Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:14 pm Fair enough.

But I thought it mattered when certain celebrities lost hundreds of thousands of followers during purges?

to whom does it matter? It's just a number. it doesn't control revenue, according to twitter.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:14 am

Leisher wrote: ↑Sat Jul 09, 2022 10:14 pm Fair enough.

But I thought it mattered when certain celebrities lost hundreds of thousands of followers during purges?

to whom does it matter? It's just a number. it doesn't control revenue, according to twitter.

It would mean everything to advertisers. If Twitter is telling them a million people see their ads when they advertise on X celebrity's page or really any page, they expect that number to be accurate. If your actual audience is far less than what you are claiming, that could be fraud.

Nielsen ratings are public knowledge. I fully expect we're going to see Google analytic numbers become the same way.

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:08 pm If Twitter is telling them a million people see their ads when they advertise on X celebrity's page or really any page, they expect that number to be accurate. If your actual audience is far less than what you are claiming, that could be fraud.

The de-monetization means not counted for ads.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:14 pm

Leisher wrote: ↑Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:08 pm If Twitter is telling them a million people see their ads when they advertise on X celebrity's page or really any page, they expect that number to be accurate. If your actual audience is far less than what you are claiming, that could be fraud.

The de-monetization means not counted for ads.

Yeah, that's a crock of shit and makes my point as to why any revelation about their bot numbers being much higher would be incredibly damaging. This is why it was such an important number for Elon.

They're telling advertisers and other investors that the amount of bots are <5% and when they sell ads and whatnot that number is key. Nobody sells based on clickthroughs because that would be monumentally stupid. Imagine a TV station basing ad rates on how many people actually call a number in an ad. Selling based on clickthroughs would put the platform at the mercy of the advertiser and its content/campaign. That makes zero sense.

Thus, they are telling advertisers that <5% of all the accounts that see their ads are bots. That's how they calculate their rates. If the number of bots were actually 30% or even 10%, it would dramatically affect their advertising rates.

And was my initial reaction as well. "Now their bot info will be disclosed in court, and share price will drop?"

If it happens a dollar says they'll submit the information as "trade secrets" or whatever and not be publicly disclosed.

Leisher wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:04 pm Elon's response to Twitter's lawsuit implies exactly what I'm saying.

Musk: Give me all the info

Twitter: OK, here

Musk: They didn't give me the info!

GORDON wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:05 pm If it happens a dollar says they'll submit the information as "trade secrets" or whatever and not be publicly disclosed.

Duh. That's logic 101.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:07 pm Musk: Give me all the info

Twitter: OK, here

Musk: They didn't give me the info!

Not really true.

His stance is that they are lying and he's got numbers to prove it. (Now whether or not that's true, we'll find out in court.)

If he is correct, this lawsuit is going to severely damage Twitter. He'll be able to walk, their stock will tank, and advertisers are going to demand to pay a lot less money. Even if their numbers are not disclosed in court, if Elon wins he'll probably blab about being right. That will be enough to tell the world that Twitter's numbers are lies.

If he is wrong, he's going to own it anyway or be out a fuckton of cash.

If Twitter is profitable, and Musk can afford it, he'd want to buy it if he saw a return on investment.

If he thinks they're shady and full of shit, he'd pull out in the face of a billion dollar penalty and say, "See you in court, chumps."

It seems to be playing out one of those two ways.

Stock's down like... 30%? from negotiated purchase price. A billion dollar penalty might be a good deal.

Troy wrote: ↑Wed Jul 13, 2022 3:54 am Stock's down like... 30%? from negotiated purchase price. A billion dollar penalty might be a good deal.

It's lost $18B in market cap versus the purchase price.

This is Twitter's lawyer:

But Savitt said that determining the percentage of spam accounts is not necessary in this case, since “nothing in the merger agreement turns on that question.”

So apparently their stance is not going to be arguing their bot claims, but rather the deal Musk agreed to said nothing about what percentage of users are bots?

One could argue that this stance seemingly confirms Musk might be right, but perhaps it doesn't matter.

I dunno, it's all up to lawyers now. So at least they get paid.

Hah!

According to twitter? Did they investigate themselves and found themselves innocent of the charges?

Anyone else think it's been fun to watch left wing Twitter melt down when Elon announced he was buying it, try everything to prevent it from happening, and now want him to be forced to buy it?

It must be a terrible life to be that full of hate.

...or the ones rooting for it are bots.

The cognitive dissonance has been astounding to watch.

I just want him to pay the $1bn