/townhall/ - Townhall

>>10943
I wish that you'd at least have the honesty that you think of yourself as superior to me and other people, hence why you want special privileges from social media that you won't let me have.

>>10959
I have never, at any point, suggested anyone should have special privilages on social media.

This is flatly a lie. You made it up.
I have no idea why you'd lie about something so patently untrue and easily demonstrable, but you've made a single line reply, so I suppose you're not really making much attempt at rationality at this point besides.

>>10974
Admittedly, this is a problem for me arguing with a conservative in the first place, it's like wrestling with a pig: you get muddy and unhappy, but they love it.

>>10982
>make up shit never said
>get called out for it
>"CONSERVATIVES BAD IM JUST WRESTLING WITH PIGS O WOE IS ME WHY DO I EVEN TRY"

Look, I'm all for you stepping away if you have no arguments or can't engage without such behavior.
But must you announce said inability with a plethora of degrading remarks?

>>10985
Must you continue to be a nuisance with no actual argument, just right-wing ideology? I can wing that right back. At any rate, I hope that you see reality outside of the tiny bubble your head is in at some point.

>>10992
You whine about a lack of arguments what you've refused to engage with mine thus far.
Instead you accuse me of things I've not done.
Of beliefs that I do not hold.

What makes you the arbiter of truth so divine and all-knowing that you can dictate to other people what they actually think?

>>10994
>What makes you the arbiter of truth so divine and all-knowing that you can dictate to other people what they actually think?

I'm not a conservative, so I don't think of myself as superior to others. Try again. Unlike you supposed exalted, wonderful types who know that God has chosen you to be the perfect elite in rule over anything, I'm just another person. That's all.

>>10998
Again you go and ascribe belief to me.
You claim not to consider yourself 'superior', yet evidently you regard yourself as an almighty seer of all.
How else do you claim to somehow know what I belive, in spite of my repeated explicit claims to the contrary?

You know fuck all about me. Yet you insist you know me more than the person who's lived that entire life.
How the fuck isn't that a superiority complex at play?

>>11006
Again, I'm not a conservative, and so I don't share in that belief of my inherent exalted wonderfulness and superiority that conservatives hold to. Sorry not sorry. I'm just another human being.

>>11011
And again, you're ascribing beliefs to me when I've directly started the opposite.

Your only defense is your extreme hatred and bigotry towards anyone you regard as conservative.
As though anyone you deign to apply that label to is exactly the same, and equally guilty of the worst fantasies in your mind.

I am just a human being too, yet you deign to treat me as filth for exceptionally minor differences in opinion that you use to justify your wild fantasies of what you think I actually believe.

I can only hope you don't exhibit these delusions in the real world as you may well genuinely be a danger to both yourself and others.

>>11014
Again, I'm just another human being. Not a superior kind of masterful agent from outer space who's always right about everything and can never do wrong. That's life.

>>11015
Then why do you repeatedly dictate to me what my beliefs actually are, in spite of what I have said?

>>11017
I'm not a conservative. So I don't think that I'm superior to others. I don't know how else to say this.

>>11020
Why do you dictate what I belive?

>>11024
Why do you dictate what I believe?

>>11026
I don't nor have I ever stated I did.

>>11026
So can you answer the question?

Or will you simply concede that I don't believe I or any other group is superior to anyone else, nor do I want a different set of rights for any group of people.

>>11027
>>11035
At some point you need to accept the fact that I'm just another person and not superior to others, not being a conservative I don't share in their complexes about being better human beings with better lives and so on.

>>11039
So why do you dictate to me my beliefs despite me explicitly saying the opposite of them?

You can't answer this question, and it's exceptionally telling. You know full well what you are doing is dishonest

>>11041
Has it ever occurred to you that I might not even care if somebody else <not you, talking generally> is better than me?

>>11046
That would be weird considering your repeated harping on it. But alright. That's fine.

Why do you deign to dictate to me my beliefs in spite of my statements, though?

>>11048
I'm not one of them, so it doesn't matter to me what their complexes are.

>>11052
One of what? Are you even responding to what I am saying now? Or is there some conversation going on in your head that I don't know about?

>>11057
I'm not one of you, one of them, whatever, so I'm tired of the claims of awesomeness and superiority and elite status to where I don't care anymore.

>>11062
>I'm not one of you, one of them, whatever,
I know?
This was never at issue.

>, so I'm tired of the claims of awesomeness and superiority and elite status to where I don't care anymore.
No such claim was ever made.

Why do you think you know my beliefs better than I do?
Can you please answer the question?

>>11064
What are you even on about at this point?

>>11066
Same thing I have been for ages.

You claim I view myself as superior to minorities, despite me saying otherwise.
You claim I want different rights for minorities, despite me saying otherwise.

Why is your assumption of my beliefs more credible than my statements of them?

What did I say!? He's tanking the deal just as it comes time to sign his name on the cheque, and the next thing we'll know the money will be all gone!

>>11103
How so?

>>11104
Because he suspended the sale?

It's pure speculation for the most heavily romanticized, least likely scenario. I had a freaking essay analyzing it but I deleted that because all I really care about is how money moves, not the personalities involved. If Musky Husky *really* wants to buy Tweetie Bird then I guess he can? I don't know why he would but he can. But if it were me this would all be an extremely public very dramatic pump-and-dump. That's a more fun scenario for me to envision but in reality it's just a publicity stunt to drive down the $44b figure. Which if Twitter weren't fucking dead already (financially) would blow up in his face? That's the broad consensus on the Street at least (reflected by share price). It's just boring.

Oh hey, a great video about it all!

Wish I had a billion dollars.

I'd basically disappear from most social media platforms.

Whats the point of auto generated names anon when people use avatars?

>>11354
Lackadaisical Donkey, it is the way this site works.  Every time you enter a new thread, your identity starts over.  I think it keeps ponies from getting angry, but reasons and purposes are mostly none of my business, so I doubt any of us can really say.

What a surprise, looks like he backed out of the deal like everyone knew he would.

This is going to be quite interesting to watch.

Elon clearly believes that Twitter isn't giving him correct information about bots, and feels he shouldn't have to pay full price for Twitter.

Given that, it feels like no matter what, Elon gets Twitter.

Scenario 1 - Elon is wrong, and Twitter manages to force him to buy twitter for an extra sum of money. Elon owns Twitter.

Scenario 2 - Elon is right, and Twitter's stock plummets enough for Elon to make another, far cheaper, offer. Elon owns Twitter.

Scenario 3 - The deal is mediated outside of court. Elon owns Twitter.

The only way I see Elon not owning Twitter is if he really didn't want to own Twitter in the first place, which like... granted, it's possible, but I just don't see it. Elon is continuing to hold his position that he should own Twitter, and should get it for a cheaper price due to bots.

God it would be so funny if they forced Elon to buy Twitter and he just shuts it down

>>11396
I think looking even slightly into it gives a very strong impression that yes, he really never did intend to actually OWN Twitter. Everything he does is a big show with no substance, and this is just the latest razzle dazzle to get the nerds talking about him. But it looks like he made a mistake somewhere and got himself stuck.

My bet is he pays the measly billion in penalty and washes his hands of the whole thing, while telling everyone he was the bigger man.

Twitter will be obliged to prove that their human users are greater than 95% of their accounts.  I don't know if users are allowed to have more than one account, as well.  I don't know how you do that but to require all users to pass a test.  I guess Twitter was negligent in not administering more tests before making the 95% claim.

>>11399
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that was part of their deal, meaning they aren't obliged to do anything of the sort.

Wasn't Musk's stated goal with buying Twitter to get rid of all the bots anyway?

>>11400
The deal assumes a value based off the number of active human users.
If that number is significantly below 95%, the estimated value is incorrect.

>>11399
>>11401
Did they get in writing that the deal was based on the number of human users? I was under the impression that the deal was about censorship and free speech.

This is contract law, after all. If it isn't in writing then it doesn't matter. Delaware Courts in general and the judge assigned in particular have a long history of requiring exceptional circumstances before allowing parties to deviate from an agreed upon contract.

>>11400
Yes, Mr. Musk was going to make Twitter private to get rid of bots and allow free speech.  Musk needs to know how many of the accounts are bots to value Twitter financially.

>>11402
>Did they get in writing that the deal was based on the number of human users?
In what they call an SEO filing.  I don't know exactly which one is being referenced (https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-information/sec-filings/default.aspx).

That's just the general idea I get from the various news articles (eg. https://www.protocol.com/musk-twitter-bots-proof).

I definitely recommend watching that video I posted. I think it has most of the important information.

>>11402
>I was under the impression that the deal was about censorship and free speech.
While that's certainly an aspect to it, as I understand, Musk still wants to generate a profit off of it.

I doubt he's the only one going in, either. While he's the 'face' of the deal, there's doubtless backers behind him. And they definitely don't want to see an investment wasted. Not for this price.

>>11403
I meant in the contract that Mr Musk signed with Twitter
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm

They signed a contract in April. The ink is dry. The specific contents of that contract are the only thing a court will care about unless the contact specifies otherwise.

>>11407
So there is a conflict between the text of the contract Mr. Musk has agreed to and Mr. Musk's impression that his purchase of Twitter is contingent on proof that 95% of accounts are controlled by humans directly.  You assert this conflict will be resolved in Twitter's favor by the legal system.

>>11408
Mr. Musk has an uphill fight. This is civil law, not criminal law, the burden of proof is different. As the plaintiff, the burden of proof still lies on Twitter Inc, but this is a contract dispute. Twitter has a baked in advantage in the form of the signatures on the contract. The contract isn't obliging Twitter to maintain a 20:1 user to bot ratio; the contract is a bill of sale. The facts going in to the court room before arguments have been made are that Musk is not carrying out a contract he signed. Mr. Musk's case depends on an interpretation of the contract which leaves a lot of his success or failure up to the skill of his lawyers and the patience of the judge, and it opens up the floor to the plaintiff's own interpretations. A judge who does not want a long trial would be justified in saying "you should have thought of that before you signed the contract." Considering that the judge scheduled 4 days in the next months, it indicates that she does not intend to look at more than the literal wording of the contract itself, which makes no mention of bots or users.


Also I looking at the contract under Article I the definition of "Company Material Adverse Effects" we have three sections that are immediately relevant in the rather long list of things that this contract does not consider Material Adverse Effects:
>(iii) general economic, regulatory or political conditions
>(viii) any changes in the market price or trading volume of the Company Common Stock, any failure by the Company or its Subsidiaries to meet internal, analysts’ or other earnings estimates or financial projections or forecasts for any period
>(ix) any matter disclosed in the Company SEC Documents filed by the Company prior to the date of this Agreement


The contract specifically defines:
>“Company Material Adverse Effect” means any change, event, effect or circumstance which, individually or in the aggregate, has resulted in or would reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole
When we consider
>(vii) any action taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or with the consent or at the direction of Parent or Acquisition Sub
What he would have to prove is that the number of bots on twitter is a circumstance which has or will result in financial damage to the company. Specifically, it cannot be the revelation of the number of bots that causes the adverse effect as that is a consequence of the consummation of the agreement and thus not a Company Material Adverse Effect. So along with arguing that the bot issue is not relevant to the contract, Twitter would also have the defense that the number of bots is status quo. Twitter has always operated with as many bots and the effect they have on Twitter's business has not changed in any significant way, and only the revelation of the number of bots has had a significant financial effect on the company but regardless Musk himself has no knowledge of the number of bots on twitter or their effect on the business. They could further argue that they are defended from the requests for information mandated in section 6.4 by the exceptions listed in 6.4 (i) cause significant competitive harm to the Company or its Subsidiaries if the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are not consummated. The company could argue that under section 6.4 (iii) a pattern of behavior during the consummation of the agreement frees them from their section 6.4 access to information obligations.

Now Musk still has a case. Everything I've said implies that he does not but you already think he does so I haven't wasted my time explaining it. His legal team has an SEC filing from May, after the merger agreement, that clearly states the number of bots which is almost certainly false simply due to how vaguely bots are defined and the role they play in the architecture of the site. The bot issue itself goes to the roots of how the company delivers it's product (personal information) to it's customers (advertisers) which does not fall into the various market forces and capitalization exclusions. Section 7.2c states "(c) no Company Material Adverse Effect shall have occurred and be continuing." Now there is the issue that section 8.1d(i). termination of the agreement by the parent specifies that Musk may cancel the contract for failures of section 7.2a or 7.2b with no mention of section 7.2c, I think any reasonable person would rationalize that section 7.2c should be included as it's existence is heavily implied by section 7.2b such that exceptions in 7.2b are nonsensical without 7.2c. He could argue the damages in 6.4 (i) are self inflicted because the deal would not be consummated and so they would not be by competitive activity and that the rationalization is being applied retroactively following his reaction to failures by the company itself to respond to their 6.4 general obligations which comes back to section 8.d(i) and termination under a failure to uphold section 7.2(b). The simple failure to comply with a request under section 6.4 should be sufficient to terminate the agreement never mind material adverse effect, stock price, moon phase filing dates or bot ratios. They could argue that the demand to force merger is unreasonable considering the ambiguity if obligations by both parent and company have been carried out.



So that's where I think this case is going to be mostly decided. Basically how well the judge slept the day before and if one of the attorneys has cramps.

Anybody wanna spin me on what the heck that was about? Because I have no idea.