I'm guessing A, B & C because if Twatter has been misrepresenting the % of bots for years, they could be sued into the ground for that fraud. It would also mean he could get a better deal on Twatter and pay significantly less than $44b at the same time. Win/win.
Potentially the move could partially be to make sure people understand that Twatter is highly inorganic, so when all the bots are nuked from orbit, the platform will be very different (less apparent traffic).
i like your style. i hope you're right about retroactive punishment for defrauding investors and advertisers as well, who would both be very upset to hear the books were being cooked on organic user traffic.
Yeah I imagine the lawsuits from advertisers could be quite huge, and then there would also be SEC coming in to kick their ass a bit too.
hope high, expectation tempered
The nifty thing about acquisitions is disclosure. Not just disclosing what you officially know, but what a "reasonable man" would know. Twitter execs had to know most of their traffic was inorganic just by comparing the high follower, low response lefties still there vis-a-vis all the non-commies with 10x the interaction on 10% of the nominal followers.
Their advertisers were blatantly defrauded.
(post is archived)