Elon Musk Countersues Twitter(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Elon Musk Countersues Twitter
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/elon-musk-countersues-twitter-over-merger-filing-confidential.html
9 comments
I'm thinking, given the sloppy SEC-required filings at the time Elon took is 5%+ stake, his waiver of doing due diligence, and his cold feet... is it possible that Elon is not properly addressing some ADHD?
The companies he owns/acquires has heavy engineering/technology content:
Neuralink;
Tesla;
SpaceX;
Boring Co.;
Starlink.
So... Twitter? Yes, I understand that its the main vehicle for Tesla/SpaceX/Starlink advertising. But... to buy, own and 'fix' it? Is there some kind of synergy that I'm missing? A low hanging fruit of some kind?
The companies he owns/acquires has heavy engineering/technology content:
Neuralink;
Tesla;
SpaceX;
Boring Co.;
Starlink.
So... Twitter? Yes, I understand that its the main vehicle for Tesla/SpaceX/Starlink advertising. But... to buy, own and 'fix' it? Is there some kind of synergy that I'm missing? A low hanging fruit of some kind?
“Twitter did nothing wrong here.”
that seems like a bit of a stretch.
more was involved with this deal than a couple of contradictory statements by a blow hard. musk did wrong, but that doesn’t mean twitter only did right, nor does it mean that what twitter has accused musk of is totally accurate.
that seems like a bit of a stretch.
more was involved with this deal than a couple of contradictory statements by a blow hard. musk did wrong, but that doesn’t mean twitter only did right, nor does it mean that what twitter has accused musk of is totally accurate.
I'm curious. What has Twitter done that seems wrong to you? I've been following this a bit out of curiosity and only see bad faith on the side of Musk. Of course I could have missed something, but that's what I've seen so far.
I don’t recall saying Twitter did anything wrong. Simply that it was a stretch to declare they have not with so little information beyond Musk’s bombastic tweets and what’s been shared publicly by one of the two interested parties.
I’m curious, why so quick to believe Twitter has been 100% honest in this exchange?
I’m curious, why so quick to believe Twitter has been 100% honest in this exchange?
I only said that I’ve only seen bad faith coming from Musk. Twitter may not have been 100% honest of course, I just haven’t seen evidence for it. I thought I was pretty clear in my last post about this, but I’m glad I can clear it up for you anyway.
Thank you so much, that was very helpful.
Sounds like we are in agreement. Twitter may have done something wrong.
Hopefully all of the skeletons come out of the closet. On both sides.
Sounds like we are in agreement. Twitter may have done something wrong.
Hopefully all of the skeletons come out of the closet. On both sides.
> 1. Elon: "Twitter has too many spambots, I'm going to buy it to fix their spambot problem!"
Elon's reason for wanting to take over Twitter was never about spam bots. The reason for wanting to take over Twitter was to re-form it as a internet-based public town square with policies that follow US federal law for town squares.
Elon's reason for wanting to take over Twitter was never about spam bots. The reason for wanting to take over Twitter was to re-form it as a internet-based public town square with policies that follow US federal law for town squares.
Hopefully it is as legally awesome as the contract to purchase twitter. Apparently that one was a piece of work and destined to make it into law textbooks as what NOT to do.
1. Elon: "Twitter has too many spambots, I'm going to buy it to fix their spambot problem!"
2. Elon: "Twitter hid the fact that they have spambots! Who could have guessed this? Certainly not me, I had no idea that there were any spambots on Twitter! This deal is off!"
TBH I hope the court forces the sale to go through because people need to be held to their contracts, and it's pretty clear Twitter did nothing wrong here.