and it should be promoted not called nuts.
Please show where ANYONE called Sundance a “nut”.
I see the whole CTH site, which includes the comment section and commenters, called a “nuthouse” (Fuzzy) with a “nut factor” going for it (me) – but that I can find no one disparaged, misrepresented, lied about, nor otherwise impugned Sundance. The extent of my comment about Sundance was that some of his articles seemed to me as through the lens of pessimism, etc., which I find discouraging. How does that equate to calling someone a “nut”?
I spent the good part of yesterday biting my tongue in responding to you, Barry. Specifically, that you don’t seem to appreciate the difference between a belief based in hard facts and data, and an impression – a like/dislike rooted in personal taste / preference formed in observation / experience. Nor do you seem to appreciate the way people differ in their makeup – their wiring / temperament and the way they reach conclusions.
What I find myself shaking my head about in our exchange, is that we’ve proven Fuzzy’s assertion of “nuthouse” without her saying another word. You’ve asserted yourself as an authority of all things CTH – a self-appointed apologist and defender of Sundance/CTH – and from your self-exalted and ‘enlightened’ position have demanded accountability from anyone who says otherwise. I proved myself a nutter in thinking I could reason with you and let myself get drawn into your head-trip. And we did it all right here, in Fuzzy’s living room at LI.
Bravo, Fuzzy! Bravo! SMH! LOL! etc, etc.
Well MR
NuTE, I did not disparage fuzzy in anyway other than to ask respectfully why she considers the Treehouse a Nuthouse. She refuses to answer or further comment but you continue to say the same thing without answering why.Let’s be clear, calling the Conservative Treehouse the “Nuthouse” is the same thing as calling Sundance a nut. And you damn well know it. Now go bite your damn tongue off. You’re being disingenuous, purposely. Your only recourse has been the personal attack. Your not even very good at that.
I didn’t even say you were wrong, just asked for clarification. It’s very clear you can’t do it, you have no ability to do so. It’s pathetic that you keep on yanking at straws.
You’re reading a lot into what people actually write, Barry, putting words into their mouths, demanding accountability for what you claim was said – often with a truncated quotation – and erecting your own strawmen when they choose not to answer you.
SteveWhiteMD had a good suggestion above. It’s an oldie, but still a goodie.
As to the subject, I understand that the matter has a serious, no-nonsense judge. I find it hard to believe that there will be an early trial date unless Twitter can demonstrate they provided sufficient info to Musk that the fake accounts are really in the 5% range and not 25%. FWIW, I would consider a duplicate account under a different screen name a fake account, as advertisers would not be reaching a different party. In that context, I think bot, spam, fake, and duplicate accounts have to exceed 5%.
Twitter has already lost… 7 to 9 Billion in value…
Far more than the breakup fee.
And they just won’t quit.
Elon offered top dollar on fraudulent filings.
Well, I think Elon will be ok, but he drew a bad Judge,
That’s 3000 per month, which is more than enough of a statistical sample size. Over months, confidence levels increase.
Musk broke his promise not to disparage Twitter.
You do bring up an interesting point I never considered. Does Twitter have a Quality Assurance system/plan in place like they do for DoD contractors per Mil-Q-9858A / Mil-I-45208A / ISO. Do they employ statistical quality control methods such as Mil-Std-105 / Mil-Std-1916 overseen by their QA management / QE statisticians? Do they have in place non-conformance documentation and corrective action plans/procedures and monitoring there of per Mil-Std-1520 / ISO? Do they even have a QA department / director? While most of my QA experience is in hardware for a Mil-Std DoD contractor and precedes ISO quality systems, the same quality system fundamentals are applied to software development / systems deployment organizations. What little I’ve heard about Twitter operations sounds like a seat-of-the pants operation procedure / discipline / quality-wise – what SEI/CMM methodology would call a “Level 1 Chaos” approach. Frankly speaking, their sample size and methodology is pathetic from a “repeatable quality metric” perspective.
I think that’s the issue being bandied about in the news and in court filings and we’ll find out during discovery. All apparent indications are not or that Twitter refused to release details if it did. Either way, not a smart move on Twitter’s part.
Depends. How were the accounts selected? Random is rarely random. My guess is that if they start at the high end in terms of “numbers of posts, retweets”, that most all will be bots, whereas real humans will dominate the low end. This of course would then make it worse, because it might then show that statistically, 5% are responsible for 95% of the activity. So then, if truly random, yes only 5% are bot accounts, but they may then be responsible for 95% of the activity, and it is the activity that advertisers are concerned about, and whether the acivity represents an average number of users redin/writing an average number of posts.
Back in the 1980’s the University of North carolina reported that the average income of recent geography majors was about $80K a year. What they failed to disclose is that Michael Jordan was a geography major. The median income was much much less. Stats lie, and liars use stats.
MajorWood: My guess is that if they start at the high end in terms of “numbers of posts, retweets”, that most all will be bots, whereas real humans will dominate the low end.
Yes, but manipulation has become much more sophisticated. Bots can flood the network, then delete the accounts to avoid detection. Cyborgs combine bots with human trolls to amplify messages. (Russia has an entire army of trolls to cause political division in adversarial countries, including the U.S.) A well-tailored message can have an outsized effect, even if it is disseminated by a bot network, especially if it parallels the goals of domestic political actors.
But Musk could have known, should have known, all this before he made an offer. A lot of ordinary stockholders will be hurt by his manipulation of the market.
{We apologize if this reply is delayed. The powers-that-be have decided that our comments need to languish in moderation before allowing you to read them.}
Oh look, the paid to push BS marxist shows up to tell us how wonderful the liars at twatter really are. They are the most honest people on earth don’t you know.
Hogwash. Pure unadulterated hogwash.
It seems to me that Twitter is betting it all on being able to avoid the discovery process by painting Musk as acting in bad faith. They have been demanding non-disclosure agreements from step one as Musk performs due diligence. Why? Isn’t this the key to the whole thing? Shouldn’t the court itself be interested? What harm is caused to Twitter for the public to know unless fraud is uncovered?
Who gets hurt if the truth turns out to be that 5% is the real number? Certainly not Musk. He maintains he is still willing to buy but wants to know what he is buying. If it is less more than 5%, he would argue lowering his bid. Certainly not the shareholders who are facing losing all of their investment if it is not true. Certainly not the advertisers who would now know they have been getting their moneys-worth. In fact, shouldn’t this be public information?
Sure seems to me that decent lawyers here would be able to make that case. Twitter is just trying to do a bums’ rush in a desperate, last chance to save their hides.
It’s the Deep State that has the most to lose here because they have no replacement for Twitter. It is unconstitutional for them to do it themselves and so they have been getting away with having operating control via a corrupt ESG board evading the 1st Amendment because they are a public corporation.
This is a HUGE case that can blow up the technocracy itself. After Twitter, we can then start to expose how the Deep State works and who exactly is running things. Then it’s on to the Nuremberg-style trials.
So how important is this case? It may just be the key that exposes everything. At the very least, it would be another major gateway for further investigation where we would certainly find even worse truths.
BTW, the Pelosi crime family just scored another big stock market insider trading coup:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/07/16/paul-pelosi-buys-millions-in-semiconductor-stocks-before-congressional-subsidy-vote/
Prepare yourselves for just how desperate the Deep State is to win the Twitter case. Let’s hope Musk can get by this judge should she turn out to be another crooked judge on the Deep State payroll.
Pasadena Phil: What harm is caused to Twitter for the public to know unless fraud is uncovered?
There’s a great deal of proprietary information. Musk or others could use this information to build a competing platform.
The old “proprietary information” dodge. We can’t tell you how we lie, cheat, and steal lest you figure out how to do it better.
Hogwash from the paid marxist.
It’s not merely the bot and spam accounts that fluff tweeter’s fake user numbers. It’s guys like me who’ve had numerous sincerely fake accounts over the years which have been suspended for violating TOS, and are now ‘read only.’
Yet, my repeated attempts to have those accounts deleted fall on deaf ears. These also fluff tweeter’s fake user numbers. And I’m just one guy.
I was on Twitter for about 3 -6 months . Clearly I’m not a great writer, even in , what,37 words, but I actually grew a little following and would laugh about it to my sister…
Then a person took offense at something I said, something really innocuous, and he literally threatened me. Showed me how he would Dox me.
I didn’t need crazy and I already got off FB so I only read some blogs, no social nut cases for me.
Twitter is ridiculous and what, 1-3 % of the country uses it?
So overblown
But it’s the doxing they can do, they are just evil
Musk waived due diligence. His monkeys, his circus.
Really? When did he do that?
He made the deal without a due diligence period of examination. That isn’t quite the same as claiming he waived it. And that doesn’t resolve twitter of presenting honest data, which they have not.
Musk will win because twitter is corrupt and dishonest.
For some of you intellectual pygmies unwilling to understand Real Life ™ an offer was made to buy twatter on the condition bot accounts as being reported was correct. Obviously from the way twatter has fucked about with the info needed to confirm bot accounts that number, as reported, us extremely questionable.
Who are you calling “intellectual pygmies”?
We don’t know that.
I have vague memory of Warren Buffet buying a bunch of Boeing stock back in the mid 1990’s (?) which prompted the board to adopt poison pill type protections, one of which (IIRC) was giving every employee several shares of stock under an “Employee Stock Ownership Program”. It wasn’t a type of stock that came with ownership certificates nor voting rights, nor could we sell them that I recall. A few years later Boeing cashed us out. In the end, Buffet sold his shares, after taking advantage of the increase his purchase (and high-profile interest) generated. My lasting memory of Buffet was the shockwaves he sent through the company and the buzz and fear he generated around the office. Can’t say I understand that stuff at all – it was the effect he had on Boeing that fascinated me. And the satisfaction of a few chuckles nearly 30 years later of us (then) peons and morons jawing about it around the water cooler as if any of us were savvy about such matters.
It wouldn’t surprise me at all that Trump (or his people) talked with Musk (or his people) and in the interest of flushing out the paper-tiger Twitter, Musk engaged in some kind of pump-and-dump move with Twitter to bring about a market correction based on exposing their true nature. Certainly it would prove good for freedom of speech and appeal to the base … but I can’t imagine any real interested in owning that pig-in-a-poke. In as much as Twitter is in competition with Truth Social, Musk and Trump aren’t exchanging barbs or openly competing for users as might be expected from business rivals. That tends to bolster my tin-foil-hat theories about the real motives behind the purchase.
Twitter trying to push the Musk deal through without allowing proper time to evaluate the fake account estimation calculations reminds me of a car salesman trying to get you to sign that note before you find out what’s really under the hood.
A used car salesman is probably more honest than the gang currently running Twitter.
Perfect!
+1000
Maybe he believed his course of action was the best way to show forth the fraud?
Well. lets look at the ripples. You have a whole bunch of Twitter owners who got a taste for more money when Musk made his offer. Now the board has not only canceled out that, what 10-15% windfall, but has taken the stock 25% or so in the other direction. It could drop even lower, because each drop gets more owners nervous that they actually own something with no tangible value This having happened, which no one would have guessed 6 months ago, means that a whole bunch of other companies are now taking a deep look at how exposed they are. If the bad stuff is happening at Twitter, then you know it is happening elsewhere. Who thinks that Champlaign South was the only poorly constructed/maintained condo along the coast? Florida has completely revamped a lot of building codes and I am guessing that inspectors are actually doing their job these days. So, because of what Musk did in showing the flaws of Twitter, things are never going to be the same. The SEC may not act, but investors are going to be a lot more leery about where their money goes and the first hints of fraud will likely take a company down. I bet some on the inside may sell off their stake and then go public. Just keep an eye on who is leaving a particular company,and whether their departure is a onesy or a whole bunch are jumping ship. Those two major players leaving Twitter were a good sign that rot was present and they were hoping to make it out in time.
Anybody else think that Twitter is trying to rush this to force Musk to give up and remove the threat of Free Speech breaking out on their platform before the mid-terms?
The amusing thing is that back in May, Musk went public and suggested that his team would validate the number of fake Twitter accounts – devise a non-random sampling scheme, use 100 as the a sample size and an indeterminate method to evaluate the samples.
The “experts” blew up at Musk’s suggestion; not random and, too small a sample size and no detail in the analysis to be use. In all, Musk’s suggestion was woefully deficient. Trouble is, Musk modeled his suggested approach on what Twitter does.
Those in the business who actually did do a Twitter analysis opined that the 5% rate was woefully understated; more like 10-15% said one. So with $44B at stake, Twitter couldn’t figure out how to justify their estimate and – from all learned opinions – because it would blow up on them.
I look forward to the trial.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/14/elon-musk-has-wrong-approach-to-count-fakes-spam-on-twitter-experts.html
Is it just “fake/spam” or does it also include accounts closed due to censorship also incorrectly on the books as “active” ?