Elon Musk Subpoenas Jack Dorsey In Legal Battle Over $44 Billion Twitter Deal (cnet.com) 51
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNET: Elon Musk's lawyers subpoenaed former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Monday as the billionaire continues to battle a lawsuit that could force him to complete a $44 billion purchase of the social media company. Both Twitter and Musk have issued subpoenas ahead of a five-day trial that's scheduled to take place in October. [...] Dorsey, a Twitter co-founder who stepped down as CEO of the company last year, has expressed support for Musk's attempt to take over Twitter. In April, he tweeted that he didn't believe anyone should own or run Twitter but taking it back from Wall Street is the "correct first step."
"Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust," Dorsey tweeted. "I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness." Dorsey also had a discussion with Musk about social media's future and open social protocols in late March before Musk made a bid in April to purchase Twitter for $54.20 per share, a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission says. Twitter shareholders are expected to vote on the deal on Sept. 13.
"Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust," Dorsey tweeted. "I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness." Dorsey also had a discussion with Musk about social media's future and open social protocols in late March before Musk made a bid in April to purchase Twitter for $54.20 per share, a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission says. Twitter shareholders are expected to vote on the deal on Sept. 13.
Re: Neural Link (Score:2)
This makes sense. No wonder he doesn't want bot to bot communication.
Which brings up the problem in the future of bad actors - cough governments cough - installing bots on a neural link type device network.
Dystopiastan, anyone?
Battle Of The Ballsacks (Score:3)
Gonadular expressionism at its finest.
Elon Musk no longer wants to buy Twitter? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correct. I'm sure they won't actually want him to follow through with the purchase, they just have their hand out for damages.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correct. I'm sure they won't actually want him to follow through with the purchase, they just have their hand out for damages.
By "damages", I assume you actually mean the $1 billion Musk committed to paying if he backed out of his offer to buy Twitter.
That's not quite it (Score:5, Informative)
Personally he's the last person I want in charge of an apparatus as powerful as Twitter. He's well known for silencing his critics through threats and intimidation, going as far as hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on potential union reps, random emergency workers and customers that're critical of his products. He gets into fights with comedy websites for stealing their jokes. He's unstable and potentially dangerous given the amount of power we allow him to wield. But people like prosperity gospel and hero worship.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you sure you're not thinking of Donald Trump?
Elon doesn't have enough free time on his hands to do all that stuff.
Re:That's not quite it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
How to tell people you've never managed so much as a McDonald's franchise without telling them that you've never managed so much as a McDonald's franchise
Re:That's not quite it (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems you missed the point there.
If the company is big enough, and swings around enough money, you can afford to have others do the time intensive stuff for you. And many on that level will.
A relative of mine owns quite a big precious metals recycling company - and delegates pretty much every tedious aspect of running the show to others. He mostly sits in one of his vaccation homes, has a few personal assistants with him, gets a briefing every day or two and "decides" on important issues. If he spends more than 2 hours a day with actual work I would be really surprised.
And thats how it is for the overwhelming portion of the ultrarich. they dont work hard - they condense their work down to the few moments that are fun.
Re: That's not quite it (Score:2)
Clearly, you have great experience running significant organizations.
There is a difference between reality and the narrative you tell yourself, however.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Elon doesn't have enough free time on his hands to do all that stuff.
Shit posting, fucking actress, threatening employees and making interview about himself and the latest Wikipedia article you read takes a lot time indeed... This moron stopped working long time ago, he is now playing real life GTA.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you sure you're not thinking of Donald Trump?
Elon doesn't have enough free time on his hands to do all that stuff.
I'm thinking of both. Musk spends a lot of time on that stuff, when he isn't playing on-line games, tweeting, appearing on TV chat shows, and doing smoke-and-mirrors sales presentations. By his own admission, he does not spend much time in company meetings, he just breezes in and out.
It's cute that you refer to him as "Elon" though. Friend of his?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
he agreed to pay $1 billion if he couldn't complete the deal. He did not have the right to back out of the deal if it could be shown he could finish it.
Personally he's the last person I want in charge of an apparatus as powerful as Twitter. He's well known for silencing his critics through threats and intimidation, going as far as hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on potential union reps, random emergency workers and customers that're critical of his products. He gets into fights with comedy websites for stealing their jokes. He's unstable and potentially dangerous given the amount of power we allow him to wield. But people like prosperity gospel and hero worship.
I'd actually love to see Musk in charge of Twitter as he turns it into his own private propaganda fiefdom, which would cause users to haemorrhage like crazy. Musk would absolutely completely lose it in the most hilarious way. Elon musk believes so deeply in freedom of speech he tried to sue Jeremy Clarkson for not gushing over Tesla.
Of course I'm not on Twitter so I've no horse in this race.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally he's the last person I want in charge of an apparatus as powerful as Twitter. He's well known for silencing his critics through threats and intimidation, going as far as hiring private investigators to dig up dirt on potential union reps, random emergency workers and customers that're critical of his products. He gets into fights with comedy websites for stealing their jokes. He's unstable and potentially dangerous given the amount of power we allow him to wield. But people like prosperity gospel and hero worship.
That's true, but I think this deal is going to be bad for both musk and twitter. Which is why I want it to go through :D
Re: (Score:2)
"He's well known for silencing his critics through threats and intimidation"
That's rich coming from someone who sides with the leftist mob.
(If I misread you and you do not side with the leftist mob, I apologize)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon is far from perfect, but he'd provide some kind of balance to the social media giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit, who are invariably left-wing controlled, and have shown as much. If Elon takes over Twitter, at least we'll have a SINGLE platform which is somewhat centrist and who won't subconsciously side with a political side as much.
If he sticks to his stance of free speech and allows lef
Re: (Score:2)
By "damages", I assume you actually mean the $1 billion Musk committed to paying if he backed out of his offer to buy Twitter.
No, that $1bn was a bailout clause stated in the contract, and has to be agreed upon both parties.
Twitter is now looking for way more than that, and they'll likely get it. Musk's antics hurt the company bad.
Re: (Score:2)
His offer is $54/share, the current share price is $43. The board would get sued into oblivion by the shareholders if they just let him back out.
He might just be delaying (Score:3)
Ladies and Gentlemen, The Aristocrats.
Elon Musk still want to buy Twitter (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm going with the opposite take: he does want to buy Twitter.
But he simply wants to force Twitter's current management to pay whatever he can get out of them.
Twitter is on the record, as in "SEC filings", that only about 5% of their user base are bots.
Musk believes that the number is much, much higher. But if that actually comes out in the open, gkeep in mind that the 5% number is in their 10k filings. If the real number is 5.1 or 5.2%, who cares. But if we're talking 10%? 25%? As Musk alleges? This is sec
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Twitter is on the record, as in "SEC filings", that only about 5% of their user base are bots.
This sort of language is (accidentally, it appears) part of what Musk is trying to do to confuse everything.
Twitter doesn't report the number of "bots." And what is a bot? Is an account owned by a local news outlet that automatically re-publishes their weather forecast to twitter a "bot?" Yes, of course it is a bot. Is it a legit account? Yes. Is it normal for the account to be included in the total number of accounts? Of course.
So the question of if an account is a "bot" or not is actually meaningless.
What
Re:Elon Musk still want to buy Twitter (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
The guys at Techdirt explain it pretty simply here. [techdirt.com]
It comes form the musk-has-no-poker-face dept which is pretty funny.
He may well need to stump up with the $44 billion he promised.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk has already agreed that he doesn't care about any of that.
The guys at Techdirt explain it pretty simply here. [techdirt.com]
It comes form the musk-has-no-poker-face dept which is pretty funny.
He may well need to stump up with the $44 billion he promised.
I think the TechDirt article is wrong.
The bot thing isn't a legal pretext designed to get him out of the deal.
It's a PR strategy aimed at advertisers designed to look like a legal pretext.
I think Musk is hoping to force Twitter to settle and let him out of the deal (presumably with the $1B breakup fee). The best way to do that is to drag Twitter through the mud as much as possible (knocking down their advertiser rates as much as possible) so they decide to settle rather than wait to fight it out in court (t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure they will settle, but I'm not sure why Twitter would settle for a lousy $1 billion, when they can force him to pay $44 billion.
I'm not sure which bits of the Techdirt piece you think are wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
If Musk is negotiating with Twitter, he's doing from a position of weakness, because he has already signed a deal to buy them for $44 billion.
I'm sure they will settle, but I'm not sure why Twitter would settle for a lousy $1 billion, when they can force him to pay $44 billion.
I'm not sure which bits of the Techdirt piece you think are wrong.
What Techdirt has wrong is they think the bot claim is a legal pretext meant for the court room, and they think this will conclude in the court room.
The bot claim is meant for Twitter's customers, and it's meant to create a settlement outside the court room.
As for the amount, even though Musk has zero legal legs to stand on forcing someone to spend $44B to buy a company they don't want (and who doesn't want them) is a fairly extreme legal remedy.
My personal prediction is that Musk pays something like $5-$10
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why Twitter publishes its "mDAU" figure (monetizable daily active users) with a caveat of "5% error margin" - Twitter have already excluded the proportion of their user base that they think are bots, and arrived at a figure they are more or less happy with as actual users, within an error margin.
Thats the figure advertisers are interested in, and thats the figure Twitter publishes - at most, advertisers will pay to advertise to a pool of users of whom 5% may be bots, or in other words, at most 5% o
Re: (Score:2)
Per their ex cybersecurity head, Twitter doesn't have the slightest fucking clue what the actual percentage of bots is, mDAU or not.
Re: (Score:2)
A 5% margin of error on a measurement is not a promise that the measurement has any particular level of accuracy. It means that there is no more 5% error introduced by rounding, and other mathematical errata.
Re: (Score:1)
No, absolutely not. What is important is that they can track how many people view the ads. It does not matter how many additional accounts they have that are used to repost the weather forecast.
People get stupider every year. The human brain has been shrinking for 50k years, but I fear the rate of stupidification has increased drastically during the past 20 years.
Re:Elon Musk still want to buy Twitter (Score:5, Insightful)
The real number of bots is irrelevant. First because Musk says that he never believed Twitter's numbers--and claimed that he was taking Twitter private, in part, to address the problem. Second, both of the acquisition entities owned by Musk signed off on the deal without due diligence re bots or anything else. Third, Twitter never guaranteed the 5% bots estimate for advertisers, investors, or Musk; all Twitter said was: Here is our methodology, it suggests 5% bots.
I suspect Dorsey is getting deposed so that there is a chance to embarrass him. Right now Musk is the only household name who might look stupid under oath. Deposing Dorsey creates a pressure point for Twitter, which is a 50% improvement over flogging the essentially-dead bot issue by itself.
Re:Elon Musk still want to buy Twitter (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm going with the opposite take: he does want to buy Twitter.
But he simply wants to force Twitter's current management to pay whatever he can get out of them.
Correction, he already bought Twitter. But in the same way that buying a house goes on for a while before the deed changes hands buying a company takes a few months to finish off.
However, Musk realized that buying Twitter was a terrible idea so now he's trying to weasel out of the deal.
But it's important to realize that he already "bought" Twitter. That's why he can't just pay $1 billion to back out of the deal, it he wants to halt the sale he needs a big reason and that's what the bots are for.
Twitter is on the record, as in "SEC filings", that only about 5% of their user base are bots.
Musk believes that the number is much, much higher. But if that actually comes out in the open, gkeep in mind that the 5% number is in their 10k filings. If the real number is 5.1 or 5.2%, who cares. But if we're talking 10%? 25%? As Musk alleges? This is securities fraud we're talking here. And if Twitter management knew about it, and still lied about in their 10K filings? Hoo-boy...
I've got a hunch that Twitter's current management will be willing to do anything to block this from coming out in public, and that's what Musk is counting on.
So? Musk has had the data for months and hasn't been able to prove the number is higher than 5%, he certainly hasn't been able to prove securities fraud.
And given that Musk publicly said he was buying Twitter to fix the bots even if the number is 20% that's irrelevant because he went into the deal thinking the 5% number was a massive underestimate.
Musk isn't making a legal argument, he's making an economic one. He's trying to hurt Twitter's business as much as he can in order to force the board to let him out of the deal. That's why Musk asked to delay the court case, the longer he drags it out the more he can hurt their business.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going with the opposite take: he does want to buy Twitter.
But he simply wants to force Twitter's current management to pay whatever he can get out of them.
Twitter is on the record, as in "SEC filings", that only about 5% of their user base are bots.
Musk believes that the number is much, much higher. But if that actually comes out in the open, gkeep in mind that the 5% number is in their 10k filings. If the real number is 5.1 or 5.2%, who cares. But if we're talking 10%? 25%? As Musk alleges? This is securities fraud we're talking here. And if Twitter management knew about it, and still lied about in their 10K filings? Hoo-boy...
I've got a hunch that Twitter's current management will be willing to do anything to block this from coming out in public, and that's what Musk is counting on.
This is the actual paragraph from Twitters SEC filing: https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfr... [cloudfront.net]
We rely on assumptions and estimates to calculate certain of our key metrics, and real or perceived inaccuracies in such metrics may harm our
reputation and negatively affect our business.
We calculate our mDAU using internal company data that has not been independently verified. While these numbers are based on what we believe
to be reasonable calculations for the applicable period of measurement, there are inherent challenges in measuring mDAU and mDAU engagement. For
example, there are a number of false or spam accounts in existence on our platform. We estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the fourth
quarter of 2019 continued to represent fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter. However, this estimate is based on an internal review of a sample of
accounts and we apply significant judgment in making this determination. As such, our estimation of false or spam accounts may not accurately represent the
actual number of such accounts, and the actual number of false or spam accounts could be higher than we have currently estimated. We are continually seeking
to improve our ability to estimate the total number of spam accounts and eliminate them from the calculation of our mDAU, but we otherwise treat multiple
accounts held by a single person or organization as multiple accounts for purposes of calculating our mDAU because we permit people and organizations to
have more than one account. Additionally, some accounts used by organizations are used by many people within the organization. As such, the calculations of
our mDAU may not accurately reflect the actual number of people or organizations using our platform. We regularly review and may adjust our processes for
calculating our internal metrics to improve their accuracy. Our measures of mDAU growth and engagement may differ from estimates published by third parties
or from similarly-titled metrics of our competitors due to differences in methodology. If advertisers, content or platform partners or investors do not perceive our
metrics to be accurate representations of our total accounts or mDAU engagement, or if we discover material inaccuracies in our metrics, our reputation may be
harmed and content partners, advertisers and platform partners may be less willing to allocate their budgets or resources to our products and services, which
could negatively affect our business and operating results. Further, as our business develops, we may revise or cease reporting metrics if we determine that
such metrics are no longer accurate or appropriate measures of our performance. For example, we believe that mDAU, and its related growth, are the best ways
to measure our success against our objectives and to show the size of our audience and engagement going forward, so we discontinued disclosing monthly
active usage after the first quarter of 2019. If investors, analysts or customers do not believe our reported measures, such as mDAU, are sufficient or accurately
reflect our business, we may receive negative publicity and our operating results may be adversely impacted.
I don't see how anyone in good faith could claim that Twitter says there are only 5% bots and that they have some other number that would prove securities fraud.
Re: (Score:1)
You have a problem understanding English?
"We estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the fourth quarter of 2019 continued to represent fewer than 5%"
Apparently you do. It helps if you read the entire sentence: We estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the fourth quarter of 2019 continued to represent fewer than 5% of our mDAU during the quarter.
Re: (Score:1)
That 5% sounds pretty suspect. They have a vested interest in that number being as low as possible, it's WAY below anyone's estimate, and yet they came up with that number themselves, using a method they refuse to explain. The real number could be 50%, and their "method" could be to roll six dice, take away the high three rolls, and add the rest together. And there's no pubic evidence to prove or disprove ANY of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is on the record, as in "SEC filings", that only about 5% of their user base are bots.
Unfortunately just saying something in an SEC filing doesn't make it fixed. To prove that this was in any way fraudulent you need to show both an alternative correct estimate as well as that the methodology in the SEC filing is intentionally incorrect.
Due diligence is the process by which you verify the SEC filings, which is also why most purchase agreements take months if not years to close, rather than Musk's tweet followed by agreement a couple of weeks later. And now months after agreement was put in wr
Re: (Score:2)
Musk believes that the number is much, much higher. But if that actually comes out in the open, gkeep in mind that the 5% number is in their 10k filings. If the real number is 5.1 or 5.2%, who cares. But if we're talking 10%? 25%? As Musk alleges? This is securities fraud we're talking here.
No, not really. The standard for a material adverse effect would actually be much higher than that.
But still, if we're gracious and concede Musk that this was a ruse to somehow expose Twitter, it's the dumbest fucking gamble in business history.
Here we go again (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here we go again (Score:4, Funny)
CEOs on crack (Score:4, Insightful)
Like, they actually believe that the social media company they invented 20 years ago is going to take humanity to a new era. The new new renaissance.
Reminds me of the dozens of executives all over corporate america that believe they are changing the world. One sh*tty product at a time.
TL;DR twitter saga (Score:2)
TL;DR twitter saga
Musk: Buys 9% of $TWTR ... FYPM
Interwebs: ZOMG EVIL MAN
Musk: TWTR for sale pls?
Twitter Board: GFY
Musk: $50 + $4.20/share?
Twitter Board: GFY, FYM, SMD
Musk: Bye Felicia
Twitter Board: No no no
Queue lawyers.