[stdbrouw]

It is valid criticism because the context of this article is that Elon Musk wants to know whether Twitter's own claims of ~5% fake/spam accounts is accurate. We do really want an analysis that investigates that precise question and not a related one.

[LightG]

Elon Musk waived his right to due dilligence ... more fool him.

You can file this in the 'pedo guy' cabinet of his life story where his child-ego got the better of his undoubted business skills.

[celdon25]

He can do due diligence but from what I heard (correct me if I am wrong) he has to pay a heavy penalty ($1B) if he backs out.

[edmundsauto]

According to Matt Levine, that's "not how any of this works". The $1B is if he could not secure financing, but it appears we are now past that point. The relevant question is whether the Twitter board wants to sue in court to compel a sale.

Given what Musk does to the personal lives of his opponents, I'm not sure I would want to fight him. But given how many laws and rules he's broken at the point, I think there is a clear failure of justice if he can just do whatever he feels like without repercussions due to his common popularity.

[fullshark]

What does he do to the personal lives of his opponents? And why would the board not do their fiduciary duty out of fear of that?