Twitter plans to offer Elon Musk access to its “firehose” of raw data on hundreds of millions of daily tweets in an effort to push forward the Tesla billionaire’s agreed-to $44 billion acquisition of the social media platform, according to multiple news reports.
Lawyers involved in the deal would not confirm the data sharing agreement. Musk made no comment on Twitter, although he has previously been vocal about various aspects of the deal. Twitter declined to confirm the reports and pointed to a Monday statement in which the company said it is continuing to “cooperatively” share information with Musk.
Musk, who struck a legally binding agreement to buy Twitter in April, contends that the deal can’t proceed unless the company provides more information about the prevalence of fake accounts on its platform. He has argued, without presenting evidence, that Twitter has significantly underestimated the number of these “spam bots”—automated accounts that typically promote scams and misinformation—on its service.
On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also announced an investigation into Twitter for allegedly failing to disclose the extent of its spam bot and fake accounts, saying his office would look into “potential false reporting” of bots on Twitter.
The Washington Post first reported Twitter’s plan to provide Musk with full access to the firehose, citing a person familiar with the matter. Other reports suggested the billionaire might only receive partial access.
Twitter’s reported offer could blunt Musk’s attempts to use the spam bot issue to cast doubt on the deal’s future. This week, lawyers for Musk accused the company of refusing to surrender information about the true number of bot accounts on Twitter. Mike Ringler, the Palo Alto, California, attorney who signed that Monday letter, told the AP he was not at liberty to speak about the matter when reached Wednesday afternoon.
Fake social media accounts have been problematic for years. Advertisers rely on the number of users provided by social media platforms to determine where they will spend money. Spam bots are also used to amplify messages and spread disinformation.
The problem of fake accounts is well-known to Twitter and its investors. The company has disclosed its bot estimates to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for years, while also cautioning that its estimate might be too low.
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal has said that Twitter has consistently estimated that fewer than 5% of its accounts are spam. But Musk has disputed that figure, contending in a May tweet—without offering evidence—that 20% or more of Twitter’s accounts are bogus.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
“without presenting evidence”–LOL, a third-party investigator performed a technical audit that revealed that nearly 50% of our current POTUS’s Twitter followers are almost certain bots. The number is even higher on Musk’s own Twitter account.
Has Agarwal presented evidence that these charges of “greater than 5%” are false? No, he has dodged the question time and again, using tons of unnecessarily verbiage to try to explain that it’s impossible to quantify and truly capture it all. For G-d’s sake, Parag, at least lie quickly.
That is not how running a publicly traded company works….
Everyone in the world knew that, yet Musk was the fool who signed a deal to buy the company and signed away his rights to do more due diligence.
He figured out far too late that he’s in way over his head on his one and is trying to come up with a way out. He should just write the break-up check for $1 billion and get out with a minor dent to his ego.
He’s no different than if a billionaire bought an NBA team and thought the secret to success was recreating the 1990’s Detroit Pistons. Times change, Musk’s attitudes towards free speech on the internet are similarly dated.
You’re right James. He quite possibly initiated the entire sale so that he could shed light on Twitter as a digital Potemkin Village. Defrauding its shareholders and the firms who buy ad space, but it didn’t really matter to the previous board because none (except Jack Dorsey himself) had even more than .5% share.
They didn’t run the company incompetently because it made them more money. They did it for the power.
Musk’s “attitudes toward free speech on the internet are only outdated” for the aspiring Weimar-ites who believe the First Amendment is old hat. Mass formation is real, and the collective psychosis affecting half the country has staggering similarities to 1930s Germany. Filed with academics in the highest echelons of power and making generous reference to Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Kant, and Hegel (zee great dinkers vere all German!), the had the most power and still were convinced they were oppressed. And they used a state/corporate fusion to stifle dissent while mobilizing through anger toward an ethnic scapegoat.
Joe, what should the “new and improved” Bill of Rights look like? Given that the internet is the modern public forum, how should regulate speech and still preserve the First Amendment? Or is that another baby we need to throw out with the bathwater?
As to what you’re saying, the First Amendment has nothing to do with it, nor should it. That kind of approach is problematic, be it Twitter be forced to let people ignore their terms of service or Fox News being forced to run the January 6th hearings.
Your larger issue is the consolidation of media over the past few decades, IMO. But I don’t see anyone bemoaning that.
As to Musk, he missed out on exactly why all 90’s libertarian approach to internet forums doesn’t work any more. He didn’t fight those battles, he was off doing other useful stuff.
Don’t trust me. Trust the guy who used to run Reddit and has a fair bit more knowledge on the topic than you or I.
https://twitter.com/yishan/status/1514938507407421440?s=20&t=Sl_Cbl6YhMhPobz7HacErw
None of us are as popular as we think we are.