Elon Musk: Twitter deal can’t move forward without proof on bot numbers Elon Musk IG News

Elon Musk: Twitter deal can’t move forward without proof on bot numbers Elon Musk

Elon Musk has cast further doubts over his $44bn (£35bn) acquisition of Twitter, “no more” until the social media company proves that less than 5% of its users have fake or spam accounts. can grow”.

Tesla’s chief executive used his Twitter account to say that the agreed deal would not proceed until the firm showed evidence that only a small portion of its users are fake.

“My proposal was based on the accuracy of Twitter’s SEC filings. Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO declined to publicly show evidence of <5%. The deal cannot proceed until he does."

20% of fake/spam accounts, while 4 times what Twitter claims, could be *much* higher.

My proposal was based on the accuracy of Twitter’s SEC filings.

Yesterday, Twitter’s CEO declined to publicly show proof of <5%.

The deal can’t move forward until he does.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 17 May 2022

Musk announced last week that the deal was “on hold” after questioning Twitter’s claim in a filing with the US financial regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission, that a small portion of its users are fake or spam. Twitter’s chief executive, Parag Aggarwal, attempted to address Musk’s concerns in a lengthy tweet thread on Monday, but his efforts to explain the problem “with benefit or data, facts and context” from the world’s richest man Found with a poo emoji. ,

Let’s talk about spam. And let’s do so with the benefit of data, facts and context…

— Parag Agarwal (@paraga) 16 May 2022

Musk’s latest tweet will add to speculation that he is ready to walk away from the deal, which could trigger a $1bn break fee payable to Twitter, or an attempt to strike a new acquisition agreement at a price less than the agreed $54.20 per share. Can do. Twitter shares, which have been hit by speculation that the deal could be founders, are trading at $37.39.

Fake or spam accounts, known as “bot” accounts, are automated and not run by human users. They may use the reply function or direct messages to send advertisements or scams to other users, or they may represent attempts to influence public discourse by tweeting political propaganda.

Other fake accounts exist purely to promote the metrics of individual users, who can buy followers, likes and retweets from “bot sellers” who control thousands or even millions of fake accounts. Because they also increase Twitter’s daily user count—which currently stands at 229 million—they also pose a threat to the company’s advertising revenue, which accounts for 90% of its revenue. However, Twitter has consistently clarified in its quarterly statements since 2014 that it estimates its spam account problem to represent less than 5% of its users.

Sign up for the daily Business Today email or on Twitter @BusinessDesk. Follow Guardian Business on

Agarwal publicly responded to Musk’s concerns on Monday with a lengthy thread he explained about the company’s methodology. Agarwal explained that dealing with automated spam accounts was a “dynamic” process that required fighting “sophisticated and hard-to-catch” actors. He added that some of the accounts that have the characteristics of spam accounts are actually operated by real people.

“The tough challenge is that many accounts that superficially seem fake are actually real people. And some of the spam accounts that are actually the most dangerous – and the ones causing the most harm to our users – may on the surface seem perfectly legitimate,” he wrote. He did not assess Twitter’s fake account numbers externally. Because this process requires access to sensitive data such as IP addresses and phone numbers.

On Monday, Musk suggested he may seek to pay a lower price for Twitter because of the fake accounts issue. Speaking virtually at a conference in Miami, he said lowering his agreed $54.20 per share offering would not be “out of the question.” However, the terms of Musk’s acquisition agreement with Twitter give him limited room for maneuver, legal experts have said.


Most Popular

Most Popular