More than two months have passed since the conditions for the trial between Twitter and Elon Musk were established, due to the latter’s decision to frustrate the purchase operation that had begun a few months earlier. And although it seems that his legal team is still working, in order to try to delay the date of its celebrationfor now the countdown continues to point to October 17, as the first of the five days during which the views will be extended. Two weeks that are probably not pleasant at all for Elon Musk.
And it is that, while waiting to see how the trial unfolds, at the current point everything seems to indicate that the current board of directors of Twitter has the upper hand. The trend in Delaware, where the trial is being held, coupled with the judge’s track record, generally inclined to agree with the parties who seek compliance with what was signed, as opposed to those who wish to backtrack on said operations, suggest that unless that Elon Musk’s legal team is able to document the reasons given by the billionaire, has everything to lose.
Thus, in these circumstances, and although it is well known that Elon Musk is not too inclined to moderate his speech, even if it is for his own good, maybe i should make an exception. But it doesn’t seem for the work and, what is worse (worse for its interests, I mean, for ordinary mortals it is actually something innocuous), it seems to continue raising its fight against what it considers the great problem of Twitter, the bots, getting dangerously close to the point where the ingenious gentleman ended his days with respect to the mills.
Ukraine-Russia Peace:
– Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.
– Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
– Water supply to Crimea assured.
– Ukraine remains neutral.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022
A few hours ago, Elon Musk published a Twitter poll, about a hypothetical peace plan between Russia and Ukraine. An offer that is summarized in four points that, to avoid misunderstandings, I copy and translate from Musk’s own tweet:
«– Repeat the elections of the annexed regions under the supervision of the UN. Russia leaves if that is the will of the people.
– Crimea is formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).
– The water supply to Crimea is secured.
– Ukraine remains neutral.»
I am not going to enter, because it is not the raison d’être of this news item, to assess this proposal hypothesis, but I do have to say that I fully understand that, both in the official question and in subsequent ones, most of the participants have opted for NO to their ideas, that is, they do not find the terms proposed by Musk for possible pacification acceptable. And I also understand, of course, that Elon Musk was not too amused to see that the majority of Twitter users do not agree with him.
Indeed. Biggest bot attack I’ve ever seen.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022
The problem, the point where we find the real problem, is that when faced with a comment by a user, who states «I wonder how many bots were activated to flip the original result“, Musk replies “In fact. Biggest bot attack I’ve ever seen«. Faced with an opinion generally contrary to their criteria, which for many may seem like a drop in the pants by Ukraine, Europe and NATO, instead of assuming that their opinion is a minority (note that I am not saying wrong, only a minority), Instead of accepting it instead of accepting it, he prefers to think that his eternal enemy of Twitter, the bots, are behind this.
And this, beyond being one more example of Elon Musk’s megalomaniac character, can weaken his position in the trial. Added to the inability to prove the massive presence of bots that he argues for his retreat, with publications like this it gives the feeling of seeing bots where there are users who do not match your criteria, of seeing giants where there are only windmills. And in such a mediatic trial, in which all the parties are under constant supervision, this does not seem remotely the most sensible way to proceed in the face of their own interests.
