[phailhaus]

Not only that, his biggest argument for buying Twitter was literally that there were too many bots and that he would solve it. Now that he's waived due-diligence and the market is tanking, he's "concerned" about the number of bots? It's such transparent BS that it's embarrassing.

[bitshiftfaced]

I don't have a horse in this race, but I don't follow your reasoning. If you thought there was a large bot problem, part of the appeal would be that there's an opportunity to fix that problem. That would increase the value of the company after you've fixed the problem. Assuming that's the case, then finding out there's not a big bot problem would mean there's not as much of an opportunity.

[moralestapia]

It comes down to not being able to state that he was unaware of a bot problem (as an argument for walking out of the deal) if he has very publicly said that he's doing this because of and to fix the bot problem.

[phailhaus]

> Assuming that's the case, then finding out there's not a big bot problem would mean there's not as much of an opportunity.

But that's not what he's saying, he's saying "the bot problem is way worse than you're saying, therefore the $54.20 price is too high."

[mikkergp]

If that's the case, then there is missing information that you should have done due diligence for?

[wollsmoth]

yeah, maybe he could have spent a little time looking into this stuff before committing. Oh well, I'm sure his lawyers are happy to take the billable hours!

[bitshiftfaced]

Eh, should've done my homework before commenting. Looks like Twitter has been saying 5% since well before Musk made the deal.