Post: Post Reply: Musk/Twitter deal foundering over fake accounts. by LateForLunch

Original Message: Musk/Twitter deal foundering over fake accounts.
No reason to post any articles (Washington Post et al) as the issues are not complicated. Twitter is apparently not cooperating with Musk's team in regard to supplying them with verifiable information about the actual number of legitimate accounts vs. fake ones. Twitter claims the amount is no more than 5% (one-in-twenty) even though they admit that they remove millions of false accounts every month. The Musk team broke off communication with the Twitter reps on the issue. Apparently Twitter believes it is not required to supply any more information to the Musk team on this topic, claiming that they themselves, "are not able to reliably quantify," the actual number of fake accounts!! if Musk cancels the deal, Twitter has insisted that they are entitled to a massive penalty payment ($1 billion) which of course the Musk team disputes. The Musk legal team believes that failing to provide accurate information about the actual number of false accounts (stipulated) is a breach of disclosure requirements of the deal, negating Twitter's entitlement to cancellation payment. This all gets lost in the muck of corporate contract law. Who will prevail is anyone's guess. The one thing that has come out of this which is fairly dramatic is that Twitter has ADMITTED that the company does not actually know (in any meaningful sense) how many of their accounts are actually real!! As far as I know, every media-company that sells ads has a third-party source for user-information. Radio has Arbitron, T.V. has Neilson ratings. Print advertising (magazines, newspapers) have their circulation numbers reported. Why should so-called "social media" companies be excluded from the same requirements to "show proof" of viewership as any other that sells ads? So Twitter's brand (if Musk does not go forward with the deal) may be significantly damaged with advertisers. The company sells advertising based on how many actual people see the ads. If Twitter either can't or won't provide accurate information about viewers to ANYONE (not even lawyers doing mundane due diligence on a company sale deal) it brings into question whether they are really a legitimate media company. It seems inconceivable to me that any media company selling ads would be structured so poorly that it was INCAPABLE of providing accurate user information. The only reasonable conclusion must be that they are WILLFULLY concealing actual-user information and/or obstructing its discovery by people with legitimate reasons to know. What other possible explanation could there be?

No reason to post any articles (Washington Post et al) as the issues are not complicated. Twitter is apparently not cooperating with Musk's team in regard to supplying them with verifiable information about the actual number of legitimate accounts vs. fake ones. Twitter claims the amount is no more than 5% (one-in-twenty) even though they admit that they remove millions of false accounts every month.

The Musk team broke off communication with the Twitter reps on the issue. Apparently Twitter believes it is not required to supply any more information to the Musk team on this topic, claiming that they themselves, "are not able to reliably quantify," the actual number of fake accounts!!

if Musk cancels the deal, Twitter has insisted that they are entitled to a massive penalty payment ($1 billion) which of course the Musk team disputes.

The Musk legal team believes that failing to provide accurate information about the actual number of false accounts (stipulated) is a breach of disclosure requirements of the deal, negating Twitter's entitlement to cancellation payment.

This all gets lost in the muck of corporate contract law. Who will prevail is anyone's guess.

The one thing that has come out of this which is fairly dramatic is that Twitter has ADMITTED that the company does not actually know (in any meaningful sense) how many of their accounts are actually real!!

As far as I know, every media-company that sells ads has a third-party source for user-information. Radio has Arbitron, T.V. has Neilson ratings. Print advertising (magazines, newspapers) have their circulation numbers reported. Why should so-called "social media" companies be excluded from the same requirements to "show proof" of viewership as any other that sells ads?

So Twitter's brand (if Musk does not go forward with the deal) may be significantly damaged with advertisers. The company sells advertising based on how many actual people see the ads. If Twitter either can't or won't provide accurate information about viewers to ANYONE (not even lawyers doing mundane due diligence on a company sale deal) it brings into question whether they are really a legitimate media company.

It seems inconceivable to me that any media company selling ads would be structured so poorly that it was INCAPABLE of providing accurate user information. The only reasonable conclusion must be that they are WILLFULLY concealing actual-user information and/or obstructing its discovery by people with legitimate reasons to know.

What other possible explanation could there be?