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

07/08/2022, 04:20:24
Author Profile Mail author Edit

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? 







Modified by LateForLunch at Fri, Jul 08, 2022, 04:39:55

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert View All   Previous | Next | Current page
A quick point on Print circulation numbers reported
Re: Musk/Twitter deal foundering over fake accounts. -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: robertb ®

07/08/2022, 14:47:14
Author Profile Mail author Edit
About 25 years ago, I worked in the purchasing department for a large grocery chain (about 140 stores). Magazines were one of the categories I was responsible for.
I had a free subscription to pretty much every magazine that was carried at the check out lanes. It wasn't so I would become a fan of a title, but that 'free' subscriptions still count for circulation numbers for advertising purposes.

The industry gave out tens of thousands of free subscriptions to people like me, because each one counted as 1/3 of a paid subscription for this type of reporting. 

My point is, every industry finds ways to 'enhance' the count of their user population. Twitter is just the modern version of what the industry has done for decades.

N.B. It still would be nice if the fake accounts got cleaned up, but I am not holding my breath. 






Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Interesting story and excellent points...yet...
Re: A quick point on Print circulation numbers reported -- robertb Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

07/09/2022, 21:34:34
Author Profile Mail author Edit

...the Musk team seems to believe they have a right to the "rest of the story". 

I can sympathize. The "new media" enjoy the ambiguity of often being in "unexplored legal territory".  Clearly the greater issues of the day are not what may be done, but what may be done legally. 

The frontier of digital media (including socialist media) is how the law will decide disputes between players. Since there are no precedents to guide (in many cases) jurists face the challenge of having to blaze a trail with their decisions. 

It all gets lost in the weeds of legalisms (never my strong point) so I can't speak intelligently to outcome. 

If I were Musk of couse, I'd have concerns about paying so much for a commodity such as a digital communications platform which has a history of generating a revenue stream but which may also ostensibly dry up as rapidly as it arose. 

There is so much government and therefore political gamesmanship involved with regulatory/bureaucratic/activist- judicial powers being wielded by grotesquely corrupt 'Crats these days, almost literally anything is possible.

Since $1 billion is an affordable penalty for Musk there does not seem to be a whole lot of drama in connection to this at least as far as he is concerned. Worst scenario he gives up the cash and moves on - with a lesson learned about how what were once investments are now speculations.  

 






Modified by LateForLunch at Sat, Jul 09, 2022, 21:37:14

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
BTW, I was incorrect about the number of fake accounts the Twits remove, it's not a million per month, it's a million per DAY!!!
Re: Interesting story and excellent points...yet... -- LateForLunch Post Reply Top of thread Forum
Posted by: LateForLunch ®

07/10/2022, 19:07:31
Author Profile Mail author Edit
So yeah, I'd say as a layman that Musk has a legitimate concern if Twitter is not able or willing to provide some sort of reliable, objective information about the ACTUAL number of legitimate account holders - which they FLATLY refuse to do. 

Instead, the Twits have offered a "data stream" which does not include the necessary information needed for verification of validity. Hmmm. 

So now that the Twits have hired a heavy-hitter law firm to go after Musk for the $1 billion they believe he owes them it may depend on whether or not a jury/judge can be found by either side to help them win. In the Twits case, they will be counting on getting some ACF judge who hates conservatives (or even non-liberals) willing to put a finger on the scales of justice for them.  

The winner of this is of course TRUTH SOCIAL, DJT's start-up which will certainly have more appeal now that Twitter will still be O and O'd by mendacious, murderous, malicious Marxists. 






Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page

Forum     Back