Elon Musk decided to buy Twitter as it’s been known for some time, but the purchase negotiations proved too complicated for the Tesla owner, and in fact, it’s interesting for us to understand some of the dynamics that govern performance from this as of other social networks.
Let’s briefly recap what has happened so far: Between March and April, Musk, evasively, slowly, and without launching a real takeover offer, bought about 9% of Twitter’s stock. In April, after the truth came out and Musk continued to publicly criticize the company’s social management, both the current and former CEO of Twitter called Musk and offered him, also publicly, a seat on the company’s board of directors.
In fact, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US CONSOB, began to ask itself the problem of a possible takeover of the company that Musk had actually put in place, and for which both Parag Agrawal and Jack Dorsey tried to include Musk in the ruling. The company’s body could have calmed the nervousness of both the regulator and the stock market.
Keep in mind that Musk had previous work and employment relationships with both Dorsey and Agrawal, which is in fact illegal. But so be it.
During April, Musk, dissatisfied with the company’s management, which had launched an increasingly vicious campaign to suppress free speech, made a takeover bid.
bomb! Musk is offering $44 billion to buy all the shares at $54 each. Twitter’s board turned to industry analysts who gave the green light: that is, they decided the offer was a valid and a potentially good deal. And so the negotiations began and the parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), a contract obligating the parties not to disclose information about the company being acquired: in fact, going from words to deeds, Musk wanted to see what it was. It was a good performance. Buying Since transparency is absolutely not at home in the management of these remote-operating giants (as US Senate investigations have highlighted Twitter, Facebook, Amazon and Google), in fact abuses and seemingly wrongful acts are being lost.
So, assuming Musk information about how the company really works, he would have fatally known facts that, if made public, would have caused harm to Twitter itself: we repeat these companies made of gossip (no production, warehouses, logistics) ), check the real productivity that can only be achieved relatively from the outside.
After the verifications made at this point, it appears that the number of contacts that Twitter claimed to exist is in fact only on paper and that a significant portion of the accounts are fake. Let’s say this was expected and even the CEO of Twitter admitted that about 5% of the accounts may be fake.
The truth is that the scrutiny by SparkToro appears to be worse than Musk had feared and as Agrawal, CEO of Twitter, said. For example, it appears that 49% of Joe Biden’s 22.3 million followers are actually fake profiles. The software company considers the fake profiles somehow inaccessible and does not read the tweets. That is, they do not actually interact.
SparkToro takes into account a sample of 2,000 followers for each profile under study and uses diagnostic systems typically associated with these types of fake followers. Research has proven that about 19% of Twitter accounts are fake.
Musk, for his part, has shown an interest in discretion and has made the whole thing public, saying that under the circumstances he would not be interested in buying anymore, much to the annoyance of Twitter users. But Musk is used to doing things, like cars, trucks, and missiles, not the small talk. Even before that revelation, Twitter shares had already fallen to about $39 per share (well below the 54 provided by Musk), so many believe the Tesla chief is dragging the price because the value is at this point. 30-35 billion and certainly not 44 according to the initial offer and this is not due to the devaluation of the shares but precisely because with 20% of the fake accounts the company can only be resized.
Obviously, Twitter’s response wasn’t long in coming: “Musk has violated a confidentiality agreement” that provides for a $1 billion penalty. We’ll see how it develops.
But there is another problem, perhaps the most important in the question, and it is all political. Twitter unlike Facebook has the largest companies as buyers of ad space. While Facebook primarily targets small and medium-sized enterprises (by global standards) and thus always remains dominant in its stock, Twitter has its main clients the largest companies, which have a great deal of bargaining power and can even afford the financial cost of a company with 20% less connections what you claim.
Only a small company sells their products, but very large companies sell a lifestyle and the same companies that are part of the WEF know very well what lifestyle and which ideology they are selling (gay sex theory, global warming, monetary race theory) that’s why Twitter has always been marked by censorship dissonant sounds. Their products are also sold thanks to monopolistic positions: they are interested in selling ideology.
How can Musk (considered close to Trump), who defines himself as a free speech extremist, agree with these giants, who are also a team? Who loves censorship more than Goebbels and who sells to catch an ideology that isn’t quite right (if not for global warming)? He will have to intervene deeply in the business model and it may cost him a lot; In fact, in order to buy Twitter, he would not have to sell a few Tesla shares, given that Musk’s personal liquidity is estimated at a billion or so.
The game has just started, we must swear and the result is not clear at all.
“Prone to fits of apathy. Introvert. Award-winning internet evangelist. Extreme beer expert.”