Once an inveterate liar, always an inveterate liar.
Musk is a joke to adulthood.
Iâm not surprised in the least bit. The fight for free speech has its limits.
Iâm absolutely shocked that itâs about money and not saving the future of civilization via free speech.
From the beginning, I never thought he was going to go through with the transaction but that he was looking for some kind of narcissistic gratification from the recognition of his importance.
With someone else, the moves he made could be the prelude to acquiring Twitter at a lower price, but I think he just wanted to see himself glorified in the press. I donât think a transaction ensues, just some litigation followed by a settlement about what breakup fee he has to pay.
I am hearing rumblings that Musk might back out of the deal.
Called this back at the end of April.
Page from New York Magazine summarizes some of Twitterâs lawsuit descriptions of the conflict with Musk. The writer does not appear to be a Musk fan.
And the 
emoji makes a comeback:
My prediction is no specific performance but Musk will pay some amount to Twitter as a âliquidated damagesâ fee and the lawyers will be taking both sides to the cleaners.
I should have taken my own advice, Tesla was $876/share on 4/26 and closed today @ $715/share, down 18%. the S&P 500 dropped 9% in the same time frame.
The story of my life. 
More importantly, the free speech movement has taken a hit, and that should make us all sad.
And again, speaking for all us bots, we continue to live on, unfettered. 
Nope. Donât think it had anything to do with free speech, and not sad.
Interesting option.
âMany observers think the company will prevail, or that Mr. Musk is likely at least to pay the $1 billion breakup fee. Theyâre wrong. He is likely to walk away largely unscathed, a belief reflected in Twitterâs stock price. This case will be a good lesson on the limits of boilerplate merger agreements and the difference between a corporation and its shareholders.â
Interesting but bizarrely out of touch with reality. Hereâs Matt Levine, who is the best read on this topic, commenting on the op-ed: https://twitter.com/matt_levine/status/1547257915463159809
My comment was written tongue-in-cheek or jokingly.
Got it! 
i agree that twitter is getting left behind and needs serious revamp.
there are more and more ways to earn money coming up/out of instagram popularity and youtube channels payouts are great, but twitter you do not get anything for your following and it is arguably harder to grow than other visual platforms.
needs a revamp, tip and payment system, like superchats, idk a ton of ideas and i like musk tried but if they are correct about only looking at 100 accounts a day for bots (easily can be cherrypicked) then i would not have bought it either.
Jack Dorsey was really a terrible CEO, no argument there.
On the Musk side, prior to signing the contract to purchase he said publicly he wanted to fight bots, it wasnât about money, and he wanted to save civilization via free speech. He was so sure about his mission he didnât need to investigate bots or Twitter financials or anything else - just gimme the contract to sign. He formally and legally waived his right to due diligence, including looking at how Twitter calculates bots.
Post-signing he immediately broke the express terms of the contract by directly disparaging Twitter executives and Twitter itself. Once Tesla and Twitter stock started going down and recession was looming larger, he came up with the bot complaint, effectively accusing Twitter of lying to the SEC on disclosures for years.
He publicly refused to discuss Twitterâs CEOâs explanation of how they track bots, and complained that Twitter wasnât sharing data with him even though he signed a waiver saying he didnât want data. Then after Twitter gave him literally terabytes of data, continued to complain that Twitter wasnât giving him data.
People can draw their own conclusions. My conclusion is that heâs using the bot thing as a pretext to get out of a deal that looks financially painful due to current market conditions. It also looks to me like the entire escapade was simply some weird Faulkner-type stream of consciousness thing where he wanted to mouth off and make big public actions without any forethought or consideration.
âPeople can draw their own conclusions. My conclusion is that heâs using the bot thing as a pretext to get out of a deal that looks financially painful due to current market conditions.â
Not mutually exclusive that he also cared about free speech. Perhaps a desire for both a fair deal and a free speech town hall.
Itâs hard to really know what the motives are. After the Twitter drama, I donât really use them much anymore.