Elon Musk Launches $43 Billion Hostile Takeover of Twitter

[quovadis]

Actually, free speech has nothing to do with abuse of platform. These are two distinctly different creatures. Atm, without being nasty, I can't but help think of all those pesky spammers trying to sell viagra to teenage girls, claiming it's their right under free speech laws.

Rights impose obligations to not pervert rights to the determent of others. This is also the exact same with privacy and also those other things that makes a free society free. The past few month, the GDPR has come under close scrutiny as it's being perverted. The beginning of the week, POPIA was topical in a session and South Africa is fast realizing they may have jumped onto the privacy bandwagon too fast, modelling it on the GDPR.

Sure but in the absence of terms of service does posting whatever you like (within the bounds of lawful free speech) constitute abuse as defined by law whether disseminated by myself or proxy?

 

[konfab]

The merger agreement is WHAT MATTERS. Thus, does the merger agreement (being the definitive and material agreement) contain the termination clauses or not?

Yes.

But that wasn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing the point that the previous actions of the board were hostile.

 

[Kieppie]

Just because dissemination is via commercial means does not mean it's commercial speech.

What you may be getting at is rather this.
Courts in the US noted that speech does not lose its protection simply because money is transacted through it. However simply because this type of speech is protected speech does not mean that it is immune from government regulation and can be regulated if false or misleading. Which brings me back to the part where the majority of bots are employed in fraudulent practices.

The law regarding bots is by no means settled and still relatively new. Here is a tangential first amendment & bot article from a few years ago.

Do Bots Have First Amendment Rights?

Recent Supreme Court cases suggest ‘yes.’ And that could be bad news for a new California law that requires bots to identify themselves.

www.politico.com

It will be interesting to see how future cases regarding bots turn out. Personally I hope they vote against it lest future laws regarding AI become problematic.

 

[Howdy]

Sure but in the absence of terms of service does posting whatever you like (within the bounds of lawful free speech) constitute abuse as defined by law whether disseminated by myself or proxy?

May I ask: Is your name Johan Botha spamming the heck out of South Africa?

Consider M$ And Yahoo have gone after spammers spamming the heck out of their users. If you find such a creature in ZA, look closer, you'd be mising something, they'd be bound by their upstream which all leads to ISPA. Trevor made name for himself and the final judgement in the high court was not just about "commercial" use. Ultimately your right to free speech is not to be conflated with an entitlement to harass people with your views (or product).

 

[quovadis]

Yes.

But that wasn't the point I was arguing. I was arguing the point that the previous actions of the board were hostile.

There's no board resolution which shows any material friction or opposition to Musk's offer? Twitter's board has only acted in the best interest of Twitter and its shareholders. Your poison pill argument does not constitute hostility - it's common practice.

 

[konfab]

What you may be getting at is rather this.
Courts in the US noted that speech does not lose its protection simply because money is transacted through it. However simply because this type of speech is protected speech does not mean that it is immune from government regulation and can be regulated if false or misleading. Which brings me back to the part where the majority of bots are employed in fraudulent practices.

The law regarding bots is by no means settled and still relatively new. Here is a tangential first amendment & bot article from a few years ago.

Do Bots Have First Amendment Rights?

Recent Supreme Court cases suggest ‘yes.’ And that could be bad news for a new California law that requires bots to identify themselves.

www.politico.com

It will be interesting to see how future cases regarding bots turn out. Personally I hope they vote against it lest future laws regarding AI become problematic.

That is an interesting argument, but it is besides the point for the discussion on what content Twitter should allow on its site.

Musk indicated that the way he wanted moderation to work was to allow users to have more control about what content they see. So one of the ways you can make Twitter pretty much a free speech platform is to allow users to choose what content filters they want, but have some sensible defaults for everyone. So for the topic of spam, you can get around that by having a filter that only allows tweets from authenticated humans (provided said authentication is open to everyone).

 

[RonSwanson]

Yet in the real world, we see bots abused to create multiple fake personas. It's like you voting ten times, or hundred times, or ... depending how large your bot network is. That's the common understanding in these things, why terms like bot herders exist. It's using automation to magnify the effects.

Also to inflate the amount of "real people" users, thus advertisers can be charged more.

 

[quovadis]

May I ask: Is your name Johan Botha spamming the heck out of South Africa?

Consider M$ And Yahoo have gone after spammers spamming the heck out of their users. If you find such a creature in ZA, look closer, you'd be mising something, they'd be bound by their upstream which all leads to ISPA. Trevor made name for himself and the final judgement in the high court was not just about "commercial" use. Ultimately your right to free speech is not to be conflated with an entitlement to harass people with your views (or product).

Nope not JB. Understand though I'm just arguing the merits of freedom of speech and limitation within the context of Musk's ideal town square scenario which, without limitation, could create the proverbial sh1tsh0w ending in the inevitable demise of the town square. The argument is mostly in respect to public discourse and not private mail which all spam laws typically target so there's misalignment for enforcement via that unless its direct messaging.

 

[Kieppie]

Also to inflate the amount of "real people" users, thus advertisers can be charged more.

There was a more spesific advertisement related article I read a while back, but can't remember the title. This one is close enough broadly speaking.

How Much of the Internet Is Fake?

Turns out, a lot of it, actually.

nymag.com

 

[quovadis]

Also to inflate the amount of "real people" users, thus advertisers can be charged more.

I doubt there is any material difference to advertisers these days. Impressions are no longer the driving metric - engagement is now key. Most companies allocate their marketing budgets based on return and not eyeballs.

 

[RonSwanson]

There was a more spesific advertisement related article I read a while back, but can't remember the title. This one is close enough broadly speaking.

How Much of the Internet Is Fake?

Turns out, a lot of it, actually.

nymag.com

Yep, there are bots that analyse users (and other bots), bots that spam users (and bots) with ads, and then the bots that click on the ads that the other bots have placed. And then there are the other bots that know about bots and are trained to identify the bots, and then to either nuke them or leave them alone because no clicks, no money.

Considering that the bulk of Twitter's revenue is largely from ads, this is both material and very relevant to Twitter's purchaser, which is why he requested additional information, which Twitter has not complied with, so he is walking.

 

[quovadis]

Musk indicated that the way he wanted moderation to work was to allow users to have more control about what content they see. So one of the ways you can make Twitter pretty much a free speech platform is to allow users to choose what content filters they want, but have some sensible defaults for everyone. So for the topic of spam, you can get around that by having a filter that only allows tweets from authenticated humans (provided said authentication is open to everyone).

Most of what you've stated above is already possible pre-Musk. If you're verified you can limit all views and engagement to only verified accounts - you can also filter/limit your interests, topics, trends and audience.

 

[RonSwanson]

I doubt there is any material difference to advertisers these days. Impressions are no longer the driving metric - engagement is now key. Most companies allocate their marketing budgets based on return and not eyeballs.

I strongly doubt that Twitter would be able to tell the difference, based on the rubbish that they first fed the SEC and then Musk.

 

[quovadis]

Considering that the bulk of Twitter's revenue is largely from ads, this is both material and very relevant to Twitter's purchaser, which is why he requested additional information, which Twitter has not complied with, so he is walking.

I think that's disingenuous. Advertisers can measure their ad campaigns in terms of engagement and revenue on and off Twitter. There's an entire industry built around measuring engagement and monetisation.

I strongly doubt that Twitter would be able to tell the difference, based on the rubbish that they first fed the SEC and then Musk.

I've covered this already above however the SEC filings are pretty much qualified in terms of their own limitations, methodology and judgment and it's not like Musk would be oblivious to those limitations.

 

[konfab]

Most of what you've stated above is already possible pre-Musk. If you're verified you can limit all views and engagement to only verified accounts - you can also filter/limit your interests, topics, trends and audience.

Right, but you can only get a verified account if you have the correct politics.

Musk wants to open verification to everyone.

 

[RonSwanson]

I think that's disingenuous. Advertisers can measure their ad campaigns in terms of engagement and revenue on and off Twitter. There's an entire industry built around measuring engagement and monetisation.

Musk wanted to understand the extent to which advertisers were being fleeced and how deep the rot was. What is so disingenuous about that?

Twitter never complied with their agreement to provide the info, and their "firehose" was yet another attempt at frustrating Musk's efforts to obtain the information. That's why I agree with @konfab , the initial overt hostilities ceased once shareholders became aware and held the board accountable to abandon the poison pill and accept the exceptionally generous offer, yet the hostilities continued covertly. The entire Twitter board deserve to be held jointly and severally liable in their personal capacities for dereliction of their fiduciary duties to Twitter's shareholders. No doubt the board members are insured (to a capped amount), but good luck to future board member getting insurance. Twitter shareholders deserve better treatment than that.

 

[quovadis]

Musk wanted to understand the extent to which advertisers were being fleeced and how deep the rot was. What is so disingenuous about that?

Twitter never complied with their agreement to provide the info, and their "firehose" was yet another attempt at frustrating Musk's efforts to obtain the information. That's why I agree with @konfab , the initial overt hostilities ceased once shareholders became aware and held the board accountable to abandon the poison pill and accept the exceptionally generous offer, yet the hostilities continued covertly. The entire Twitter board deserve to be held jointly and severally liable in their personal capacities for dereliction of their fiduciary duties to Twitter's shareholders. No doubt the board members are insured (to a capped amount), but good luck to future board member getting insurance. Twitter shareholders deserve better treatment than that.

Musk has no evidence to support that advertisers are being fleeced neither are advertisers claiming they are being fleeced . You're attributing far too much weight to this. Audience metrics have never been precise and vary by methodology and platforms to a great extent. Advertisers focus on conversions and acquisition costs and budget accordingly based on response. That response is very rarely correlated to reach / eyeballs.

As for the hostilities I'm still trying to find the basis for this argument? The "poison pill" is pretty much standard. In fact Musk has his own termination clause which Twitter is liable for - I guess that's irrelevant to you since it's super hostile?!

 

[quovadis]

Right, but you can only get a verified account if you have the correct politics.

Musk wants to open verification to everyone.

It is open to everyone even without "correct politics". Most of those de-platformed and ecstatic about Musk (at least when this started) were all verified. Musk wants to monetise verification.

 

[Howdy]

Nope not JB.

lol, that I know

Understand though I'm just arguing the merits of freedom of speech and limitation within the context of Musk's ideal town square scenario which, without limitation, could create the proverbial sh1tsh0w ending in the inevitable demise of the town square. The argument is mostly in respect to public discourse and not private mail which all spam laws typically target so there's misalignment for enforcement via that unless its direct messaging.

Fair enough, we're getting side tracked. But in the end, the automation argument, bots and falsely magnifying your views, stands. It's against Twitter's rules. Signing up you're acknowledging them. Violating them can result in action against you, most probably a banning and you playing games, new bots ... but worst case legal action if you persist. If Twitter decides to not enforce them, it opens up a vastly new terrain of action against them and claims of prejudice. Not making an effort to monitor for something acknowledged in the T&Cs makes for fun times, since you cannot deny having knowledge of the possibility if harm were to occur.

.

 

[Tim_vb]

lol, that I know

Fair enough, we're getting side tracked. But in the end, the automation argument, bots and falsely magnifying your views, stands. It's against Twitter's rules. Signing up you're acknowledging them. Violating them can result in action against you, most probably a banning and you playing games, new bots ... but worst case legal action if you persist. If Twitter decides to not enforce them, it opens up a vastly new terrain of action against them and claims of prejudice. Not making an effort to monitor for something acknowledged in the T&Cs makes for fun times, since you cannot deny having knowledge of the possibility if harm were to occur.

.

Its interesting to note that our homegrown AI master hasn't submitted any evidence that bots account for more than 5% of twitter activity...its all just Musk's feelings at this point.

It's going to be interesting to see him explaining his reasoning to the court as to why he didn't attempt this analysis before signing the OTP

"Although Twitter has not yet provided complete information to Mr. Musk that would enable him to do a complete and comprehensive review of spam and fake accounts on Twitter’s platform, he has been able to partially and preliminarily analyze the accuracy of Twitter’s disclosure regarding its mDAU. While this analysis remains ongoing, all indications suggest that several of Twitter’s public disclosures regarding its mDAUs are either false or materially misleading. First, although Twitter has consistently represented in securities filings that “fewer than 5%” of its mDAU are false or spam accounts, based on the information provided by Twitter to date, it appears that Twitter is dramatically understating the proportion of spam and false accounts represented in its mDAU count. Preliminary analysis by Mr. Musk’s advisors of the information provided by Twitter to date causes Mr. Musk to strongly believe that the proportion of false and spam accounts included in the reported mDAU count is wildly higher than 5%."