As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Social Media]: Our Blasted Digital Hellscape

11516182021

Posts

  • beeftruckbeeftruck Registered User regular
    edited May 13
    That's terrible. I mean obviously if you're going to allow politically incorrect but legal tweets to exist, your company should also forfeit any legal protections against libel. Those are exactly the same thing. Plus it's clear that if Elon Musk is in any way hypocritical, then everyone should just shut up and be grateful to have what they say and hear curated by people with the right opinions. It's like my fellow working-class plebs don't even understand that they're inferiors who need someone with a humanities degree to decide what they're allowed to hear. Just awful. I for one will continue to not notice how selectively the ethnicities of hate crime perpetrators are reported, and other good things like that.

    beeftruck on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular


    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

    I may be dumb, but wouldn't the user base being more human than expected, be of benefit?

    Don't understand why this would be written in as a sticking point. "You know what should be a deal breaker for us? If we find out too many accounts are NOT automated."

    Xaquin
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

    I may be dumb, but wouldn't the user base being more human than expected, be of benefit?

    Don't understand why this would be written in as a sticking point. "You know what should be a deal breaker for us? If we find out too many accounts are NOT automated."

    Read again: he's claiming the deal is on hold because they might be more then 5% of users.

    Which they almost certainly are: Twitter hasn't cracked down on bots for a while because of the obvious issue that they would show a negative active user growth.

    No one knows the contract, but since Twitter has generally represented this number to the market, presumably there's enough of a clause in there that their financial report did not honestly reflect the business - which, by choosing to activate it, means Musk can probably back out without paying the $1 billion fee, and due to the current crash, buy it cheaper if he still wants it.

    Not to mention that if Twitter gets shown to be bot-town in public to the market, the price is likely to crash even further.

    In the meantime, a bunch of TSLA stock has now been made liquid presumably.

    shrykeHefflingElvenshaejmcdonaldA Kobold's KoboldMartini_PhilosopherElldrenoverride367
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

    I may be dumb, but wouldn't the user base being more human than expected, be of benefit?

    Don't understand why this would be written in as a sticking point. "You know what should be a deal breaker for us? If we find out too many accounts are NOT automated."

    Other way around, Twitter says that spam/bots are less than 5% of the userbase but the purchasing group wants to confirm that's the case before they close the deal.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    The other thing is just the other day two execs got apparently very suddenly fired by Twitter. So almost certainly that's related to this: Twitter CEO pushes out top execs, freezes hiring

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

    I may be dumb, but wouldn't the user base being more human than expected, be of benefit?

    Don't understand why this would be written in as a sticking point. "You know what should be a deal breaker for us? If we find out too many accounts are NOT automated."

    Read again: he's claiming the deal is on hold because they might be more then 5% of users.

    Which they almost certainly are: Twitter hasn't cracked down on bots for a while because of the obvious issue that they would show a negative active user growth.

    No one knows the contract, but since Twitter has generally represented this number to the market, presumably there's enough of a clause in there that their financial report did not honestly reflect the business - which, by choosing to activate it, means Musk can probably back out without paying the $1 billion fee, and due to the current crash, buy it cheaper if he still wants it.

    Not to mention that if Twitter gets shown to be bot-town in public to the market, the price is likely to crash even further.

    In the meantime, a bunch of TSLA stock has now been made liquid presumably.

    It might not even be Musk behind this. Whoever else is involved in financing this deal is probably, rightly, demanding proof of the value of the asset being purchased. And that means actual non-bot user count.

    Gnome-Interruptusjmcdonald
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

    I may be dumb, but wouldn't the user base being more human than expected, be of benefit?

    Don't understand why this would be written in as a sticking point. "You know what should be a deal breaker for us? If we find out too many accounts are NOT automated."

    Read again: he's claiming the deal is on hold because they might be more then 5% of users.

    Which they almost certainly are: Twitter hasn't cracked down on bots for a while because of the obvious issue that they would show a negative active user growth.

    No one knows the contract, but since Twitter has generally represented this number to the market, presumably there's enough of a clause in there that their financial report did not honestly reflect the business - which, by choosing to activate it, means Musk can probably back out without paying the $1 billion fee, and due to the current crash, buy it cheaper if he still wants it.

    Not to mention that if Twitter gets shown to be bot-town in public to the market, the price is likely to crash even further.

    In the meantime, a bunch of TSLA stock has now been made liquid presumably.

    It might not even be Musk behind this. Whoever else is involved in financing this deal is probably, rightly, demanding proof of the value of the asset being purchased. And that means actual non-bot user count.

    Due Diligence is not a phrase I would generally associate with Musk, but he's also not a complete idiot and was around when web companies were being valued based on BS like 'eyeball's, so who knows. Doesn't really matter, and the really interesting thing will be if the deal falls through because of this.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    TryCatcher
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    daveNYC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    Tweeter is Elon Musk.

    This is interesting - I wonder if the purchase contract invalidates the deal if this can't be proven?

    It would be a useful poison pill that would look reasonable but basically let you can it for free if say, Tesla stock fell more then expected.

    I may be dumb, but wouldn't the user base being more human than expected, be of benefit?

    Don't understand why this would be written in as a sticking point. "You know what should be a deal breaker for us? If we find out too many accounts are NOT automated."

    Read again: he's claiming the deal is on hold because they might be more then 5% of users.

    Which they almost certainly are: Twitter hasn't cracked down on bots for a while because of the obvious issue that they would show a negative active user growth.

    No one knows the contract, but since Twitter has generally represented this number to the market, presumably there's enough of a clause in there that their financial report did not honestly reflect the business - which, by choosing to activate it, means Musk can probably back out without paying the $1 billion fee, and due to the current crash, buy it cheaper if he still wants it.

    Not to mention that if Twitter gets shown to be bot-town in public to the market, the price is likely to crash even further.

    In the meantime, a bunch of TSLA stock has now been made liquid presumably.

    It might not even be Musk behind this. Whoever else is involved in financing this deal is probably, rightly, demanding proof of the value of the asset being purchased. And that means actual non-bot user count.

    Due Diligence is not a phrase I would generally associate with Musk, but he's also not a complete idiot and was around when web companies were being valued based on BS like 'eyeball's, so who knows. Doesn't really matter, and the really interesting thing will be if the deal falls through because of this.

    Honestly, Musk has been massively horny for cracking down on bots on Twitter, so it's possible he really means this at face value. He just doesn't realize that suddenly announcing on twitter in the wee hours of the morning that he's pausing a massive acquisition because of a report isn't something normal humans do. (See also: making a hacky marijuana joke that gets him in trouble with the SEC.)

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Though the counterargument is that Tesla has massively invested in crypto for no apparent reason other than Musk commanded it, and crypto's tanking, which might impact his ability to actually pay for Twitter.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
    ElvenshaeGnome-InterruptusMartini_Philosopher
  • yossarian_livesyossarian_lives Registered User regular
    It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if Twitter has been lying through their teeth about bot engagement. I bet the bot count is much higher than 5%, meaning the company is overvalued. Users are the product, not the actual platform. Which is why Musk didn’t just build his own alternative. He’s essentially paying a shitload of money for Twitter’s users.

    "I see everything twice!"


    shrykeTetraNitroCubaneSleepmrpakuElvenshaeDoodmannTryCatcherjmcdonaldA Kobold's KoboldMartini_PhilosopherLord_AsmodeusElldrenNobeard
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    I've suspected for a very long time that Twitter is overvalued because of the bots, but I am not sure that is actually the holdup for Musk. I think he's getting cold feet.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
    Dark_SideTicaldfjam
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited May 13
    Pre-market Musk tweet threatens the deal citing spurious concern regarding old, public information:
    Tesla opens up 6%
    Twitter opens down 10%
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    He just doesn't realize that suddenly announcing on twitter in the wee hours of the morning that he's pausing a massive acquisition because of a report isn't something normal humans do.

    Pretty sure he knows normal humans don't routinely try to induce billion dollar market fluctuations via Twitter.

    Because I'm pretty sure he knows that's a thing normal humans can't do.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    durandal4532Gnome-Interruptus
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    beeftruck wrote: »
    I for one am terrified of fascists and their enablers allowing people to use an internet platform to say anything that's within the bounds of the law. I'm just a poor blue collar slob, what if bad thoughts get into my head? Can't my betters please protect me from myself?

    Nah, but we can save the thread from you.

    Geth, kick @beeftruck from the thread.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."
    electricitylikesmeTetraNitroCubaneAimCaptain InertiashrykeElvenshaeHefflingGnome-InterruptusAngelHedgieStabbity StylePolaritiejmcdonaldHahnsoo1Martini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomShadowfireevilmrhenryTicaldfjamLegacyLord_AsmodeusElldrenSorceNyysjanPenumbra
  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative ElJeffe. @beeftruck banned from this thread.

  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Just real quick I’m very proud of the thread for that one

    OneAngryPossumTetraNitroCubaneElvenshaeUrsuskaceypkimejmcdonaldMichaelLCJragghenCommander ZoomGnizmoShadowfireTicaldfjamLegacyElldrenKamarDark Raven XOptyXandarKaputa
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    It would make my day if events fall out like this:

    1) Musk offers to buy Twitter for $46B
    2) Discovery reveals that Twitter has been lying about the size of their user base.
    3) Musk backs out of the deal with no penalties.
    4) The SEC fines Twitter into oblivion for falsifying information in their legally required annual reports.
    5) Musk loses the main tool for his hyping due to his efforts to protect his main tool for hyping.

    mrpakumrondeauElvenshaekimejmcdonaldMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusMarty8138thDoeSorceNobeard
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    What if this whole deal was the equivalent of suing purely for discovery.

    Musk didn't want to buy twitter at 44b, he wanted to show the world twitter is worth far less than that.

    ...then he'll buy it.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Help me Marie Kondo my life and buy my old stuff
    Captain InertiaTryCatcherElvenshaeHefflingJragghenArchGnome-InterruptusGnizmoEtiowsaElldren38thDoeelectricitylikesme
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    What if this whole deal was the equivalent of suing purely for discovery.

    Musk didn't want to buy twitter at 44b, he wanted to show the world twitter is worth far less than that.

    ...then he'll buy it.

    Or he never wanted to buy it and this is an elaborate scheme to minimize losses while selling a bunch of his Tesla stock. That's a theory I recently came across and is rather compelling.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
    ElvenshaeDoodmannjmcdonaldDouglasDangerArbitraryDescriptorMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusGnizmoVeagleShadowfireTicaldfjamElldrenelectricitylikesmeTastyfishRingo
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited May 13
    Butters wrote: »
    I've suspected for a very long time that Twitter is overvalued because of the bots, but I am not sure that is actually the holdup for Musk. I think he's getting cold feet.

    You'll notice Twitter is using a very specific definition of users in that release, (monetizable, daily active users.) That statement smacks of fudging numbers through creative bracketing of data.

    Dark_Side on
    shrykeHefflingspool32jmcdonaldMartini_PhilosopherGnizmoElldren
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Though the counterargument is that Tesla has massively invested in crypto for no apparent reason other than Musk commanded it, and crypto's tanking, which might impact his ability to actually pay for Twitter.

    Have we finaly figured out what crypto is good for?

    Captain InertiaRhesus PositiveMartini_PhilosopherGnizmo
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Though the counterargument is that Tesla has massively invested in crypto for no apparent reason other than Musk commanded it, and crypto's tanking, which might impact his ability to actually pay for Twitter.

    Have we finaly figured out what crypto is good for?

    Conmen, conwomen, conpeople. Also grifters, charlatans, and the like.

    Dark_SideXaquinjmcdonaldA Kobold's KoboldMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomRMS OceanicAngelHedgieShadowfireAimLord_AsmodeusElldren38thDoeNobeardXandar
  • Snake GandhiSnake Gandhi Des Moines, IARegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Though the counterargument is that Tesla has massively invested in crypto for no apparent reason other than Musk commanded it, and crypto's tanking, which might impact his ability to actually pay for Twitter.

    Have we finaly figured out what crypto is good for?

    Absolutely Nothing.

    XBL: That Stone Dude
    XaquinElldrenXandar
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    gbmv7e594of2.png

    Twitter did what, Reuters?

    MorganVkimejmcdonaldUndead ScottsmanXaquinArbitraryDescriptorCaptain InertiaRhesus PositiveJragghenMartini_PhilosopherCommander ZoomGnome-InterruptusGnizmoRMS OceanicAridholDarkPrimusEtiowsaAegisShadowfirewebguy20HappylilElfshrykeLord_AsmodeusHonkElldrenHeffling38thDoeelectricitylikesmeKamarElvenshaeMvrckSorcekaceypPenumbraDark Raven XNobeardDisruptedCapitalistRingoXandarBullheadNo-Quarter
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Anyway: Social Media!

    5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.

    Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:

    First Tweet:


    Thread reader version:
    https://t.co/hdbSVhiP4c

    Nonsense peak:
    It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.

    The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.

    I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.

    THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.

    I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.

    They really are just this stupid and incompetent. They aren't writing these laws bad deliberately they just literally can't do better. We've seen them actually try and it's a shitshow because they are actually this bad at this.

    You don't need poorly written laws to apply the law unequally after all. Especially when you control the courts.

    They literally don't care what the laws says or does. Its about getting the headline

    Like De Santis's "sticking it to Disney" law will cost the state billions and probably save Disney money. He doesn't give a fuck.

    spool32PreacherMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusshrykeElldren
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Anyway: Social Media!

    5th circuit reversed the injunction against Texas's law that purports to be an attempt to stop 'viewpoint discrimination' on social media sites, but is really just a vehicle for scurrilous litigation aiming to punishing private companies that they don't like.

    Ken White, hatted lawyer, posted a thread explaining the litigatory horrors containied within its nebulous hellmouth:

    First Tweet:


    Thread reader version:
    https://t.co/hdbSVhiP4c

    Nonsense peak:
    It's even worse Ken since the law prohibits moderation of posts based on viewpoints expressed on OR OFF the site. So even if the post itself expresses no viewpoint, a litigious plaintiff can claim that the action was a response to some viewpoint they expressed somewhere else.

    The GOP is going batshit fucking crazy with these poorly written laws. And they control enough of the courts that no one is stopping them.

    I thought poorly written laws were the point? I mean, I've come to expect incompetency, but a poorly written law is it's own win, as it's a lot easier to apply it unequally, due to prosecutorial discretion.

    THAT person's post in favor of BLM/LGBT/Abortion/Gun Control is clearly worth prosecuting. THIS person's racist/sexist/gun nut screed isn't.

    I mean, we know that there's always been the issue, but a poorly written law does make the job a lot easier, especially at fringe cases (on the left) that might otherwise not apply under a more well-written law.

    They really are just this stupid and incompetent. They aren't writing these laws bad deliberately they just literally can't do better. We've seen them actually try and it's a shitshow because they are actually this bad at this.

    You don't need poorly written laws to apply the law unequally after all. Especially when you control the courts.

    They literally don't care what the laws says or does. Its about getting the headline

    Like De Santis's "sticking it to Disney" law will cost the state billions and probably save Disney money. He doesn't give a fuck.

    They are operating on a theory of power, not a theory of law. Laws are the means, not the goals or the guardrails. Power, and the use of it, is the goal.

    Captain InertiaCommander ZoomGnome-InterruptusElldrenBigJoeMNobeard
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    gbmv7e594of2.png

    Twitter did what, Reuters?

    And suddenly, Ted Cruz stops his attacks on Twitter.

    Captain InertiaHappylilElfTicaldfjam
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Crypto, huh, yeah
    What is it good for?
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Though the counterargument is that Tesla has massively invested in crypto for no apparent reason other than Musk commanded it, and crypto's tanking, which might impact his ability to actually pay for Twitter.

    Have we finaly figured out what crypto is good for?

    Absolutely Nothing.

    PreacherStabbity StyleXaquinCaptain InertiaCommander Zoomspool32Snake GandhiLord_AsmodeusElldrenElvenshaeNobeardColanutRingo
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    It's also worth considering that democrats finally got a majority on the FTC, which does have regulatory power over twitters sale. It's entirely possible that the FTC might be making a move and that Musk believes they might tell him to get fucked. Given the type of asshole that Musk is, he'd rather make an excuse that allows him to make it look like he was calling the shots, than admit that even his wealth doesn't mean that the government still can't tell him to get bent on buying companies.

    Martini_PhilosopherElvenshaeHeffling
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    It's also worth considering that democrats finally got a majority on the FTC, which does have regulatory power over twitters sale. It's entirely possible that the FTC might be making a move and that Musk believes they might tell him to get fucked. Given the type of asshole that Musk is, he'd rather make an excuse that allows him to make it look like he was calling the shots, than admit that even his wealth doesn't mean that the government still can't tell him to get bent on buying companies.

    You can't fire me I quit? Highly possible.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    MillDark_SidejmcdonaldMartini_Philosopher
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    How is that tweet from Musk not market manipulation in some fashion that got him fined by the SEC like last time? He's actively involved in purchasing the company he's tweeting about and now he's tweeting about something which is not even clear he can contractually do, which has now caused twitter shares to tank?

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    Captain InertiaGnome-Interruptus
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    How is that tweet from Musk not market manipulation in some fashion that got him fined by the SEC like last time? He's actively involved in purchasing the company he's tweeting about and now he's tweeting about something which is not even clear he can contractually do, which has now caused twitter shares to tank?

    Yes exactly

    jmcdonaldRingo
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    I would personally be much happier if this turns out to just be Musk playing Stupid Rich People Games to manipulate Tesla's stonks value (which I can ignore) rather than actually buying Twitter and making it even more awful (the effects of which I can't).

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    TicaldfjamMartini_PhilosopherDark_SideA Kobold's KoboldElvenshaeHefflingOrcaGnizmoEtiowsadurandal4532Gnome-InterruptusRhesus PositiveBullhead
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    gbmv7e594of2.png

    Twitter did what, Reuters?

    Kerning!

    wbBv3fj.png
    ArbitraryDescriptorkimeElvenshaeAimMartini_PhilosopherRhesus PositiveNobeardspool32
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    I would personally be much happier if this turns out to just be Musk playing Stupid Rich People Games to manipulate Tesla's stonks value (which I can ignore) rather than actually buying Twitter and making it even more awful (the effects of which I can't).

    I think stonk manipulation is equally plausible with "this shit is adding up and boy are my feet cold." We know for a fact he would be overpaying by A LOT, the deal always had a $1B escape pod clause (he walks away paying Twitter a bil for their troubles), and we might learn in the end of this that losses incurred with converting Musk's net worth directly into cold hard cash are higher than he anticipated.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • asurasur Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    It would make my day if events fall out like this:

    1) Musk offers to buy Twitter for $46B
    2) Discovery reveals that Twitter has been lying about the size of their user base.
    3) Musk backs out of the deal with no penalties.
    4) The SEC fines Twitter into oblivion for falsifying information in their legally required annual reports.
    5) Musk loses the main tool for his hyping due to his efforts to protect his main tool for hyping.

    This isn't what will happen. He's attempting to force a renegotiation because Twitters valuation with the offer accepted dropped to $35 billion so why is he paying $46.

    electricitylikesme
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    asur wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    It would make my day if events fall out like this:

    1) Musk offers to buy Twitter for $46B
    2) Discovery reveals that Twitter has been lying about the size of their user base.
    3) Musk backs out of the deal with no penalties.
    4) The SEC fines Twitter into oblivion for falsifying information in their legally required annual reports.
    5) Musk loses the main tool for his hyping due to his efforts to protect his main tool for hyping.

    This isn't what will happen. He's attempting to force a renegotiation because Twitters valuation with the offer accepted dropped to $35 billion so why is he paying $46.

    It was trading at ~$33 per share when he made a formal offer to buy it for $54.20 per share.

    It went up to $45 after the offer, now its back to $40 with him "pausing" the offer.

    You always pay more than the company is worth when you buy it out, otherwise why would someone sell? It's already worth that amount. They don't get anything for selling for the current valuation.

    Marty81electricitylikesmeHefflingMoridin889EtiowsaElvenshaeA Kobold's KoboldButtersElldren
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    54.20 is also a meme amount, it was the lowest amount he could bid to make a 4.20 joke

    BurtletoyshrykeElvenshaeRhesus PositiveButtersspool32
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    54.20 is also a meme amount, it was the lowest amount he could bid to make a 4.20 joke

    At first, twitters board even considered rejecting the 54.20 amount and changing the company rules to make any buyout less favorable for elon! But changed their minds once the offer was formally made and after a few days to think about it.


    It was trading above $54.20 less than a year ago, too, and for almost a full year it was above $50

  • asurasur Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    asur wrote: »
    Heffling wrote: »
    It would make my day if events fall out like this:

    1) Musk offers to buy Twitter for $46B
    2) Discovery reveals that Twitter has been lying about the size of their user base.
    3) Musk backs out of the deal with no penalties.
    4) The SEC fines Twitter into oblivion for falsifying information in their legally required annual reports.
    5) Musk loses the main tool for his hyping due to his efforts to protect his main tool for hyping.

    This isn't what will happen. He's attempting to force a renegotiation because Twitters valuation with the offer accepted dropped to $35 billion so why is he paying $46.

    It was trading at ~$33 per share when he made a formal offer to buy it for $54.20 per share.

    It went up to $45 after the offer, now its back to $40 with him "pausing" the offer.

    You always pay more than the company is worth when you buy it out, otherwise why would someone sell? It's already worth that amount. They don't get anything for selling for the current valuation.

    It only went up to $45 initially because people didn't entirely believe his offer. It's been to a high of $52.

    The market has dropped considerably since the offer and I see no reason that Twitter wouldn't have dropped along with it. If so he's now overpaying by at least 10%.

Sign In or Register to comment.