>Twitter's CEO gave a pretty good explanation of how they combat bots and how they calculate their mDAUs
Company that previously lied to investors about engagement and settled a massive billion-dollar lawsuit makes further unproven claims about engagement. You believe them why?
Should corporations which deliberately lie to investors be immediately trusted again, especially on the same topic they got caught lying about previously?
Your argument is an appeal to authority where no authority exists. They're liars. Not just liars in general, but liars about this exact topic. Do you trust BP's offshore drilling because the CEO now insists it's totally safe this time?
>Twitter doesn't claim that the bots in Musk's feed are under 5% of users
He never claimed this, this seems like a strawman. Did you read the complaint?
>this isn't hard to believe
Choosing to believe a company that has admitted to lying to investors is your prerogative, it doesn't make them trustworthy or correct -- and it absolutely doesn't make your argument based in any kind of reality (why should we take the liars at their word?). Why go to bat for a company with a billion in fines for misleading investors? Under what basis do you believe they've reformed and can be trusted?
I don't understand why you believe Elon can't be believed because of his history of lying while you ignore Twitter's sordid past of securities violations and lying to investors.
>Elon Musk, notorious liar
Why don't you label Twitter as notorious liars, given their billion in settlements for lying to investors?
> Choosing to believe a company that has admitted to lying to investors is your prerogative, it doesn't make them trustworthy or correct
More to the point, it's Musk's perogative, which he excercised when he signed a contract to buy the company based on their represenations while choosing not to do any due diligence to verify those representations.
I think Twitter is probably more believable here than you give them credit for, but Musk trusted them 100% for some reason.
> Should corporations which deliberately lie to investors be immediately trusted again, especially on the same topic they got caught lying about previously?
For lies known previously to Musk's offer, he had every opportunity to decide whether to trust Twitter or not, and he chose to by waiving due diligence.
If there's an allegation of an additional lie that's material to the deal, Musk hasn't provided evidence of that here.
>If there's an allegation of an additional lie that's material to the deal, Musk hasn't provided evidence of that here.
Did you read the filing? He provided evidence of them violating their obligations under the agreement (refusing to provide adequate access to data to independently verify claims made about user engagement). Twitter agreed to these terms. Read the original agreement to see for yourself.
>he had every opportunity to decide whether to trust Twitter or not
How does that mean fraud is okay? If Twitter lied again, it would be a clear contract violation. You can't just lie about critical company metrics to acquirers, due diligence or not. It's fraud AND a contract violation.
Given we're talking about a disreputable company with a history of lying, I'm not inclined to believe them and I don't know why you immediately believe their claims. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why you think they deserve trust in this matter.
Company that previously lied to investors about engagement and settled a massive billion-dollar lawsuit makes further unproven claims about engagement. You believe them why?
Should corporations which deliberately lie to investors be immediately trusted again, especially on the same topic they got caught lying about previously?
Your argument is an appeal to authority where no authority exists. They're liars. Not just liars in general, but liars about this exact topic. Do you trust BP's offshore drilling because the CEO now insists it's totally safe this time?
>Twitter doesn't claim that the bots in Musk's feed are under 5% of users
He never claimed this, this seems like a strawman. Did you read the complaint?
>this isn't hard to believe
Choosing to believe a company that has admitted to lying to investors is your prerogative, it doesn't make them trustworthy or correct -- and it absolutely doesn't make your argument based in any kind of reality (why should we take the liars at their word?). Why go to bat for a company with a billion in fines for misleading investors? Under what basis do you believe they've reformed and can be trusted?
I don't understand why you believe Elon can't be believed because of his history of lying while you ignore Twitter's sordid past of securities violations and lying to investors.
>Elon Musk, notorious liar
Why don't you label Twitter as notorious liars, given their billion in settlements for lying to investors?