Twitter has said that it checks “thousands of accounts” that are chosen at random in order to verify whether or not an account is legitimate. The data that is used to make this determination includes both public and private information, such as IP addresses, phone numbers, geolocation, and how the account acts while it is active.
According to various stories at the time, Twitter reportedly promised Musk access to its “fire hose” of raw data on hundreds of millions of daily tweets. However, neither the business nor Musk have verified that this was the case. Musk’s opinion that he could add value to the company by getting rid of its spam bots was one of the primary reasons he stated for his interest in taking Twitter private. This is the same issue that he is now claiming as a cause to stop the agreement, so it is unclear why Musk has changed his mind.
Christopher Bouzy, the creator of the research business Bot Sentinel, which monitors phony Twitter accounts that are used to harass users or spread false information, described the whole process as “bizarre.” “He was aware that there was an issue. It’s strange that he would try to wriggle out of the contract by using trolls, bots, and accounts that aren’t really his. On the other hand, according to Bouzy, the letter from Musk’s legal team makes several reasonable complaints of Twitter’s lack of openness. One of these critiques is that Twitter seems to be refusing to supply Musk with the same degree of internal data that it provides to some of its larger clients.
Bouzy, who also thinks the number of bogus or spam Twitter accounts is bigger than what the firm has recorded, said: “It simply appears as if they’re concealing something.” Musk’s attorney also claimed that Twitter violated the agreement when it dismissed its revenue product leader and general manager of consumers, as well as when it fired and lay off a third of its talent-acquisition staff.
According to what he wrote, the terms of the selling deal obliged Twitter to “seek and get approval” before deviating from its usual method of doing business. According to what was said in the letter, Twitter was obligated to “preserve substantially intact the material components of its present corporate structure.”
It appears that Musk began toying with the idea of purchasing Twitter at the end of March. At that point, according to Twitter, he reportedly got in touch with the business’s board members, including co-founder Jack Dorsey, and let them know he was interested in joining the group, taking Twitter private, or founding a rival company.
The next day, on April 4, he disclosed in a regulatory filing that he had become the company’s biggest stakeholder by purchasing a 9 percent interest that was valued at around $3 billion. This news came only one day after he had become the company’s chairman.
At first, Twitter presented Musk with the opportunity to join its board of directors. However, six days after that, Agrawal announced in a tweet that Musk would not be joining the board after all. After that, he was able to rapidly put together an offer to purchase the firm.
Musk had reached an agreement to purchase Twitter for $54.20 per share, and he included a reference to the marijuana symbol “420” in his bid price. To help pay for the acquisition, he sold shares in Tesla valued around $8.5 billion. He then increased his pledges from investors by more than $7 billion, including influential figures from Silicon Valley like Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.
The offer was received with bewilderment and a decline in morale inside Twitter, particularly when Musk openly chastised one of Twitter’s senior attorneys who was engaged in making content-moderation decisions.
During the time that Twitter management was getting the firm ready for the purchase to go through, Twitter put a stop to all recruiting, put an end to all discretionary expenditure, and sacked two of its top managers. The corporation based in San Francisco has also been laying off personnel, most notably members of its team responsible for talent acquisition.