I don't know the timelines, but it seems to me that Twitter produced the numbers and Musk debated them, possibly because he had seen different numbers. He can't dispute Twitter's numbers until he sees Twitter's numbers. Twitter has never revealed how they come up with the 5% number, so that is the problem Musk seems to be having.This is the crux of my original point. I'd question 5% Bots too. But given that all those reports from other services and analysts were readily available to Musk all along, and more importantly to everyone who has ever advertised or considered advertising on Twitter, how can Musk plausibly claim that his understanding of Twitter's bot situation is materially different now than it was at any prior point in the bid & diligence process?
The change is that Musk didn't have those official numbers from Twitter, now he has them and is disputing them. He also doesn't have the explanation as to how they got to those 5% numbers.My point is not that Twitter's definitions are correct or useful. My point is that no material change has occurred. Musk attempting to justify a back-out now as if he somehow knew less about Twitter's bots than say the posters on this forum until recently does not pass the smell test.
I think Musk is trying to validate the numbers, so he can validate the value of Twitter and get agreement from his other investors. Seems pretty logical to me. Sort of like getting a home appraisal after you're made an agreement to buy the house.
Some politicians are large advertisers, but many local politicians do fund their own campaigns. I'm talking about the small town guy running for mayor or city council, not a Senate or House seat in Congress.That's what I meant by campaigns which I mentioned later in the sentence. They are large advertisers in their season, but are usually not backed by the budget of a single individual.