undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyanderekko3y ago0 comments

>He won't buy Twitter because it has a bot problem.

I'm not asking for examples of Musk being wrong about something and correcting himself. I think it's commonly assumed that Musk discovered that this argument would not hold up in court, so he pivoted accordingly.

>Elon will not fire most of Twitter (November). Look, stupid media was tricked by Rahul Ligma.

This is a better example. Could you link a statement to this effect directly?

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

dragontamer3y ago· 3 in thread

> I'm not asking for examples of Musk being wrong about something and correcting himself.

He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract.

How many times does he have to change his mind before you accept this fact?

The number of times he two-faced flip flopped on the Twitter buyout is insane. I've lost count of examples.

yanderekkoOP3y ago

>He literally signed a document in March to buy Twitter, and literally a month later had to be sued to be forced to finish the contract.

Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated. Rejecting a purchase where there's a hidden defect is not flip-flopping, the fact that you can't see the obvious weakness of this example is telling.

btw, where's the statement that Elon said that he would not be firing most of Twitter? Again, that seems to be a much better example.... if you can provide it. But maybe you can't?

nemothekid3y ago

>Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip is that he got increased access to Twitter's internal systems and decided that the company had deeper issues than initially appreciated.

This does not make Elon look any better. Elon himself chose to eschew due diligence when he signed the first intent to buy. The first intent to buy was incredibly unusual in the first place because he did not ask for any due-diligence.

If I tell you I will buy your car, no questions asked, and then show up and start complaining about the headlights, that is flip-flopping. It's why the whole thing went to court. Do you really think normal M&A doesn't include due-diligence?

Regardless, the "hidden" issues were a scapegoat. It is far more likely that he wanted to backout because the entire tech sector crashed and 44B was now an insane premium (SNAP, which was worth ~30B at the time is now 15B).

1 more reply

dragontamer3y ago

> Yes, and the intervening event that justifies the narrative flip

You are running away from this point. So I'll go focus on this one thank you.

Because you know the Twitter buyout has more waffles and flip flops than you care to defend.

BTW, the contract waived Elons right to research Twitter's books. Suddenly, after signing the contract, he flip flopped on that point too.

flir3y ago

Let it go. He's not worth defending.

And sealioning's just dull, dull, dull.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse