If there was false information provided by Twitter (a little irony there) I believe that agreement’s validity would be in question by common sense or in any court of law.
> We estimate that the average of false or spam accounts during the fourth quarter of 2021 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.
>the average of false or spam accounts during the fourth quarter of 2021 continued to represent fewer than 5% of our mDAU
Not a native English speaker so maybe I'm just not understanding it correctly.
Since mDAU are a subset of DAU, probably a tiny subset of it, wouldn't that statement mean that way way less than 5% of DAU would be bots?
No. That statement is the fraction of mDAU accounts that are false/spam.
In a situation like this there is a very strong implication that you're talking about the intersection of the sets 'bots' and 'mDAU'. To talk about the raw number of bots vs. the raw number of mDAU would require very explicit wording to override that implication.
There was no false information provided by Twitter /because he waived due diligence/.
> Musk waived due diligence when he moved to buy the company, seemingly to hasten the acceptance of his bid.
> He wrote in a letter to Twitter Chairman Bret Taylor on April 24, "As we discussed, $54.20 has been and will remain my best and final offer, period. This is binary – my offer will either be accepted or I will exit my position."
> Twitter announced the company had accepted his offer the next day.
> But in the weeks that followed, Musk vocally criticized Twitter during media interviews and on Twitter, where he has tens of millions of followers.
Oh please, all of the principles involved here know that this is kayfabe. The bot issue is a pretense for Elon to try and weasel out of either the price or the entire deal. Both sides are aware that Twitter isn't even providing data that would let Musk verify the monetizable user calculation. The firehose is for posted tweets, while monetizable users mostly read.
> If there was false information provided by Twitter (a little irony there) I believe that agreement’s validity would be in question by common sense or in any court of law.
By waiving due diligence, Musk has put himself into situation where it is entirely his responsibility to establish the existence of material false information, and no one else's opportunity to help, short of required discovery should he file a lawsuit establishing a legally cognizable claim.
The SEC filings are not new information, so unless he has new information that show those filings are false, there is nothing to question in a court of law NOR the court of common sense.
He might think the bot estimates are wrong, but his opinion seems to have been exactly the same when he made the offer. So that's not a reasonable way to get out of the deal.
