> What if there's internal data indicating that it's closer to, like, 30%?

Pretty sure users would notice if 1/3 of all tweets are computer-generated.

It doesn't matter what twitter has internally, they have no fiscal duty to report what percentage of users are or are not fully human driven.

It's the buyer's responsibility to undergo due diligence before making serious, legally-binding offers. Musk is very clearly scraping for excuses now that he has buyer's remorse.

> or use the enormous amount of free press to launch a competitor with mandatory device attestation.

That's what I think he's actually trying to do, as part of his "master plan part III". Twitter is only valuable because of users - but they are not worth this incredible premium. He's seen how attempts at launching 'free speech' platforms have gone.

He can easily build a competitor for a fraction of the deal's price. He can easily outspend any company. But that doesn't guarantee users - eyeball time is a limited resource. However, if he torpedoes twitter, he can get a bunch of users from the wreckage.

And, you know, profit from some nice pump and dump in the meantime.

What is the objection to this hypothesis? It's not even a conspiracy theory, it's that the board has misrepresented the DAU, and in turn, the value of the company.

To adapt an adage - Musk has already established what the company is, now he's just negotiating the price.