Since the news first came out about Elon Musk contemplating an attempt to take over Twitter, I've not been yet to decide what I'd prefer to see: censorship-addicted Twitter be ruined as severely as it can be, or to see Musk take the lead, unaffected by those who are skeptical of him. I'm guessing that it's a toss up.
Musk's advisers on Friday wrote an email to Twitter informing Twitter that Musk had canceled the $44 billion “merger agreement,” citing insufficient information on “fake or spam accounts,” according to RedState. Twitter quickly responded with a resounding “no” according to CNBC and threatened to take legal action against Musk should he follow through and officially attempt to terminate the acquisition agreement. It is believed that the “fake or spam accounts” are a recurring issue for Musk from at least the beginning of May. Musk says Twitter hasn't provided the correct data.
What are “fake or spam accounts”? According to my colleague Bob Hoge, the “bots: problem is far from nothing or nitpicking from the perspective of Elon Musk.
At the end of April, Twitter said that spam and fake accounts “accounted for less than 5 percent of its daily active users in the fourth quarter of 2021.” However with a user base of at least 330 million, it's still a significant amount of accounts that aren't human (16.5 million for those who are math challenged). Musk believes the number is higher, and Twitter does not tell the whole truth.
The Washington Post in a May story entitled “Why Spam Bots Are at the Top on Elon Musk's Twitter Hit List” explained “bots” thusly:
Twitter Bots are computerized accounts that perform the same things as humans: post tweets as well as follow other users as well as like and retweet tweets from other users. However, spam bots make use of these methods to engage in deceitful or harmful activities. Spam bots that are programmed with a commercial purpose might be tweeting continuously as a way to draw users to a site for an item or service. They could also be used to spread misinformation or encourage a political message.
Bots are permitted on Twitter as noted by WaPo however, according to the policy of the company, these accounts must indicate that they're not automated. Yeah, I'm gonna call BS. Since there is no way to be an IT expert and considering the professional credibility for Elon Musk vs. Twitter, I'm taking Elon on this one.
Let's return to what I believe to be an open and honest query. What is the reason why Twitter took on Musk for averting an unpopular takeover that the Big Tech “giant” tried to prevent from taking place?
In any case, Fox News host and OutKick founder Clay Travis believes Musk has Twitter exactly where he's always wanted it to be from the beginning in between the “unbelievably crippling” place and an unforgiving rock.
In a Friday interview with Fox News host Jesse Watters, Travis laid it all out, according to the right scoop. Musk has enormous assets, Travis told Watters. The size of Musk is enough to break the data of Twitter one way or another, which, Travis noted, could be “crippling” to the company. According to Right Scoop:
The impact that this could have is that, if this doesn't happen, Jesse, Elon Musk could be a real threat for the entire Twitter branding and business. Since, unlike me and you and the majority of users on Twitter, he has access to engineers and data analysts examine what's known as the “fire hose” in terms of the data given to him in order to figure out the percentage of accounts on the platform are authentic as well as, if they are fake, and what percentage of them are bots and spam as opposed to real people.
It's called the “rock.” And the “hard place”? said Travis:
It seems that I would be very concerned if Elon Musk ever publishes the information he might have discovered as part of the investigation. It could be a major blow to the effect of Twitter. Consider that only 20 percent of Americans, even when based on Twitter's own statistics, are using Twitter. One in 50 people send a tweet. This is around 2% of the American population. It's not nearly as huge as you think it could be.
The ad revenue of Twitter would plummet quicker than Joe Biden's approval rating, after the release of Musk, if Elon decides to ever make public the company's actual impact.
So once again, would I rather see the Musk-Twitter deal saved, and Musk take the company private, as planned, or would I rather see Musk destroy the left-wing, conservative-censoring social media self-proclaimed “giant”?
Damn. I'm going to need to contemplate this issue for a while.
