Elon Musk announced he will walk away from his tumultuous $44 billion offer to buy Twitter, leaving the deal on the verge of collapse. The Tesla CEO sent a letter to Twitter’s board Friday saying he is terminating the acquisition.
But Twitter isn’t accepting Musk’s declaration. The chair of Twitter’s board, Bret Taylor, tweeted in response that the board is “committed to closing the transaction on the price and terms agreed upon with Mr. Musk and plans to pursue legal action to enforce the merger agreement. We are confident we will prevail in the Delaware Court of Chancery.”
Twitter could have pushed for a $1 billion breakup fee that Musk agreed to pay under these circumstances. Instead, it looks ready to fight to complete the deal, which the company’s board has approved and CEO Parag Agrawal has insisted he wants to consummate.
The possible unraveling of the deal is just the latest twist in a saga between the world’s richest man and one of the most influential social media platforms. Much of the drama has played out on Twitter, with Musk — who has more than 100 million followers — lamenting that the company was failing to live up to its potential as a platform for free speech.
On Friday, shares of Twitter fell 5 percent to $36.81, well below the $54.20 that Musk had offered to pay. Shares of Tesla, meanwhile, climbed 2.5 percent to $752.29.
Musk lawyer Mike Ringler wrote in the letter to Twitter dated Friday that for nearly two months, Musk has sought data to judge the prevalence of “fake or spam” accounts on the social media platform.
“Twitter has failed or refused to provide this information. Sometimes Twitter has ignored Mr. Musk’s requests, sometimes it has rejected them for reasons that appear to be unjustified, and sometimes it has claimed to comply while giving Mr. Musk incomplete or unusable information,” the letter said. It also said the information is fundamental to Twitter’s business and financial performance, and it’s needed to finish the merger agreement.
“This is a disaster scenario for Twitter and its board,” Wedbush analyst Dan Ives wrote Friday in a note to investors. He predicted a long court fight by Twitter to either restore the deal or get a $1 billion breakup fee that was specified in the contract. “From the beginning this was always a head scratcher to go after Twitter at a $44 billion price tag for Musk and never made much sense to the Street, now it ends (for now) in a Twilight Zone ending with Twitter’s Board back against the wall and many on the Street scratching their head around what is next.”
On Thursday, Twitter sought to shed more light on how it counts spam accounts in a briefing with journalists and company executives. Twitter said it removes 1 million spam accounts each day. the spam accounts represent well below 5 percent of its active user base each quarter. To calculate how many accounts are malicious spam, Twitter said it reviews “thousands of accounts” sampled at random, using both public and private data such as IP addresses, phone numbers, geolocation and how the account behaves when it is active, to determine whether an account is real.
Last month, Twitter offered Musk access to its “firehose” of raw data on hundreds of millions of daily tweets, according to multiple reports at the time, though neither the company nor Musk confirmed this. Private data, which isn’t available publicly and thus not in the data “firehose” that was given to Musk, includes IP addresses, phone numbers and location. Twitter said such private data helps avoid misidentifying real accounts as spam.
Ringler also alleged that Twitter broke the agreement when it fired its revenue product leader and general manager of consumers, as well announcing the layoff of one-third of its talent acquisition team. The sale agreement, he wrote, required Twitter to “seek and obtain consent” if it deviated from conducting normal business. Twitter was required to “preserve substantially intact the material components of its current business organization,” the letter said.
Musk’s flirtation with buying Twitter appeared to begin in late March. That’s when Twitter has said he contacted members of its board — including co-founder Jack Dorsey — and told them he was buying up shares of the company and interested in either joining the board, taking Twitter private or starting a competitor. Then, on April 4, he revealed in a regulatory filing that he had became the company’s largest shareholder after acquiring a 9 percent stake worth about $3 billion.
At first, Twitter offered Musk a seat on its board. But six days later, Agrawal tweeted that Musk will not be joining the board after all. His bid to buy the company came together quickly after that.
Musk had agreed to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share, inserting a “420” marijuana reference into his offer price. He sold roughly $8.5 billion worth of shares in Tesla to help fund the purchase, then strengthened his commitments of more than $7 billion from a diverse group of investors including Silicon Valley heavy hitters like Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison.
Inside Twitter, Musk’s offer was met with confusion and falling morale, especially after Musk publicly criticized one of Twitter’s top lawyers involved in content-moderation decisions.
As Twitter executives prepared for the deal to move forward, the company instituted a hiring freeze, halted discretionary spending and fired two top managers. The San Francisco company has also been laying off staff, most recently part of its talent acquisition team.
Elon Musk says he’s terminating Twitter deal, board to fight
https://arab.news/pnpr7
Elon Musk says he’s terminating Twitter deal, board to fight
- Musk has been unable to pin down the percentage of Twitter accounts that are not genuine, which could jeopardize the deal
China court jails journalist for seven years on spy charges, family says
- Police in the Chinese capital detained veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu in February 2022
- ‘Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China’
BEIJING/HONG KONG: A Beijing court sentenced veteran Chinese state media journalist Dong Yuyu on Friday to seven years in prison for espionage, his family said in a statement, calling the verdict a grave injustice.
Police in the Chinese capital detained the 62-year-old former Guangming Daily editor and journalist in February 2022 while he was lunching with a Japanese diplomat, the US National Press Club said in a statement. He was later charged with espionage.
“Sentencing Yuyu to seven years in prison on no evidence declares to the world the bankruptcy of the justice system in China,” Dong’s family said in a statement provided to Reuters.
“Today’s verdict is a grave injustice not only to Yuyu and his family but also to every freethinking Chinese journalist and every ordinary Chinese committed to friendly engagement with the world.”
The family added that in the court judgment, Japanese diplomats whom Dong met were “specifically named as agents of an ‘espionage organization,’ which is the Japanese embassy in Beijing.”
Dong’s conviction implied every Chinese citizen would be “expected to know that the Chinese government may consider those embassies to be ‘espionage organizations’,” it said, causing a chilling effect.
Police guarded the court on Friday, with seven police cars parked nearby, and journalists were asked to leave the area. A US diplomat said they had been barred from attending the hearing.
Dong has been detained in a Beijing prison since a closed-court hearing in July 2023, the press club said in September.
“Chinese authorities must reverse this unjust verdict, and protect the right of journalists to work freely and safely in China,” said Beh Lih Yi, Asia program manager at the Committee to Protect Journalists.
“Dong Yuyu should be reunited with his family immediately.”
Dong regularly had in-person exchanges with diplomats from various embassies and journalists.
The Japanese diplomat he met, one of two he had regularly met in the past, was also detained for several hours, spurring a complaint from Japan’s foreign ministry.
At the time, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said the diplomat was engaged in activities “inconsistent with their capacity” in China. The diplomat was later released.
A Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in 2007, Dong was a visiting scholar and visiting professor at Keio University and Hokkaido University in Japan, his family said in a statement in April 2023.
He joined the Guangming Daily, affiliated to the ruling Communist Party, in 1987, after graduating from Peking University law school, and was the deputy editor of its commentary section.
He wrote opinion articles in Chinese media and liberal academic journals on topics from legal reforms to social issues, and co-edited a book promoting the rule of law in China.
His articles advocated moderate reforms while avoiding direct criticism of President Xi Jinping.
His family had initially kept news of his detention private in the hope that charges could be reduced or dropped, but were told in March 2023 that he would stand trial, they said in their statement.
Non-government bodies (NGOs) advocating press freedom have called for his release, with more than 700 journalists, academics and NGO workers signing an online petition for him to be freed.
“Dong Yuyu is a talented reporter and author whose work has long been respected by colleagues,” said Ann Marie Lipinski, curator of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.
“We stand with many in hoping for his release and return to his family.”
In February, a Beijing court handed a suspended death sentence to Australian writer and pro-democracy blogger, Yang Hengjun, on espionage charges.
Social media companies, UNICEF slam Australia’s under-16 ban
- Tech companies say the measure is littered with “many unanswered questions” ut they are willing to engage with the government on shaping its implementation
- UNICEF Australia also warned that the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online
MELBOURNE: Social media giants on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law banning them from signing up under-16s, describing it as a rush job littered with “many unanswered questions.”
The UN children’s charity UNICEF Australia joined the fray, warning the law was no “silver bullet” against online harm and could push kids into “covert and unregulated” spaces online.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the legislation may not be implemented perfectly — much like existing age restrictions on alcohol — but it was “the right thing to do.”
The crackdown on sites like Facebook, Instagram and X, approved by parliament late Thursday, will lead to “better outcomes and less harm for young Australians,” he told reporters.
Platforms have a “social responsibility” to make children’s safety a priority, the prime minister said.
“We’ve got your back, is our message to Australian parents.”
Social media firms that fail to comply with the law face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million).
TikTok said Friday it was “disappointed” in the law, accusing the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.
“It’s entirely likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the Internet where no community guidelines, safety tools, or protections exist,” a TikTok spokesperson said.
Tech companies said that despite the law’s perceived shortcomings, they would engage with the government on shaping how it could be implemented in the next 12 months.
The legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic, unenforceable piece of legislation.
Meta — owner of Facebook and Instagram — called for consultation on the rules to ensure a “technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens.”
But the company added it was concerned “about the process, which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”
A Snapchat spokesperson said the company had raised “serious concerns” about the law and that “many unanswered questions” remained about how it would work.
But the company said it would engage closely with government to develop an approach balancing “privacy, safety and practicality.”
“As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” it said.
UNICEF Australia policy chief Katie Maskiell said young people need to be protected online but also need to be included in the digital world.
“This ban risks pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces as well as preventing them from accessing aspects of the online world essential to their wellbeing,” she said.
One of the biggest issues will be privacy — what age-verification information is used, how it is collected and by whom.
Social media companies remain adamant that age-verification should be the job of app stores, but the government believes tech platforms should be responsible.
Exemptions will likely be granted to some companies, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.
Canada sues Google over alleged anticompetitive practices in online ads
- The Competition Bureau is asking a tribunal to order Google to sell its ad tech tools, which it uses "unlawfully" to maintain its dominant market position
- Google maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector and that it intends to defend itself against the allegation
TORONTO: Canada’s antitrust watchdog said Thursday it is suing Google over alleged anticompetitive conduct in the tech giant’s online advertising business and wants the company to sell off two of its ad tech services and pay a penalty.
The Competition Bureau said that such action is necessary because an investigation into Google found that the company “unlawfully” tied together its ad tech tools to maintain its dominant market position.
The matter is now headed for the Competition Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body that hears cases brought forward by the competition commissioner about non-compliance with the Competition Act.
The bureau is asking the tribunal to order Google to sell its publisher ad server, DoubleClick for Publishers, and its ad exchange, AdX. It estimates Google holds a market share of 90 percent in publisher ad servers, 70 percent in advertiser networks, 60 percent in demand-side platforms and 50 percent in ad exchanges.
This dominance, the bureau said, has discouraged competition from rivals, inhibited innovation, inflated advertising costs and reduced publisher revenues.
“Google has abused its dominant position in online advertising in Canada by engaging in conduct that locks market participants into using its own ad tech tools, excluding competitors, and distorting the competitive process,” Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, said in a statement.
Google, however, maintains the online advertising market is a highly competitive sector.
Dan Taylor, Google’s vice president of global ads, said in a statement that the bureau’s complaint “ignores the intense competition where ad buyers and sellers have plenty of choice.”
The statement added that Google intends to defend itself against the allegation.
US regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.
The proposed breakup, floated in a 23-page document filed this month by the US Department of Justice, calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.
Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s
- Aussie premier Anthony Albanese chapioned the bill in an effort to take young Australians “off their phones”
- Critics say the ban would not “make social media safer for young people,” lacks details about its enforcement
MELBOURNE: Australian lawmakers passed landmark rules to ban under 16s from social media on Thursday, approving one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites like Facebook, Instagram and X.
The legislation ordering social media firms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent young teens from having accounts was passed in the Senate with 34 votes in favor and 19 against.
The firms — who face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million) for failing to comply — have described the laws as “vague,” “problematic” and “rushed.”
The new rules will now return to the lower house — where lawmakers already backed the bill on Wednesday — for one final approval before it is all but certain to become law.
Speaking during the Senate debate, Greens politician Sarah Hanson-Young said the ban would not “make social media safer for young people.”
She said it was “devastating” that young people were “finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms.”
Center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, eyeing an election early next year, has enthusiastically championed the new rules and rallied Aussie parents to get behind it.
In the run up to the vote, he painted social media as “a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”
He wanted young Australians “off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool.”
But young social media users, like 12-year-old Angus Lydom, are not impressed.
“I’d like to keep using it. And it’ll be a weird feeling to not have it, and be able to talk to all my friends at home,” he told AFP.
Many are likely to try to find ways around it.
“I’ll find a way. And so will all my other friends” Lydom said.
Similarly, 11-year-old Elsie Arkinstall said there was still a place for social media, particularly for children wanting to watch tutorials about baking or art.
“Kids and teens should be able to explore those techniques because you can’t learn all those things from books,” she added.
On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.
But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of legislation that is unenforceable.
It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators and the ban comes into effect.
Some companies will likely be granted exemptions, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
Late amendments were introduced to ensure government-issued digital ID cannot be used as a means of age verification.
Social media expert Susan Grantham told AFP that digital literacy programs that teach children to think “critically” about what they see online should be adopted — similar to a model used in Finland.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.
Microsoft faces wide-ranging US antitrust probe
- Competitors complain Microsoft locks customers into its cloud service
- FTC earlier set the stage for probe into Microsoft’s role in AI market
The US Federal Trade Commission has opened a broad antitrust investigation into Microsoft, including of its software licensing and cloud computing businesses, a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
The probe was approved by FTC Chair Lina Khan ahead of her likely departure in January. The election of Donald Trump as US president, and the expectation he will appoint a fellow Republican with a softer approach toward business, leaves the outcome of the investigation up in the air.
The FTC is examining allegations the software giant is potentially abusing its market power in productivity software by imposing punitive licensing terms to prevent customers from moving their data from its Azure cloud service to other competitive platforms, sources confirmed earlier this month.
The FTC is also looking at practices related to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence products, the source said on Wednesday.
Microsoft declined to comment on Wednesday.
Competitors have criticized Microsoft’s practices they say keep customers locked into its cloud offering, Azure. The FTC fielded such complaints last year as it examined the cloud computing market.
NetChoice, a lobbying group that represents online companies including Amazon and Google, which compete with Microsoft in cloud computing, criticized Microsoft’s licensing policies, and its integration of AI tools into its Office and Outlook.
“Given that Microsoft is the world’s largest software company, dominating in productivity and operating systems software, the scale and consequences of its licensing decisions are extraordinary,” the group said.
Google in September complained to the European Commission about Microsoft’s practices, saying it made customers pay a 400 percent mark-up to keep running Windows Server on rival cloud computing operators, and gave them later and more limited security updates.
The FTC has demanded a broad range of detailed information from Microsoft, Bloomberg reported earlier on Wednesday.
The agency had already claimed jurisdiction over probes into Microsoft and OpenAI over competition in artificial intelligence, and started looking into Microsoft’s $650 million deal with AI startup Inflection AI.
Microsoft has been somewhat of an exception to US antitrust regulators’ recent campaign against allegedly anticompetitive practices at Big Tech companies.
Facebook owner Meta Platforms, Apple, and Amazon.com Inc. have all been accused by the US of unlawfully maintaining monopolies.
Alphabet’s Google is facing two lawsuits, including one where a judge found it unlawfully thwarted competition among online search engines.
Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified at Google’s trial, saying the search giant was using exclusive deals with publishers to lock up content used to train artificial intelligence.
It is unclear whether Trump will ease up on Big Tech, whose first administration launched several Big Tech probes. JD Vance, the incoming vice president, has expressed concern about the power the companies wield over public discourse.
Still, Microsoft has benefited from Trump policies in the past.
In 2019, the Pentagon awarded it a $10 billion cloud computing contract that Amazon had widely been expected to win. Amazon later alleged that Trump exerted improper pressure on military officials to steer the contract away from its Amazon Web Services unit.
