[HN Gopher] Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring
___________________________________________________________________
Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring
Author : danso
Score : 991 points
Date : 2022-05-12 16:40 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| fleddr wrote:
| Just a spring cleaning that is about a decade late.
|
| Twitter under-performs in every aspect imaginable: financially,
| product quality, product innovation. Nothing ever gets released
| and whilst this pace has improved in recent years, those
| "innovations" don't really deliver. They're barely used, copycats
| from other apps, and so on. Meanwhile, age-old problems are never
| addressed, like bots and the extremely hostile mob mentality on
| the platform.
|
| They're ineffective and lack accountability. They need a reset
| and mentality change.
| croes wrote:
| >like bots and the extremely hostile mob mentality
|
| There isn't a solution for these two.
| vkou wrote:
| There is, but it's called moderation when you agree with it,
| and censorship when you don't.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| And for whatever action you do, the majority will usually
| think you're wrong. But, on the plus side, you're also
| wrong when you are "providing a platform for it" (aka not
| doing anything).
|
| I'm always surprised at how well dang manages this,
| although he definitely receives his share of critic from
| all sides, too.
| croes wrote:
| How many people would you need to monitor all tweets in all
| used languages?
| pcurve wrote:
| as a non twitter user, their biggest contribution to the
| humanity is actually Bootstrap, and I actually say that with
| all due respect.
| seydor wrote:
| as a bootstrap user i agree
| themitigating wrote:
| How would they control mob mentality?
| fleddr wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31160916
|
| See above comment thread from another discussion, first reply
| is from me.
| themitigating wrote:
| That's a decent plan. I like how you mention punishing
| false reports, I wish reputation had more value on social
| networks though they would have to protect against bots
| that boost it.
|
| Couple of questions:
|
| 1.Normally when you report something as a violation of the
| rule and the moderators determine it is not a violation
| that might not be objective. "Hate Speech" for example is
| not objective even if you provide examples.
|
| - How would you prevent people from being punished
| unfairly.
|
| - Right now a false report has no consequences. Wouldn't
| reporting go down since people would want to avoid a
| punishment?
|
| 2. In detecting mob patterns how would you determine if
| it's not just everyone getting on to tweet about a current
| event and if you rate limit it doesn't that mean some
| people would be censored and others not simply based on
| time?
|
| 3. Related to the other limits you mentioned, such as
| number of retweets. What prevents people from opening
| multiple accounts or bots?
|
| 4. Assume the above three are solved wouldn't this put the
| business at a disadvantage due to both decreased ad revenue
| and competitors who don't have these rules?
| kbenson wrote:
| Those may _help_ , but I'm not sure what they could do
| other than breaking the core conceit of their platform
| (short form, limited space) to really deal with it.
|
| Limited space to express your intent, and the quick
| response cycle it engenders are not conducive to productive
| discussion. It's hot-takes and terse replies that people
| interpret as hostile even if they weren't meant as such all
| the way down. Take that out and what makes Twitter any
| different than every other platform? Though, maybe they're
| large enough and popular enough they could weather that
| change.
| dmix wrote:
| > (e) Make it possible to prevent retweets (including quote
| retweets) from certain accounts you follow from showing up
| on your timeline. There are certain people you might like
| who retweet effluent, and you don't want that effluent
| going straight into your eyeballs.
|
| There's many good points here. This is the best. They need
| to assume the content kinda sucks and let people control as
| much as possible, instead of thinking that AI is doing a
| good enough job for them.
| Vladimof wrote:
| > Twitter under-performs in every aspect imaginable
|
| They are pretty good at banning external services...
| AviationAtom wrote:
| I've learned that, when speaking with a certain half of
| society, any narrative other than Twitter's future being bleak,
| and it current state good, is not accepted.
|
| Twitter has huge monetary potential, and adoption potential
| (beyond the niche audience it current has), but if the status
| quo is kept them that potential will likely never be realized.
| Traster wrote:
| Honestly I've not heard _anyone_ say that Twitter 's current
| state is good. Yo're literally taling about a company that
| has somehow managed to stay flat whlist all their competitors
| are up multiples. Sure, people think Musk won't make it
| better, but no one thinks twitter is doing well.
| ilamont wrote:
| > Twitter under-performs [in] product innovation.
|
| I see things differently. The number of customer-facing feature
| releases in recent years has been significant.
|
| Yes, some are irritating (GIF integration). Others miss the
| mark (endless iterations of topics/explore/algo changes). Still
| others haven't been attempted but are sorely needed (editing
| tweets, clear verified account policies).
|
| But a few innovations are trying to solve real problems
| identified by subsets of users (Twitter Professional, Twitter
| Blue) or help everyone _a lot_ (photos, doubling tweet length,
| improvements to RT functionality, reporting tools).
|
| Another thing to keep in mind: When discussion forums try to
| shoehorn too many things into the feature set, often to compete
| with other platforms, the results can alienate existing users.
| I see this with Instagram bolting on TikTok-like features, to
| the detriment of everyone who just likes to share photos.
|
| (I am thankful most of HN's feature improvements have been
| restrained. Slashdot tried to do too much with new features,
| and it hurt rather than helped the community)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| DantesKite wrote:
| You're 100% correct.
|
| They shut down Vine. TikTok is now a billion dollar industry.
|
| As far as I'm concerned, every product manager involved in that
| decision shouldn't be involved with Twitter anymore, because
| they display an astonishingly level of incompetence.
| rtpg wrote:
| Does anyone know _why_ Vine was shut down? Was it just a
| major cost center or something?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Wow, never heard of Vine (call me out of touch grumpy old man
| user persona!), but reading the wikipedia page, what is
| amazing it was aquired for less than one of today's early
| rounds - $30m. Maybe they were "too early"? Post pandemic
| things look a lot different.
| lupire wrote:
| Vine was massively popular. Everyone was shocked when it
| was shut down.
| mdoms wrote:
| Vine was not too early by any means. It was exploding in
| popularity when they shut it down. It absolutely would have
| been as big as Tik Tok if they got the algorithm right.
| joegahona wrote:
| Was it, though? My memory isn't perfect, but I seem to
| recall the days after Instagram copied the video feature,
| there were articles on tech blogs mocking Vine on how
| Facebook was going to eat their lunch. You could even
| refresh your browser on Vine's Twitter page and watch the
| count of its followers decreasing in realtime. Not
| pushing back, I just remember it kind of petering out in
| popularity (in the US, at least) and then quietly going
| away, and everyone sort of shrugged.
| criley2 wrote:
| The 6 second limitation was holding them back and their
| competitors knew that longer formats would be more
| successful. The vine 6 second format was interesting and
| kind of "created" the format that turned into tik tok,
| but there is no doubt that vine would had to have pivoted
| sooner rather than later. Still, the decision to shut it
| down was shocking and short sighted.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Vine was at the peak of internet culture and mindshare when
| it was shut down. I have to believe there was some kind of
| personal vendetta or motivation behind the shut down. It
| makes absolutely no sense.
| kossTKR wrote:
| Vine was exploding when they shut it down, and some of the
| biggest influencers of today started on Vine. It's
| incomprehensible to me why anyone would shut down such an
| absolute jackpot, bizarre really!
| LilBytes wrote:
| Vine should have been what TikTok is today, it was so close
| to being a product that I wanted to see and use. TikTok
| without the close relationship with the People's Republic
| of China would be so much fun to use.
| PBnFlash wrote:
| I would put parascope on that as well, they strangled meerkat
| for the live streaming market then let their product die.
| gitgud wrote:
| Periscope was a brilliant streaming app. And one of the
| first that you could write messages to people who were
| streaming.
|
| It was an incredibly intimate experience to write
| something, and see people in the video you're watching,
| react to it live. Seems normal now, with so many streaming
| apps, but periscope was the first I saw on mobile do this
| well.
|
| Eventually, the big apps implemented it too (Facebook,
| Snapchat... Instagram). Which killed Periscope...
| throwaway-jim wrote:
| I will never understand this. I thought vine was going to be
| the next big thing right until the day they decided to shut
| it down.
| mhh__ wrote:
| The fact that vine as a name and at least _some_ vines are
| still at least somewhat prevalent online, makes me think
| that vine literally was "already" the next big thing and
| twitter just completely misread the room.
| vmception wrote:
| yeah, people are _still_ reconnecting with vine creators,
| on TikTok. You can see in the comments, a video came up
| on the user 's feed and they were compelled enough to be
| like "are you so and so from vine!?" Vine was killed
| _half a decade ago_.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| And YouTube. Some of the biggest commentary channels used
| to be Viners.
|
| The fact that it was shut down when it was is testament
| to how badly Twitter misplayed their hand with it. Every
| single creator flocked to whatever platform would take
| them at the time.
| warning26 wrote:
| "Twitter supports videos now, therefore Vine is redundant!
| Shut it down and 100% of Vine users will post their videos
| on Twitter!"
|
| --Twitter PMs, probably
| lupire wrote:
| The Vic Gundrota Google+ school of Product Management.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| I think it's a lot more likely that there are/were a
| horde of PMs there who thought it was a very dumb and
| short-sighted decision to shut it down at the time. In my
| experience, it's usually some high-ranking exec who makes
| confounding decisions through authority in big tech. Not
| so much the average IC PM who has to spend time
| understanding their users for their job.
| RyanShook wrote:
| Thanks for the reminder. Yes, this was pretty much 100%
| the rationale from Twitter at the time.
| kragen wrote:
| What was your position at Twitter at the time? I'm
| interested to know where you heard it from, to the extent
| that you can disclose.
| dmix wrote:
| If that's the rationale it has to be one of the worst
| tech product decisions in history. Out-doing even Googles
| collection of product shutdowns here.
| JPKab wrote:
| No shit.
|
| Twitter is filled with extravagantly paid Product Managers
| with thoroughly mediocre (at best) results. Vine is a great
| example, but think about the complete lack of imagination
| when it comes to Musk's idea of charging users $3/month. I
| would absolutely pay that to be on a Twitter free of bots.
| And wow, how bad is the data science team at Twitter that
| they can't spot the OBVIOUS bots all over the site? When you
| see what they get paid, that's what makes it pathetic.
| pnathan wrote:
| I do have to agree that Twitter is either (1) basically
| perfected or (2) coasting.
|
| I also might suggest that the buyout offer has prompted some
| very hard thinking internally and strategic changes.
| kranke155 wrote:
| I would say twitter threads need robust support and the edit
| button is sorely missed.
|
| But yes in a way the paralysis that Twitter is in is
| interesting in a world where everything is being changed
| always all the time in agile cycles. Twitter feels like it
| just exists and this is the way it works.
| Graffur wrote:
| If they introduce an edit feature people will abuse it in
| the following ways:
|
| * Bait and switch. Now replies to the original tweet will
| be out of context
|
| * Everyone will edit their tweet and put EDIT: <Comment
| addressing all of the replies> at the end. This is what
| happens on Reddit.
| joegahona wrote:
| More importantly, an edit button will move zero
| meaningful metrics.
| dave5104 wrote:
| > * Bait and switch. Now replies to the original tweet
| will be out of context
|
| I used to think this could be a problem too... but Reddit
| has had an edit button as long as I can remember, and
| bait and switch doesn't really seem to be much of a
| problem.
|
| Perhaps it'd be more troublesome with the concept of
| retweets or quote tweets?
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| Maybe it's not a problem, but one of the most upvoted
| comments is the result of a bait-n-switch:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Music/comments/56cdgm/ama_im_rea
| lly...
|
| The comment Rick Astley is replying to was originally
| something like "please swear at me!" ... quite a bit
| different than what it is now.
| nullc wrote:
| > I used to think this could be a problem too... but
| Reddit has had an edit button as long as I can remember,
| and bait and switch doesn't really seem to be much of a
| problem.
|
| Anyone who does it enough to be irritating (instead of
| funny) will just find themselves banned by subreddit mods
| or otherwise they're doing it in a subreddit where it
| doesn't matter and no one will care.
|
| The same community controls don't exist in twitter, so
| its plausible that it might be more damaging there. But
| so what? Many of the benefits are clear, the risks
| speculative. They could mitigate with a history button.
|
| Wikipedia lets arbitrary users edit other users posts and
| gets by just fine-- not just the encyclopedia pages but
| the discussion pages too. Part of that is because it has
| a history so funny business is easily caught, but part of
| it is that if you give people more way to behaving
| unambiguously abusively if they intentionally chose to do
| so, some people will take you up on the offer and you can
| just remove them from the platform without regret. In
| that case everyone will be better off than if they didn't
| have the option to shoot themselves in the foot to begin
| with.
| lupire wrote:
| Twitter userbase is far, far dumber than Wikipedia's
| tomschlick wrote:
| The edit button would only be available for say 5 minutes
| after posting. Would show that it was edited with a
| history available to see what was changed. And according
| to Musk, could reset the like / retweets on it.
| ummonk wrote:
| What I want from an edit button is just a convenient UI
| for deleting and resubmitting a tweet with small changes.
| Right now the UX for that is really bad - if I want to
| fix a typo I have to copy my tweet text, then reopen the
| tweet / reply box, paste in the text, edit it, and then
| re-add any attachments I had included (together with any
| accessibility text). And doing all this is even more
| difficult on mobile than on desktop.
| boringg wrote:
| On pat leave too. Ouch.
| johnboiles wrote:
| This is mind boggling to me. Kayvon is one of the best product
| leaders / visionaries I know. It was confusing to me in Dec that
| he wasn't Jack's successor.
|
| Kayvon was a huge driving force behind all the interesting
| product efforts of the last few years: Spaces, Fleets, topics,
| etc. Twitter went from not iterating on product (remember when
| Twitter's only change in several years was to change the star to
| a heart?) to starting to take some shots. Behind the scenes he
| was often pushing against significant headwinds that resisted
| product change (not the least of which was the internal 'sacred
| cow' that all things must be built with Scala and only run inside
| Twitter's on-prem datacenters).
| JyB wrote:
| I'm not sure you're supposed to be acclaimed for the features
| you listed.
| astrange wrote:
| Spaces is a good feature. Topics is the worst thing I've been
| subjected to in my life. I have a second account in Japanese
| and Topics constantly adds posts about trashy American pop
| stars I barely know to the feed.
| johnboiles wrote:
| Agree. Spaces is good and the others not as much. Though I do
| use the 'War in Ukraine' topic a lot.
|
| The main diff though is that Twitter for a moment in time
| started taking some shots. Not that they were all the best
| shots. But for my first two years there it felt like the
| company took nearly 0 shots. That shift happened with Kayvon.
| adamrezich wrote:
| personally I'm very sick of the "perma-trending topics".
| "COVID-19: News and updates for $YOUR_LOCATION" still pops
| up in the sidebar here and there, and it's on the full
| trending topics list probably forever now?? like, guys,
| it's over, you can pull it now, I'm good thanks
| brundolf wrote:
| A trick is to set your sidebar region to a country whose
| language you can't read. Then it just gets filled with
| irrelevant, impossible-to-read noise
| once_inc wrote:
| Topics for anyone outside the US is completely dysfunctional.
| I've browsed the list of topics it generated for me (to
| disable them manually in the most dysfunctional way ever
| imagined) and half the topics it contained were completely
| unknown to me. Rappers, celebrities, baseball players, and
| K-pop stars. None of those are topics I've ever spent any
| real interest in, neither through searching nor interacting
| with other people's tweets.
| Graffur wrote:
| All of those product efforts are failures so far. Literally
| nobody outside hardcore twitter users knows what any of them
| are.
| ellyagg wrote:
| I had the same reaction as the siblings, so I'm almost
| wondering if this is satire.
| bobro wrote:
| Are Spaces, Fleets, or Topics considered successes?
| brundolf wrote:
| As others have said here, Spaces is a minor success. In my
| corner of Twitter I see people use it occasionally and I've
| had a few good experiences with it
| DantesKite wrote:
| Fleets was actually relatively good amongst certain content
| creators, especially as a monetization funnel.
| bern4444 wrote:
| Fleets certainly not, Twitter internally removed it because
| it did so poorly.
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| mdoms wrote:
| > Kayvon was a huge driving force behind all the interesting
| product efforts of the last few years: Spaces, Fleets, topics,
| etc
|
| Honestly not sure if you're being sarcastic. Fleets were killed
| within months of launch because they were awful and no one
| wanted them. Spaces will die when the nft bubble finishes
| collapsing. And topics are just a way to shoehorn crap no one
| wants onto their timelines without asking first.
| Pxtl wrote:
| What do spaces have to do with NFTs?
| mdoms wrote:
| NFT dudes are the only people I have EVER seen using that
| feature, and I use Twitter daily. I also follow exactly
| zero NFT dudes so I don't know why I always see their
| spaces.
| Pxtl wrote:
| I've been in a bunch of local political spaces run by
| journos and activists and experts, but my province is in
| the middle of an election right now.
| ayende wrote:
| Spaces are _heavily_ used where I am right now as a
| replacement for radio with plenty of really interesting
| topic. Basically, "everyone can open a station"
| scenario.
|
| Off the top of my head, there is a big trial going on,
| and people are discussing details and commentary on that
| (with competing spaces for the defense and persecution
| sides). Stuff that you don't have the time to convey
| using traditional media.
|
| It has gotten big enough to have politicians show up and
| do special shows. Thing about 2+ hours of interacting
| directly with the public.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > Kayvon is one of the best product leaders / visionaries I
| know.
|
| Maybe this person is absolutely amazing and is just constrained
| by the crazy realities of working in a very large and political
| company. Maybe they did the best possible job under difficult
| circumstances. I'm not the insider and can't easily judge that.
|
| But as an outsider, what I can judge is that it's easy to
| perceive the Twitter platform as basically doing nothing truly
| noteworthy in terms of design/features to improve the platform
| other than feeling like a slower and slower site, while at the
| same time it's increasingly hostile to the open Internet (stuff
| like blocking viewing Tweets unless you login), and has some
| significant and growing freedom of speech issues until Musk
| came along. The stuff that outsiders can judge doesn't feel too
| good.
| [deleted]
| halfmatthalfcat wrote:
| Twitter copied all of those features from other apps. Spaces =
| Clubhouse, Fleets (which was also cancelled last year) =
| Snapchat. At best, Kayvon was good a being reactionary to
| competition. Not that great of a track record.
| pbourke wrote:
| Fleets as in fleeting. I thought it meant "group of ships"
| and seriously struggled to see how the name connected. Mind
| you, my use of Twitter is confined to "order by time desc"
| and Lists.
| slotrans wrote:
| 100% of those features are terrible.
|
| Topics, in particular, are actively and significantly harmful
| to the quality of my experience on Twitter. If there was a way
| to hide them permanently, now THAT would be a feature!
| once_inc wrote:
| Agreed completely. All those functions are simple hacks on
| top of the platform to emulate functionality that is offered
| in other apps:
|
| * Spaces => Clubhouse
|
| * Topics => Instagram/Reddit
|
| * Fleets => Instagram
|
| Twitter should focus on its core value product: the tweets
| themselves, and manage that better. This means easier thread
| displays, better spam control and user management, better
| algorithm for displaying relevant tweets.
| Pxtl wrote:
| Spaces are warty and ugly right now but I'm enjoying them.
| kamaal wrote:
| Spaces are really good.
|
| But I would liked an anonymous 'join to listen' feature.
| Random people stalking your account after they see you in
| the space is something I find creepy.
| jiripospisil wrote:
| Why do you think Twitter needs any changes? I would personally
| prefer if they removed all of the remaining features you listed
| and went back to the good old plain chronological list of
| tweets that made Twitter popular.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| >(not the least of which was the internal 'sacred cow' that all
| things must be built with Scala)
|
| Lol wtf, why should a product person have any say in
| programming languages?
| genmud wrote:
| As a product person, if the engineering leadership has a
| personal preference and it impacts the ability to deliver
| features... I'm not sure why they _wouldn 't_ push back.
| VirusNewbie wrote:
| Err, is the accusation that engineering says "we want to
| keep Scala but it is slowing us down"? Because i think it
| is way more likely that product people are saying stupid
| shit like "well at my last company we used PHP and we
| churned out features twice as fast!"
| alaricus wrote:
| Given the toxic dump twitter is today, I doubt this is true.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nickstinemates wrote:
| I wonder if this is at all related to today's news. How big of a
| bot problem is there and who knew?
| bhouston wrote:
| I suspect this was done in part because Elon Musk wants to make
| some big changes. It would be best for the outgoing CEO to make
| these difficult firings and then let Elon Musk come in and set a
| new tone without dealing with this negativity falling on Elon.
|
| I'm not saying this is right, but it makes a lot of sense.
| [deleted]
| mlindner wrote:
| Musk doesn't have any control yet or even insight into the
| company.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| It would be wise for Musk to rehire him.
| topspin wrote:
| Why?
| LightG wrote:
| And so it begins...
|
| With Elon Musk's hand up Parag's jacksie and pressing all the
| buttons he chooses.
| alkjl34tk34 wrote:
| [deleted]
| gumby wrote:
| First of all, this isn't a diss on the guy who was fired, though
| it must sting. This is how things go.*
|
| Second of all, for the question "why now?": Twitter's CEO Parag
| has to "run through the tape": regardless of what he thinks might
| happen, he has to keep to the plan and in fact can't talk to the
| potential acquirer. One reason is that perhaps the deal won't
| happen, but also he's just not allowed to.
|
| If that sounds strange, consider CNN+ which was launched and
| killed within a couple of weeks. The buyer of CNN couldn't tell
| CNN what they thought but planned all along to nuke it; the CNN
| people either didn't understand that, were fanatics, or just
| didn't give a fuck.
|
| * We don't know the whole story so it's _possible_ he was
| actually doing something bad. But I think that 's very unlikely,
| as these days those things are usually mentioned rather than
| being swept under the carpet.
| Vaslo wrote:
| All- some of you are clinging onto the paternity leave. I can't
| quote whether this is true, but at both Fortune 250 companies I
| worked for, you were paid out for your entire leave even if you
| weren't coming back after. So I would bet money he is still being
| paid for the whole leave, but if someone sees something else,
| please correct me. There is incentive to pay it out since one
| annoying side effect can be a person gone for 3 to 4 months
| suddenly calls 2 days before leave is over and says "I think I am
| resigning." It's better to pay the full leave and have them tell
| you that from the start so you don't waste 3 months.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| your point makes it even more weird/indecent. there's literally
| no (financial) cost to waiting. this breeds insecurity for 0
| benefit.
| elicash wrote:
| The concern is that there could be a chilling effect resulting
| in people not taking this leave. If people expect to be fired
| for using this benefit, they won't use it.
| bredren wrote:
| Many folks seem to understand the chilling effect of
| surveillance but can not fathom that such a thing might exist
| related to family leave.
| 0xFACEFEED wrote:
| (M|P)aternity leave cannot ever make you immune from being
| let go. That would be insane. People are let go all of the
| time without any warning or cause. Especially executives.
| elicash wrote:
| Obviously. I'm just explaining the concern.
|
| There's no allegation from the person fired that taking the
| leave is why they were fired. But the mere PERCEPTION can
| have a chilling effect. And I have worked with many people
| who worry about taking this type of extended leave for
| exactly this reason.
| tls wrote:
| elromulous wrote:
| Do we have any reason to believe that this was a musk motivated
| decision?
| dymk wrote:
| No, and anybody aside from those directly involved who tries to
| tell you otherwise is just making things up.
| [deleted]
| novaleaf wrote:
| in the last few days Twitter doesn't force me to login to scroll
| down tweets anymore. Maybe related to the buy action? Want to
| show increased engagement in the final weeks for bargaining
| power?
| mrlatinos wrote:
| I've had the opposite experience. In the past few days I've
| noticed the "login wall" immediately pops up, along with a new
| feature - it prevented me from navigating back in my browser.
| Bud wrote:
| Looks like they fired him during paternity leave.
|
| Stay classy, Twitter.
| Dave3of5 wrote:
| Oh dear wtf is going on at twitter HQ right now. Be interesting
| to see what happens when the dust settles.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Who will fire him?
| Traster wrote:
| So there's two options right - the first is that Parag is for
| some reason making big strategic decisions about the direction of
| the company despite the fact that we all know he'll be gone if
| the deal closes. Or he's making big strategic changes at the
| behest of the acquirers before the deal closes.
|
| Neither of these things seem particularly kosher moves to make.
| The question is how to figure out which one it is.
|
| It would seem weird for Parag to be following Musk's orders given
| how Musk has behaved. It also seems weird for Musk to already
| have the insight into the company to know specifically who to
| fire. There's not much advantage to making these changes now.
|
| On the other hand, going rogue and making big strategic decisions
| about the company really has the potential to burn Parag's
| reputation for wherever he would move next.
|
| I guess there's a third option - that Musk has expressed a
| specific view, Parag has a different view, but that they both
| think that this move is necessary anyway so just got on and did
| it.
| [deleted]
| 704FF43A wrote:
| > On the other hand, going rogue and making big strategic
| decisions about the company
|
| Parag isn't a strong character like that. He's someone who
| plays by the rules and only says empty conventional things,
| without any personal opinion or feeling, couched in formal
| modern US corporate/tech language, with the required
| progressive veneer. I'm pretty sure he only thinks things along
| similar lines.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| You're discounting the very real possibility that Parag is
| operating as if the deal will _not_ go through, and is making
| large strategic decisions in anticipation of that being the
| case.
|
| For Parag, I don't see it "burning his reputation" at all,
| considering either a) he's right and will face the tall task of
| helming a Twitter that continues to disappoint its investors or
| b) he's wrong and it won't be his problem when Elon fires him
| next year.
| fny wrote:
| It maximizes his chance of survival either way.
|
| The probability that Elon is margin called by year end is
| roughly 40% according to option prices.
|
| - 60% chance you get fired either by Musk or investors if you
| don't turn the ship. - 40% chance you Musk is margin called
| and doesn't take over, but still might be fired by investors
| or acquired by someone else who may in turn can him.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| The crypto crisis should significantly diminish musk wealth
| no?
| ben_w wrote:
| No, why would you think that?
|
| His wealth is mostly owning 20% of Tesla, plus some extra
| few billions from owning significant fractions of SpaceX,
| The Boring Company, and Neuralink. Presumably there's
| some cash in there as well, but on his scale a hundred
| million is a rounding error.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| Musk's share of SpaceX is worth more than an "extra few
| billions". SpaceX is valued at around $100B, and Elon
| Musk owns about 47% of it.
| SamBam wrote:
| It still confuses me that being part-owner of an old dot-
| com payment company, part-owner of a mid-sized car
| company (by number of cars sold), and part-owner of a
| (very good) rocket company make a person richer than
| anyone has ever been in the history of the planet, but
| that's probably because I just haven't looked into it
| enough.
| paganel wrote:
| That "mid-sized car company" has revolutionised an
| ~120-year industry while still managing to remain at the
| forefront, that's why its valuation is so high (even
| though I also do believe it's over-valued).
|
| I'm not saying this as a Tesla-lover nor as a fan of
| Musk, in fact, as a lover of gasoline engines and of cars
| in general I see this as a tragedy (I regard EVs as
| refrigerators with some wheels attached), but it is what
| it is.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| Where is the revolution? There are competitive cars vs
| tesla for electric. Even if tesla have an edge, it's
| evolutionary, not at all revolutionary.
| zamfi wrote:
| Tesla produced the first ICE-equivalent EV sedan that was
| not merely a "compliance vehicle" in decades.
|
| Then, it turned out, people bought them by the hundreds
| of thousands, single-handedly recreating the market for
| EVs.
|
| Then, other manufacturers noticed, and started realizing
| they might be left behind if they didn't take EVs
| seriously.
|
| Now, sure, there are many competitors, but even still
| they have only been built in small quantities.
|
| How long Tesla's edge will last is an open question, but
| there's no question that Tesla has single-handedly
| exploded the demand for EVs in the consumer vehicle
| market.
| jsight wrote:
| Don't forget the importance of charging either. When the
| 3 came out, GM was considering the Bolt a direct
| competitor. They had the mindset that people were only
| buying these as city cars.
|
| To this day, GM sells that "direct competitor" with a
| ~55kw charging limit.
|
| Tesla is what made the other manufacturers realize that
| people were willing to wait 15-25 minutes on DCFC while
| road tripping electric cars.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| By the time Tesla had sold 100,000 Model S cars in the
| US, Nissan had already sold over 110 000 Leafs.
|
| Tesla created the market for high-performance EVs. They
| did not create the overall EV market. The high-end market
| is only a small part of the numbers.
| alvah wrote:
| "The high-end market is only a small part of the numbers"
| correct, but in a parallel universe where Tesla didn't
| exist & the typical EV looked & performed like a Leaf,
| would anyone actually want an electric car? Marketing and
| psychology are important.
| zamfi wrote:
| The Leaf that Nissan sold while the Model S was Tesla's
| only sedan (ie 2012-2017) was not an ICE-equivalent
| vehicle. It was explicitly a city vehicle with a < 75
| mile official range, an effective 40-50 mile range, and
| no fast charging.
|
| If "high-performance" means "can handle the daily driving
| needs of > 50% of the population" then I guess you're
| right, Tesla only created that market.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The daily-driving needs of 95% of the population are
| incompatible with a 100k$ car. The Leaf fit the needs of
| more people simply by virtue of having an acceptable
| price.
|
| The Zoe also had a 150km+ effective range, which is more
| than enough for most people (maybe less so for
| Americans).
| outworlder wrote:
| The real ace was releasing an EV _sports car_ , the Tesla
| Roadster. That's what caught people's attention. They
| were able to see how EV drivetrains were actually better
| than their ICE counterparts and that electric motors can
| do much more than drive golf carts - despite having
| powered everything from submarines to locomotives, people
| still thought they were weak.
|
| Otherwise, Nissan would have been Tesla. They have
| produced some of the first practical EVs, way before
| Tesla did. Unfortunately, they made them for the Japanese
| consumer, not for the average american. At least not
| initially.
| alvah wrote:
| Nissan would never have been Tesla. They might have been
| the largest producer of EVs if history had run a
| different way, but that's a million miles away from being
| Tesla.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I daily drive a Nissan LEAF. _Any Tesla model_ is vastly
| more practical as an only car.
|
| I love my LEAF, but a little over a dozen times per year,
| I have to trade cars with my spouse to accomplish some
| particular day's driving.
| zamfi wrote:
| You're right that the Tesla Roadster led the charge -- no
| pun intended -- for EVs as uncompromising vehicles.
|
| But I don't think Nissan would've been Tesla: they didn't
| think people would pay for a full-range EV (and still
| don't, looks like?) and didn't prioritize it. For many
| Americans that means the LEAF could not be their only
| vehicle.
|
| The supercharger network also played a huge role in
| normalizing EVs, in particular in making the Tesla Model
| S the first car you could convince yourself was a great
| car that "happened to be an EV". The S isn't perfect, but
| it doesn't have any huge, obvious EV-related deficits,
| like the LEAF's range and charge time.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| I am not an expert in cars and yet I know the Renault Zoe
| was commercialized in 2012, the year of the model S, for
| a reasonable autonomy and a much, much cheaper price. I
| believe tesla were the first to sell low volume, pricey
| EV cars. Their range and timing advance is only because
| of choosing the rich over the middle class, aka a lesser
| impact. Although it's true EV were and remain not cheap
| but it's getting quickly much better and it's definitely
| not tesla that will lead the dance of democratisation
| jsight wrote:
| Didn't the Zoe have a 22kwh battery? I don't doubt that
| it was practical for some things, but that was exactly
| the kind of car that many (especially in the US) used as
| an example of the "impracticality" of electric back then.
| r00fus wrote:
| I'm no Musk fan, but let's be honest, Tesla released the
| Roadster in 2008. An expensive luxury product, no doubt,
| but years ahead of the Leaf or Zoe.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| And the Leaf looks like the typical electric cross
| between a clown car and a golf cart. The Roadster was
| based on a Lotus Elise. It looked _great._
| sokoloff wrote:
| If you took the badges off, I think most people would
| have a hard time telling the LEAF (EV) and a Versa (ICE)
| apart. The LEAF is no 911 or Jaguar E-type, but it's not
| a "hey, look at me; I'm electric!" clown car either.
| throwawayboise wrote:
| Maybe the current generation. I recall the original Leaf
| looking very clown-car-ish but I guess that's subjective.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| I assume revolutionary in that other companies have only
| really started taking EVs seriously due to the success of
| Tesla.
| adventured wrote:
| People constantly attempt to pretend Tesla didn't spark
| the EV revolution, because they can't stand to give Musk
| and or a US company credit.
|
| It's the same reason they aggressively pretend Apple
| didn't spark the smartphone revolution (when it all very
| obviously derived from the iPhone and its dramatic
| impact, right down to the design of the phone and
| interface being copied by everyone else).
|
| It's the same reason if you say the US invented the
| Internet here on HN, you'll get confused replies by
| people from outside of the US that are entirely ignorant
| of that fact, because of foreign revisionist history and
| the desperate desire to deny the US credit for its vast
| accomplishments (the America bad brigade). The same goes
| for eg the transistor, microprocessor and countless other
| prominent technologies that revolutionized the world.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| So what?
|
| It's still a business and it is tiny compared to the big
| players. Tesla is only a slightly better value than
| crypto given how insanely overvalued the stock is. If the
| company had an $80B market cap, it would still be vastly
| overvalued.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Tiny compared to ICE sales which will soon be regulated
| out of existence in many countries in the coming decades.
| ckw wrote:
| If Tesla had a market cap of $80B it would be trading at
| 6.06 times Q1 earnings annualized. Having grown revenue
| 81% and gross profit 147% in the prior year...
|
| It's currently undervalued at 10x that price.
|
| Re being small: its operating income was greater than
| Toyota in Q1, and it has two new factories that are yet
| to ramp production.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Nissan and Renault took EVs seriously before Tesla came
| out with the Model S - Renault was working on the Zoe
| since before 2008.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Renault were working on the since before 2008 (2005
| apparently), yet they only brought a product to market in
| 2012.
|
| The Tesla Roadster was developed around the same time,
| yet deliveries started in 2008. By the time Renault got
| around to actually making the Zoe available to customers,
| Tesla had been selling the Model S for 6 months. I don't
| think they were taking EVs particularly seriously if they
| took that much longer to put out a less sophisticated
| product despite having vastly more resources at their
| disposal.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Sure, because the Tesla Roadster is half a car, and cost
| is no object. They literally took an existing car, and
| built an EV conversion kit, money be damned.
|
| Making the first mass-market EV was going to take
| multiple years, no matter what. You need to engineer the
| entire car, at scale, and you need to hit a price-point.
| Tesla didn't have such an issue. I can't stress enough
| how much more difficult it is to make an affordable
| product than one where price is no object.
| paganel wrote:
| > There are competitive cars vs tesla for electric
|
| It is my belief that those "competitive cars" wouldn't
| have happened if it hadn't been for Tesla.
| lupire wrote:
| Nissan was selling the Leaf after the Roadster but before
| the S/X/3/Y.
|
| The Leaf and the 3 basically met in the middle at the
| same time at about the $45K price point for similar cars.
|
| Tesla was only first in the category of outrageously
| expensive cars for virtue-signalling rich people who
| fake-care about evironmentalism. And fake self-driving.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I bought a top-spec 2015 LEAF for $33K before $10K of
| incentives. If someone paid $45K for a LEAF around the
| 3's launch, it better have had $10K in cash in the trunk.
|
| Looked at another way, if the LEAF and 3 cost the same,
| would many people have bought the LEAF?
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Similar cars? Sure, they both have four wheels and are
| electric. I don't see many similarities though. Tesla's
| emergence put the world on track to end ICE cars at least
| a decade sooner. That is a lot of CO2 that will not be
| put into the atmosphere. Getting people with expendable
| income to fund it is both a smart strategy and very
| equitable.
|
| Their recharge network still sets them apart as well.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| But why? Did tesla open source key scientific innovations
| in the scaling of batteries? Don't think so. See e.g. The
| seres f5 from Huawei. I don't know wether it's great but
| about the main metric, it has a higher range than teslas
| (1000km)
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Zoom out a little and try and think about the bigger
| picture.
|
| In many industries, you can see these "bar-raisers."
|
| Starbucks didn't invent coffee, but they created a mass
| market for a more premium sort of coffee in a country
| that previously didn't see coffee as something more that
| a thing you chug down in the morning so you can wake up.
|
| Nintendo didn't invent video games, but they raised the
| bar for home consoles after the "great video game crash"
| and have repeated the feat several times since despite
| rarely if ever being on the cutting edge of tech.
|
| And so on.
|
| Tesla did something similar. Previously, electric cars
| and hybrids were seen as dorky and decidedly uncool by
| most. Tesla changed that public perception. It's hard to
| imagine the "luxury" electric car market existing without
| them. Perhaps another company might have accomplished the
| same feat, but Tesla was the first one to pull it off.
|
| From a raw innovation standpoint, these advances are huge
| because by _creating new market segments_ , they ensure a
| flow of money into those markets. Tesla's expense has
| paved the way for billions if not trillions of dollars
| into EV R&D and battery R&D. That matters, a lot.
| JoshCole wrote:
| To answer your question, they did open source their
| innovations. In the future you should consider not asking
| rhetorical questions that you don't know the answer to.
| Also, when you don't know the answer, you probably
| shouldn't pretend to know. Other people might make the
| mistake of thinking you are informed rather than a
| productive citizen of the society which exists in your
| imagination.
|
| As to why - ICE dealers didn't want to lose recurring
| revenue streams and ICE manufacturers didn't want to
| disrupt the means through which they would service the
| loans that they took out to build out their present
| ability to manufacture at scale. The incentives were
| perverse and in some cases still are perverse enough that
| the ICE industry has to be forced to help kill itself
| off, rather than dying willingly because it is right.
| senko wrote:
| Tesla dragged the rest of the auto industry, kicking and
| screaming, into the EV business.
|
| EV was, at best, a curiosity and definitely nobody's main
| focus, until Tesla first showed EV cars are not golf
| carts (with the rooadster) and then that they can be a
| desirable higher-class sedan (with Model S).
|
| If Tesla went bankrupt today, we'd still be firmly on the
| path to phase out ICE cars.
|
| This was totally unconcievable just a few years ago.
| Tesla did that.
| prmoustache wrote:
| > Tesla dragged the rest of the auto industry, kicking
| and screaming, into the EV business.
|
| I would say that the advance in battery technology, the
| laws introduced by state of California and north european
| countries did more than Tesla ever did.
|
| Also the Renault Zoe, still top selling EV cars in
| europe, had her first concept car showed in 2005 and was
| on sale only 5 months after the Model S in 2012. The Leaf
| also predates the Model S.The 1st generation Tesla
| Roadster sold poorly like most other contemporary EVs and
| most of the sales happened in her last year in 2012. It
| was as niche as all other EVs in the market in its first
| 3 years of commercial life. The Mitsubishi i-Miev and its
| Citroen and Peugeot variant outsold the Tesla Roadster by
| more than a factor of 10. Almost 30000 cars between 2008
| and 2014.
|
| What Tesla achieved was showing the wealthy people they
| could greenwash their way to the same energy wasting life
| by going EV. A good publicity stunt.
| senko wrote:
| Zoe was a concept car, as was VW eUp. At the time,
| established car companies were doing concepts that looked
| like golf-carts and taking about "e-mobility".
|
| Look at i-Miev and the Roadster and tell me which one do
| you think a typical car lover would love more. If you
| think that would've taken over the car market .. then
| you're definitely not in the same circles I am :-)
|
| Other car makers started paying serious attention only
| when Tesla inexplicably didn't go under and Model S
| started to be a success.
| prmoustache wrote:
| The first Zoe was a concept car, the second one was a
| production model and it didn't popup from anywhere. It
| has been the most sold EV in europe for many years
| already.
|
| >Look at i-Miev and the Roadster and tell me which one do
| you think a typical car lover would love more. If you
| think that would've taken over the car market .. then
| you're definitely not in the same circles I am :-)
|
| The car industry do not care what the typical car lover
| love more. They have been a dying breed for more than 3
| decades. The i-Miev and derivated counterpart sold 12
| times more than the roadster because they are actually
| usable things and not enthusiast toys. It even outsold
| the Model-S in all the other markets than USA when they
| were both available.
|
| The Model-S,X,3 and Y success came much later. The
| automotive industry definitely had a more cautious
| approach in the upper end segment but they weren't
| sleeping.
| hooande wrote:
| citation needed. many of these companies had documented
| plans to transition to primarily electric vehicles over a
| period of many years. why is it that you are so convinced
| that this market shift was causes by one brand? is there
| any evidence other than observation?
| toyg wrote:
| This is a bit of a "why dropbox when i can rsync"
| comment.
|
| Tesla brought glamour and practicality to a field stymied
| by boredom and theoretical concerns. They pledged to
| build an EV people would actually want to use, bringing
| all the latest tech to drive UX with no regard for
| tradition. They set to solve consumer problems, and they
| are succeeding in doing that.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Glamor? Sure. Practicality? Eh. Maybe for daily
| commuting. When the IC companies convert over, Tesla
| shareholders are going to feel a ton of pain. The novelty
| will have worn off and the company will still pace at a
| mere fraction of its competitors. And at the very least,
| they'll all have vastly better QC than Tesla.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Aren't most citizen travel miles from daily commuting and
| going to nearby shops?
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Yes, but people don't buy vehicles simply for commutes,
| and IC vehicles will be around for decades for actual
| work. Nobody along the gulf or southern east coast is
| going to be buying an electric car as their sole mode of
| transportation if they have any common sense.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Depends on one's definition of common sense.
|
| If 90% of the time one can own a median vehicle wherein
| they never have to go to the gas station, the vehicle
| lasts 1,000,000 miles, they aren't emitting CO2, and gas
| prices go past five dollars...
|
| it might be common sense to use the savings from the
| situation to rent vehicles to satisfy the other 10% of
| your needs.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| "Common sense" = "I want to be able to get out of town
| without being stranded on an interstate when evacuating
| for a hurricane when traffic comes to a standstill and
| there's no way to recharge."
|
| But hey, maybe your idea of common sense is to sit around
| 16 feet in the air with 120 mph winds blowing against the
| side of your moving brick.
| lazide wrote:
| The only people who buy a car for their median usage are
| people who can afford two (or more) cars.
|
| Everyone else has to buy to cover the 99% pctile or
| they're screwed when they need to do something somewhat
| unusual (long drive to grandmas house, move, vacation,
| family emergency, whatever).
|
| And for those who say 'just rent!' - I've tried, and most
| of the times you'd want to, you can't get a rental,
| because a bunch of other folks got there first! Rental
| companies can't buy enough cars to handle peak usage a
| few times a year.
| toyg wrote:
| _> Practicality? Eh._
|
| The "supercharger" network is something that no other
| manufacturer was doing or was seriously interested in
| doing, and it's an extremely practical concern.
|
| _> When the IC companies convert over_
|
| ... a lot of them they might well end up buying batteries
| from Tesla. Tesla will also continue to be the benchmark
| against what EV will be measured, in the same way Ford
| continued to be a reference for decades after competitors
| matched them.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Great drive UX as opposed to what? Have you driven a
| modern Mercedes of the higher price tiers? They're pretty
| damn great to drive or be driven in (comfort and fun
| wise), but they don't have gimmicks like the door thing
| and such. If you're talking about those gimmicks I
| disagree, and if you're talking about "motor/battery/esc
| technology" I also disagree, they didn't innovate
| anywhere, they just hit the right market with their
| product in my amateur opinion.
| toyg wrote:
| If they "hit the right market" it means that market had
| not been hit before, so by definition they've done
| something new.
|
| I don't have an interest in Tesla nor do I particularly
| like Musk, but objectively speaking, they must have done
| something right - they started a mass-car company from
| scratch in the third millennium, something very very
| hard; they popularized a technology that had failed to
| get traction for decades, and have taken the fight to
| behemoth corporations that had been bearish on the
| sector's overall future since the '90s. That simply
| cannot be just marketing or "gimmicks".
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| MySpace, BlackBerry come to mind.
|
| At least those were new markets.
|
| At the end of the day you can't explain love and people
| love Elon Musk. Guys from all over the world are in a
| sort weird parasocial relationship with the guy. That
| never happened with the CEO of MySpace and BlackBerry
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| I feel like the growth of people that bash him is higher
| than people that worship him. In any case there is a
| parasocial component to it indeed.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| That is quite unreasonable to expect. The Renault Zoe
| came out at around the same time as the Model S and had
| over 150km of reasonable range, at half the price a Model
| 3 sells at today. It was already competitive.
| alvah wrote:
| I doubt many people choose between the two though,
| they're very different propositions.
| kortilla wrote:
| 150km of range is wet shit
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| no it was 210 km
| ckw wrote:
| The revolution is in manufacturing and vertical
| integration: you have to look at margins. Tesla's
| operating margin was 19.2% in Q1, and is apt to rise.
| Very few other companies even make a profit on their EVs,
| and none that do are anywhere close to Tesla's margins,
| to my knowledge. This means that nominally competitive
| electric cars aren't. In principle Tesla could squash its
| pure EV competitors by selling below their cost of
| production, and any legacy auto company transitioning to
| EVs will be in a similarly dire position.
|
| Incidentally, these margins are also far higher than
| those of ICE manufacturers. For example, Toyota in Q1 had
| lower operating income than Tesla, despite having 4x the
| revenue.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| Well, refrigerators killed the ICE industry :D
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| What about the Thanos car though?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| There is no revolution to speak of. Tesla is an evolution
| in the high-end EV market. In the mid-range market Tesla
| was late to the punch and faces stiff competition, and in
| the low-end market they aren't an entity to speak of.
| Turing_Machine wrote:
| > in the low-end market they aren't an entity to speak
| of.
|
| So... like Apple?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| iPhones are in the low-end market because you can buy
| them used at reasonable prices. You can get an iPhone SE
| 2020 for less than 200$. You can't get a Tesla used for
| 5000$.
| lupire wrote:
| Far more people can afford iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air than
| can afford any Tesla car.
| jacobsenscott wrote:
| There's no competition in the mid/low cost market - there
| are no mid/low cost EV's. The leaf rides like a bottom
| end ICE compact and costs as much as a very nice ICE
| sedan, and not really that much less than a low end
| tesla. Honda/Ford/Toyota don't have anything in the EV
| space. They might have something on their web sites, but
| no dealer will have them in stock.
| FatalLogic wrote:
| Probably the deciding factor is he owns a relative large
| portion of those: Almost 20% of Tesla and almost 50% of
| SpaceX
|
| Compare to Jeff Bezos, for example, who owns 10% of
| Amazon
| mattmaroon wrote:
| A lot of the richest people in history (other than
| royalty) just owned one part of one company. Sometimes a
| car one. Why's that surprising?
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| It's all about the car company. This company only sell
| cars for a rich elite but the market bubble over it is
| the most remarkable of modern times.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I'm not sure if the target market will be even the elite,
| but upper middle class. Which happens to have gotten rich
| working in semi-associated markets.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Yeah, I know a lot of "upper middle class" folks in the
| US who have bought Teslas.
|
| To be slightly more quantitative, we're talking about
| folks who make roughly $100K and up, particularly the
| ones who and don't have kids.
|
| So, roughly the top 15% of earners in America.
| geotus wrote:
| Elon Musk is nowhere near the richest person in history.
| Augustus Caesar and Mansa Musa IX were multi-
| trillionaires in comparative spending power.
| chris11 wrote:
| > a person richer than anyone has ever been in the
| history of the planet
|
| Tesla's P/E ratio is currently 106. I have no idea why
| Tesla is so expensive.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Tesla is currently valued at over 20x Ford even though
| Ford did 13x Tesla's revenue last year. That stock should
| have dropped through the floor a long time ago.
| tricky777 wrote:
| It is because (some) people believe/have faith in Musk.
| To some, he is a icon/leader to follow blindly. They
| trust him a lot.
|
| Which is because, his work/impact as ceo is visible on
| company and industry levels. contrast that with mba
| shortsighted ceos and/or ceos who sit on their assess
| waiting for golden parachute to deploy (thats the
| sentiment, irrelevant if unfounded). Charisma and beeing
| somewhat casual/releatable person on tv also helps.
| outworlder wrote:
| Only makes sense if Tesla becomes something else other
| than a car manufacturer (robots, robotaxis, etc).
|
| If it's just about EVs they should soon be priced below
| Ford. Even self-driving is insufficient as long as a
| driver needs to pay attention. Other companies are
| catching up - who cares if they need more hardware and
| can't do just vision, it's becoming cheaper.
| SyzygistSix wrote:
| Like a power company with a nation-wide charging network?
| tempestn wrote:
| The majority is due to the fact that Tesla's valuation
| skyrocketed in 2020-2021. The second-largest car maker by
| market cap is Toyota at 217B. (They're about double VW
| group, the next-largest.)
|
| Tesla's market cap is now 740B. For a while there it was
| over 1T. Here's a fun visualization:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRQlsDHbl0M
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| VW will produce more EV next year than tesla (800K)
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| Hopefully they will produce 800k EVs. In 2020, they
| produced 263k EVs, so they'll roughly need to triple
| production.
|
| https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/news/2022/01/Volkswagen_d
| oub...
|
| Tesla produced 936k cars last year, so VW will probably
| need to build more than 800k EVs to surpass Tesla in
| 2022.
|
| https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a38657616/tesla-
| million-ev...
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| Interesting. BTW they target 1.2 million in 2024
| omgwtfbyobbq wrote:
| *In 2021...
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > part-owner of a mid-sized car company (by number of
| cars sold)
|
| Because the market doesn't, and shouldn't, value things
| solely based on a snapshot of current business, as
| opposed to a projection of future business, based only
| partially on the current snapshot. A phrasing that gets
| at the market's thinking looks more like "A car company
| that effectively created the electric car market, right
| before the entire industry started making credible
| commitments to switch primarily over to EVs, all while
| being the most successful company at getting some degree
| of automated driving into consumer hands and awareness".
| Your phrasing implies "pre-Cruise GM, but with less
| sales"; it's no wonder why you're confused.
|
| Note that I'm not claiming that Tesla is appropriately
| valued right now, and as someone who works in AV, I think
| their approach to self-driving is misleading and
| irresponsible. But it sounds like the bulk of your
| confusion comes from a significant misunderstanding of
| what the stock market _is_.
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| The stock market is not about retributing merit though.
| When the EV market will be very significant, there will
| be no strong reason to choose a tesla over dozens of
| alternatives. There will be Huaweis/xiaomis equivalents
| for cars.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Not to forget much more strong brands outside the tech
| circles. It is not like all of Porche, Ferrari, Aston
| Martin, McLaren and so on just drop dead and stop
| producing cars. And these have much bigger brand value
| for traditional customers than Tesla will ever have.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| As I said, I don't think tesla is properly valued right
| now (though I haven't looked into their financials
| rigorously enough to have a strong opinion).
|
| The market is betting on Tesla being "Apple for EVs",
| with a combination of first-mover advantage and
| innovative secret sauce. Apple similarly had competitors
| but an Apple bull in 2008 is a very happy man today.
|
| I was narrowly responding to the parent comment's
| misunderstanding of what valuation is: specifically, the
| fact that it includes more than simply the current state
| of the business, incorporating future success as well.
|
| "Tesla's market prices relies on super optimistic
| assumptions" is a sound complaint. "Tesla is a midsized
| car company" is a nonsensical one.
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| > But it sounds like the bulk of your confusion comes
| from a significant misunderstanding of what the stock
| market _is_.
|
| I think OP would not be the confused one in 6 months
| time.
|
| Stock market only cares about the future when people care
| about the future. AKA when there is optimism in the air.
|
| The 2015-2022 wave of optimism was quite frankly uncalled
| for and overextended given the reality at the base level.
| Especially what happened 2020-2022.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| > I think OP would not be the confused one in 6 months
| time
|
| Apologies, but this doesn't make any sense. The OP
| referred to the current size of Tesla ("mid-size car
| company"), with no reference to future cash flows, which
| is what the majority of most stock prices are made up of.
|
| Looking at where tesla will be in six months _is_ looking
| at the future, which is the exact opposite of what I was
| remarking on. If the complaint had been "Tesla is
| overvalued due to irratuonal exuberance that its future
| revenues are unlikely to deliver on", I wouldn't really
| have any disagreement.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Corrected for inflation, John D. Rockefeller is probably
| the richest American ever.
| SamBam wrote:
| Hmm, according to this calculator [1], Rockefeller's net
| worth of $1.4B in 1937 would be worth $28B today.
|
| Elon's is around $240B, so it sounds like 10x the amount.
|
| Even by different calculations, it seems like an order of
| magnitude is a big difference.
|
| By GDP, they are both worth around 1% of the US GDP, but
| the US GDP is many times what it was then, particularly
| post-WWII.
|
| Musk's buying power seems significantly more than
| Rockefeller's by any metric.
|
| 1. https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
| [deleted]
| pixl97 wrote:
| Tesla is also a worldwide company and trading around the
| world is significantly faster and easier than in
| Rockefeller's days.
| JasonFruit wrote:
| Your figures are clearly correct. I accepted what an
| article said without checking into it myself. Thanks for
| doing the work I should have done.
| auntienomen wrote:
| I think Rockefeller probably wins when the contest is
| 'fraction of available wealth captured'. The world is far
| richer today than it was in his days. We have wealthier
| people, even inflation adjusted, but I don't think we've
| had any one since who owned so much of what existed.
| ipaddr wrote:
| The most successful payment company, the top car company
| on terms of valuation and the top rocket company. We've
| never seen that profile. Usually it's someone who had
| monopolized an industry like Gates or Bozo doing under
| one company.
| lupire wrote:
| That's kind of arbitrary because Microsoft is an OS,
| apps, computer, and peripherals company; and Amazon is a
| retail, logistics, and cloud services company.
|
| Tesla is a battery-based company, but could also have
| been a transportation company and included Boring and
| SpaceX.
|
| And Mastercard and Vida are both bigger in payments than
| PayPal. And PayPal was mostly Thiel's Confinity, which
| merged with Musk's X.com bank.
| SamReidHughes wrote:
| I'm really confused how you're confused. What is a better
| way to become the richest person than by owning and
| growing a series of hugely successful companies that
| provide products and services to people?
| lumost wrote:
| To my knowledge, none of these companies were run at a
| profit during Musk's involvement. While this is a normal
| part of growing a business, it leads to a bias on what
| people think could happen - rather than what does happen.
|
| How much money did musk really make? how much of it is an
| artifact of monetary policy.
| drusepth wrote:
| I think that's the big difference that causes confusion
| here: Musk is wealthy, not rich. The companies are
| _worth_ a lot, but generally not producing dollar bills
| for him. His ownership in companies worth a lot is why he
| 's valued so high, rather than strictly how much money or
| cash leverage he has.
| lupire wrote:
| 80% of Musk's wealth is either confidence in Tesla's
| future, or memes, depnding on your perspective. It's not
| even pretending to be about completed work.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| Let's see if TSLA is over 500 two weeks from now...
| SemanticStrengh wrote:
| It's on free fall. Btw I just did an overview of the
| current EV market and there isn't even one car maker that
| is able to make them under ~35K$ VW and a few others will
| sell in huge volume next year (VW 1.2 million in 2023
| actually, much more than tesla) but I see currently no
| validation from the car makers that they will reduce the
| costs. The main bottleneck is apparently the price of the
| materials and I don't see why they would get lower
| considering demand is exploding. That's why I studied the
| hydrogen market and it looks like a lot of hydrogen cars
| are coming in the next two years, they will have greater
| range than EV and to be seen but are likely to be cheaper
| to significantly cheaper. It's true that the availability
| of hydrogen is an issue but it will progressively be
| solved, California is already covered for example. So
| yeah current bet is the democratisation of carbon neutral
| cars in massive volume will be via hydrogen, unless EV
| materials price find a solution.
| adventured wrote:
| Well for one thing you're downplaying several massive,
| global businesses.
|
| PayPal is a $25b sales, $4b operating income giant in the
| financial sector (payments / payment processing
| specifically). They have an $83b market cap and have
| sales equivalent to Germany's largest bank. Musk doesn't
| own a meaningful part of PayPal, it plays no role in his
| present wealth (other than he sold his ownership stake in
| PayPal to fund the early days of Tesla & SpaceX).
|
| Tesla is very obviously overvalued by a lot (by
| $400b-$600b at least), there's no rational argument
| against that. However being a major owner of BMW, which
| is perhaps what Tesla is best compared to in size and
| profitability now, is still a rather dramatic financial
| position to have (obviously). If we (when the market
| does) adjust Tesla to a more rational valuation, Musk
| would be a lot less rich, but still among the ~20-30
| richest on the planet. Owning 16% of a segment-leading,
| tech-leading, growing car company that generates $12-$14b
| in operating income, is a very good business to be
| sitting on.
|
| SpaceX is a lot more than a very good rocket company.
| Their connectivity business will likely be worth tens of
| billions of dollars in the future. No other entity on
| Earth can presently match what they've accomplished in
| rocketry and satellites, that includes China, the US
| Government, Russia, or their corporate peers. The
| connectivity network they're building is exceptional and
| very, very difficult (and expensive) for others to
| compete with. The value of their ability to deploy
| zillions of satellites rapidly, will increase
| dramatically as more uses are figured out for such
| constellations (the US Government in particular).
| Bubble_Pop_22 wrote:
| > Owning 16% of a segment-leading, tech-leading, growing
| car company that generates $12-$14b in operating income,
| is a very good business to be sitting on.
|
| Every rational thinking person sees Musk and his behavior
| and throws any financial statement produced by Tesla
| straight into the bin.
|
| They are cooking the books 100%. Musk believes in
| manifestation, self-fulfilling prophecy and faking it
| till you make it.
|
| In the early days of PayPal he'd order to get parts of
| old fridges, paint them black in order to convince
| investors that PayPal had "supercomputers"
| dekhn wrote:
| It's confusing because wealth in this case is based on
| valuation, which in the case of Tesla is based entirely
| on what some people think the company will do,
| monetarily, in the future. In my mind, Bill Gates is
| truly richer than Elon, because he has a diversified
| portfolio and could convert more of his holdings into
| other, different holdings, with less friction.
| lupire wrote:
| Bill Gates would be straight up wealthier than Musk if he
| didn't donate half his wealth to his foundation. If you
| consider that part of his wealth (in the sense of total
| lifetime income so far, not figure spending power, so
| subtracting off personal consumption/spending), you don't
| have Musk being suprosinly more wealthy.
| r00fus wrote:
| Considering the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is
| essentially chaired by the two directly, why wouldn't you
| consider that wealth (that they get nice tax treatment
| for donating to) isn't theirs?
| SamBam wrote:
| Once he has donated it to the foundation, it is no longer
| fully under his control. It is a charitable organization,
| and subject to many laws about how the money is spent.
|
| So it's never included in any measure of his total
| wealth.
|
| (GP's point is that if it _were_ , and also all the past
| charitable spending was, then Gates works be richer. (
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| I think Mr Musk will no longer be the world's richest man
| by end of 2023.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| One theory goes that the same people are invested in
| Tesla and Crypto. If their crypto holdings are wiped out
| they might have to sell their stock holdings to keep
| their roofs over their heads. Even if it's not that bad
| they might become more risk-adverse now one of their big
| bets has failed.
|
| Not endorsing that, not an expert. Just think it's not as
| absurd as you suggest.
| adventured wrote:
| Bloomberg pegs him as having $9b in cash, $3b Twitter,
| $40b SpaceX, $3b Boring Company (silly valuation), $5b in
| misc liabilities, and the rest Tesla.
| heartbreak wrote:
| You're getting downvoted for no apparent reason, but
| there's an argument to be made here that crypto crashing
| would cause retail investors to pull out of investments
| altogether, and meme stocks like Tesla would take a hit.
| Bloomberg, WSJ, etc. are all writing about this potential
| contagion effect today.
| Py-o7 wrote:
| > The probability that Elon is margin called by year end is
| roughly 40% according to option prices.
|
| The way tycoons frequently do this involves putting collars
| around a significant portion of the margined stock (and for
| a sizable position like this, the trade would flow through
| to option prices on tesla and the stock itself via delta
| hedging or whatever the trade desks are doing as part of
| the trade)
| splistud wrote:
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Elon is margin called by year end is roughly 40%
| according to option prices_
|
| The margin loans will almost certainly be replaced with
| outside equity prior to closing.
| shapefrog wrote:
| I am wondering what is in it for those people lining up -
| they are paying 20% over the market value to be locked in
| with musk.
| toyg wrote:
| For the same sort of consideration for which one would
| buy a newspaper in the third millennium: there is
| something to gain from directing a powerful megaphone,
| even if it doesn't make money directly.
| alvah wrote:
| If you believe in Matt Levine's Elon Markets Hypothesis,
| paying 20% over market to be in close proximity to Elon's
| Twitter feed might be a bargain.
| shapefrog wrote:
| Seems an expensive bribe.
| ahepp wrote:
| I don't have any background in finance, but it seems like
| there are a couple of possibilities.
|
| First, given the recent precipitous fall in the NASDAQ,
| there's speculation that Musk will lower the offer (which
| seems quite reasonable).
|
| Second, I'm not sure there's any reason to assume these
| new equity investors are paying the share price Musk is
| paying. If Musk pays $54.20 a share, and needs to raise
| 25% of the acquisition cost by issuing new equity, he
| could sell 49.99% of the new company at say, $30 a share
| to his partners and still raise the required capital.
| trothamel wrote:
| Tesla is up 995% over the past 5 years.
| shapefrog wrote:
| Are you suggesting that twitter will have a marketcap
| approx worth tesla / facebook / berkshire hathaway /
| johnson and johnson in 5 years time?
| cto_of_antifa wrote:
| adventured wrote:
| mkr-hn wrote:
| I don't like a world where the only way to assess someone
| is by how much money they make for investors. That's a
| bleak reality, so I prefer to act as though a person's
| behavior matters in the hopes I might create it by force
| of will. You can recognize the negative with the
| positive. Anything else is revisionism.
| alvah wrote:
| Other countries and economies have chosen not to reward
| value-creators for the value they create. So far this has
| not worked out well for these countries and economies.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| briandear wrote:
| The money they make for investors is a direct measurement
| of the value they create.
| amusedcyclist wrote:
| Not in the short run. In the short run markets can be
| irrational (which I believe they are with Tesla), in the
| long run sure
| mkr-hn wrote:
| This is the mindset I spoke against. Did you reply to the
| wrong comment?
| semi-extrinsic wrote:
| > Tesla has plainly kicked the ass of the European and
| Asian auto giants
|
| Tesla had 1.4% of all cars sold in 2021, by number of
| units. Going by revenue it's somewhere around 1%. It is
| kinda hard to see that as kicking the asses of the
| competition.
|
| Kicking ass would be more like what happened with
| smartphones, where iOS + Android went from 0 to >90%
| market share in the space of five years, leaving Nokia,
| Palm, Blackberry etc. as brands nobody would assoviate
| themselves with. Nothing like that is happening in
| automotive.
| ummonk wrote:
| 1.4% is massive for a car manufacturer built from scratch
| in just over a decade. You can't really scale car
| manufacturing the way an existing computer megacorp could
| scale phone production.
| zamfi wrote:
| Smartphone upgrade cycles are annual/biennial. Car
| upgrade cycles average 7-10 years.
|
| Not that I expect Tesla to dominate like apple and
| android have, but I do think we'll need to wait a few
| more years before we know the answer.
| FrenchDevRemote wrote:
| You're comparing apples to oranges. "iOS" market share is
| iphone market share, which is still very small but with a
| huge profit margin, android market share is the market
| share of dozens of phones brands. Nokia and Palm both
| sell android phones in 2022.
|
| I don't see how that's comparable to Tesla VS old
| automakers
| lazide wrote:
| Palm and Nokia both used to sell hardware with their own
| locked in OS, and saw that as critical. Both were big
| names once.
|
| It would be like if Ford was stuck selling rebranded
| 'awesome edition' Tesla Cybertrucks instead of F150s at
| 10% of the revenue.
|
| Tesla gets a lot of press. But the flash is always bigger
| than the reality, except when it comes to stock price.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| Expensive cars in the emerging EV market. 1.4% is great.
| philjohn wrote:
| Tesla has 14% of the EV market, VW Group has 12% - and
| closing fast.
|
| They also have a much larger dealership network.
| postmeta wrote:
| dealership network eats their margin, plus vw has to
| discount all of their own legacy sales they cannibalize
| fny wrote:
| The question is not whether he's been successful. He has
| been, the question is whether this is the peak valuation
| akin to Cisco during dotcom and whether he is over
| leveraged at this point.
| optimiz3 wrote:
| People have kept asking this question for the past 12
| years. Meanwhile my TSLA shares bought in 2013 have been
| doing just fine.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| Your shares did well in of the biggest untinerrupted
| market bull runs in history????
| jonas21 wrote:
| When evaluating whether the shares "did well," you can
| compare to the rest of the market.
|
| Since mid-2013, the S&P 500 is up ~150%, Nasdaq is up
| ~300%, and TSLA is up 3290%.
| mkr-hn wrote:
| Survivorship bias is a hell of a drug. The real test to
| see whether it's wisdom or luck is to predict the _next_
| Tesla. I don 't think many people who point to their
| Tesla stock performance as vindication could come up with
| a repeatable theory of investing. If they could, their
| TSLA gains would be nothing next to their next
| investments.
|
| That's how I _know_ people who make that argument don 't
| actually know anything. It's like someone still talking
| about that great touchdown in high school at 50. Where's
| the next one?
|
| You don't see Elon Musk bragging about his $22 million
| from Zip2.
| adventured wrote:
| Some of that depends on whether Twitter can partially
| self-fund the acquisition itself over time.
|
| Most likely it can, that much more so if Musk negotiates
| a lower price. Debt is very inexpensive right now,
| especially for large corporations with a strong balance
| sheet. If Musk owns all of Twitter, he gets their $6
| billion in cash and their balance sheet has no
| consequential debt issues.
|
| Twitter is operationally profitable, despite being very
| poorly run in terms of cost structure. Their margins on
| sales should be far greater than at present; they have a
| bloated employee count and have for a very long time.
| There's no reason Twitter can't spit off $1b in operating
| income on $5b in sales.
|
| Further, Musk has ~$9b in cash (per Bloomberg), lots of
| very rich friends (eg Ellison, Google founders, VC
| billionaires, etc etc) that believe in him, and lots of
| assets in Tesla and SpaceX he can borrow $10b-$20b
| against if needed.
|
| That said - I don't think levering himself to the moon is
| wise and I don't think paying $40b+ for Twitter is smart.
| Particularly at this point in time (with the global
| economy shaky, the US economy contracting in real terms,
| China's economy shaky, and financial markets sinking).
| itsoktocry wrote:
| And it's back to prices it was at in 2020.
|
| Do you think more people bought Tesla 5 years ago, or in
| the past 1.5 years? Because the latter folks are
| underwater.
| rsuelzer wrote:
| Well I bought TWTR at it's peak... I'm voting my shares
| against a buyout (won't matter), mostly because it locks
| in a loss that I feel would have been recoverable in the
| next 5 years...
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Have you considered opportunity cost of not using this
| money for other investments?
| ummonk wrote:
| Right it seems unlikely to believe that Twitter is
| undervalued but that nothing else is equally undervalued
| to invest in after getting a small profit off of the
| Twitter investment.
| futuretaint wrote:
| I cunningly bought TWTR at the top too and thus was
| hoisted by mine own petard. basically as a retail
| investor I have no leverage so all in all I'm happy to
| just get my money returned.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Leveraged buyout at an inflated price in the short term.
| Banks backing the loans will get guaranteed interest
| payments on the loans plus a lucrative contract debt
| servicing and consulting fees in the medium term. Long
| term they'll IPO again and/or find a fool to acquire
| them.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| > The probability that Elon is margin called by year end is
| roughly 40% according to option prices.
|
| This sounds like "two more weeks, MOASS, trust me bro"
| level of analysis. How can you possibly have enough insight
| into Musk's financial holdings to make such an assertion?
| Nevermind the structure of the Twitter deal itself, which
| doesn't exactly require him to fork over $40 billion in
| cash.
| rocqua wrote:
| Musk has published his margin loans backed by tesla
| stock. Those come with a clear margin requirement iirc.
|
| It is then easy to calculate 'at this price, the loan
| will face a margin call'. Options pricing implies a
| probability of a certain price being hit by a certain
| time. So they imply a probability of the margin loans
| Musk has getting a margin call.
|
| Ofcourse, getting a margin call wouldn't mean the loan
| falls through. Guessing that would require deep insight
| into Musks personal financials.
| gitfan86 wrote:
| The more likely scenario is that some of the financial
| backers like Larry Ellison will ask Elon to renegotiate the
| buyout price due to current market conditions and the deal
| will fall through.
| adventured wrote:
| Twitter is worth a lot less than what it's trading for.
| Musk's bid is rather idiotically high. Twitter's
| shareholders will be desperate if they start to see the
| full mauling that other prominent, hyper overvalued tech
| stocks have enjoyed lately. They will take a lower offer
| accordingly, whether that's from Musk or other. The stock
| is going into the $20s if they don't take an acquisition
| offer from someone.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Musk's bid is rather idiotically high
|
| Well, it was either $54.20 or $69.00 (I suppose he could
| have gone for $44.20 but would that have tempted anyone?)
| djbusby wrote:
| A real meme-lord would bid $42.069
| swalsh wrote:
| Twitters P/E ratio is 186.12!
| nullc wrote:
| The incoming cashflow is substantial and if they simply
| cut off the R&D it would be a very profitable company.
| amusedcyclist wrote:
| Generally most of software development (including what
| you would think of as maintenance) is counted as R&D for
| tax purposes
| dekhn wrote:
| CEOs of large companies that are forced out during
| acquisitions often fail upward. It really depends on how they
| behave right before the close. Effectively, the CEO has to
| advocate for the company and get the most out of the
| acquisition, and if they do, they are often rewarded (with
| seats on board or choice of next job). realistically, he will
| be able to retire for life after this if he chooses, and will
| be able to select a job offer that works well for him.
| [deleted]
| throwaway_1928 wrote:
| Job offer or not, $42 million for doing almost nothing is a
| great deal.
| brutus1213 wrote:
| I'm always curious .. how do these execs negotiate such
| contracts (where contingencies like getting
| acquired/fired lead to a payoff). Does this start at the
| VP or EVP level? I assume there are professionals/lawyers
| involved in the contract part (representing the exec I
| mean)?
| michaelt wrote:
| You might enjoy reading the book "Pay without
| Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive
| Compensation" [1]
|
| TLDR: Companies don't engage in arms-length negotiation
| with CEOs. Shareholders don't hold companies to account
| for various structural reasons.
|
| [1] http://www.pay-without-performance.com/
| urthor wrote:
| It's simple.
|
| You say "this company turns over 20 billion a year
| revenue. If I want to I can flush the whole damn lot down
| the toilet."
|
| "Pay me to not do a shit job."
|
| Latest in executive compensation research. As advocated
| by expensive consultancies.
| credit_guy wrote:
| I think some CEOs actually do that. For example the CEO
| of Boeing certainly decided to flush the thing down the
| toilet.
| rbanffy wrote:
| Hindsight is always 20/20
| htrp wrote:
| I've only seen it at the CSuite (and occasionally key SVP
| levels).... almost always if you're brought in from the
| outside.
| bitexploder wrote:
| Smaller orgs VP level. Larger EVP. You almost always
| retain a lawyer to review these things. Change in control
| is a very common trigger for a lot of things in most
| employment contracts of this nature. The downside is you
| end up with much more ironclad covenants and
| restrictions. But your comp is often at a FU level if you
| do get fired so it balances most of the time.
| aenis wrote:
| I'd recommend reading "Barbarians at the gate". It will
| give you a very good idea.
|
| When it comes to levels, those kind of golden parachutes
| are offered only at top levels. VPs, SVPs, etc. are help
| and get normal packages when they leave, at least in
| normal, large blue chip companies.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| not almost nothing. He's a bit of a tackling dummy at
| this point. That being said, he's the world's best paid
| tackling dummy. Even if Musk purchase does not go
| through, not sure how he stays as the board basically
| said when they agreed to Musk's offer we have no current
| plans to create anywhere near the value Musk says he can.
| nr2x wrote:
| Sign me up.
| black_13 wrote:
| See my previous comments
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Not if your one desire is to run large corporations and
| you're easily bored.
| _carbyau_ wrote:
| My one desire is to be financially independent. We don't
| all get what we want.
|
| With 42 million, he's fine. Time to care about someone
| else.
| saghm wrote:
| I'd consider myself easily bored, but I think $42 million
| would give me plenty of novel ways to entertain myself.
| (I definitely would _not_ want to run a large corporation
| though, so I guess it's a good thing I'd never get hired
| for one of these jobs anyways)
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| Hell, even if you managed a year or two, you're still
| walking away with tens of millions that's pretty close to
| financial security for the rest of your life.
| patrickdavey wrote:
| Tens of millions is only "pretty close to financial
| security". Wow.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| only on HN
| p1esk wrote:
| Most people spend proportionally to what they earn, so I
| don't see why one year salary should necessarily provide
| the lifetime of financial security, regardless of what
| that salary is.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| That's a trap though. It's far more sensible for most
| people to live well below their means and create options
| for their future.
| p1esk wrote:
| I've stated what I've observed and experienced. Whether
| it's a "trap" or "sensible" is irrelevant.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| Fair point.
|
| But it's a bit ridiculous to get 42 million USD and not
| be satisfied. And the original comment is ridiculous to
| suggest that it's not sufficient compensation.
| p1esk wrote:
| If your salary was $25k/year (a respectable amount for
| the majority of world population), would $1M seem like a
| lifetime financial stability? I think so. Yet if your
| salary is $250k/year, it probably wouldn't, and this
| would sound ridiculous to people who make $25k/year.
|
| If you make 25k/year getting 1M is almost as good as
| getting 42M, because you are not used to thinking about
| anything you can do with 42M that you can't do with 1M.
| However, if your salary has been 10M/year, you most
| likely can easily see many ways to spend 42M, which are
| not something you think about often when you make
| 250k/year.
|
| Does this make sense?
| zarzavat wrote:
| Most people on $250k are just trying to "survive" (as in,
| have a house and a family) in a high cost-of-living area.
| If a house costs $2M then $250k is only just sufficient
| after deducting taxes and living expenses. Their spending
| is not so different from someone earning $25k in a low
| cost-of-living area.
|
| There's nowhere in the world where the cost of living
| requires $10M/year. To spend that much money you are
| forced to spend it on high-end luxuries. Of course there
| _are_ people who could easily consume that amount of
| money, but most people on that income would put it into
| investment instead of consumption.
| p1esk wrote:
| Financial freedom is supposed to cover more than just
| some standard "cost of living" in a given area. It should
| let you maintain your lifestyle without having to work
| for it. Maintaining the lifestyle includes keeping your
| spending habits, so if you have been spending 10M/year,
| then achieving financial freedom would mean you can keep
| spending that much for the rest of your life.
|
| It's a different question how many people actually spend
| 10M/year - I have no data about that, but I can easily
| see myself spending that much if my income has been
| 40M/year for several years. To me personally spending
| that money would not necessarily mean buying some high-
| end luxuries. It would probably involve trying to make
| some changes in the world and influence things. But yes,
| luxuries and interesting experiences too. If you're
| interested in this question, try finding more information
| about lives of famous rich people.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Depends on the people. If you want to be safe to retire
| early, it is a good idea to keep living humbly while you
| are making a lot of mone and not adopt the Jet Set life.
|
| I've seen example of people selling their company,
| retiring early and stay low-mid budget. One particular
| example is very wealthy but live in a small house, drive
| a 10y old compact hatchback car. You wouldn't know his
| fortune just by looking at his habits. He enjoy more a
| BBQ with his neighbors than going to expensive places to
| eat and help around when someone in the village needs an
| additional hand. He is still probably spending a lot more
| than I do traveling on holidays and he has nicer
| furnitures but he is still doing it like most people do,
| only a few weeks a year when the kids are out of school.
| What he has is the ability to justify buying expensive
| but sturdy stuff that last, instead of things that break
| and have to be replaced on a regular basis.
| aetherson wrote:
| There comes a point where it becomes increasingly
| difficult to "spend what you earn." I mean, you can do it
| with dedicated effort, of course, but even if you're very
| in-the-bubble, it's hard to think of buying ultra-
| expensive commodities (boats, art, highly expensive
| cars), or your third or fourth house, or other things
| that can plausibly eat up tens of millions of dollars in
| a year, in the same category as, like, "Well of course I
| want to send my children to a swanky private school
| instead of public."
| p1esk wrote:
| There comes a point where people start buying things like
| Twitter.
| vram22 wrote:
| vram22 wrote:
| FridgeSeal wrote:
| Oh I agree 100%, personally it's more money than I'd know
| what to do with, but I'm also aware that there's a chunk
| of users here who's respond with "well after tax this
| that, etc etc" with some justification as to why it's not
| quite enough, so I thought I'd attempt to cover all bases
| hahaha.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I think there's a part of the HN population that has
| delusions of becoming billionaires one day, so they talk
| about tens of millions like it's not much. They'll likely
| never have either.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Financial security in the Bay Area requires a house there
| ($2-3M, nowadays) plus $COST_OF_LIVING/4%. This is easily
| $5M net worth. It's in "two Googlers and a successful
| exit at some point earlier" territory.
|
| Granted, this threshold is less than $10M, but it isn't
| orders of magnitude less
|
| All of which is to say that it is basically impossible to
| stay in the Bay long-term unless you make an absolute
| fuckton of money.
|
| Well, you do have two other options.
|
| One is to commute in 2hr or more every day. Which a lot
| of service workers have to do.
|
| The other is to share a house or apartment with roommates
| (if you're single) or with another family (surprisingly
| common, because what else can you do?).
|
| These are both lifestyle decisions that differ
| substantially from what most people think of as "normal",
| past your 20s.
|
| What I'm saying is, merely living a "normal middle class"
| lifestyle in the Bay requires absurd money. So I can
| understand why people act like absurd money is normal.
| stackbutterflow wrote:
| You don't have to live in the Bay Area. You don't have to
| commute since they were talking about retiring with $42
| millions.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Fair. Anybody with $42M has it made, anywhere.
| alar44 wrote:
| No one gives a shit about the bay area. The rest of us
| live in the real world.
| namecheapTA wrote:
| I used to work in car sales in the bay area. Basically
| every car salesman and every mechanic at a franchise car
| dealership owns a home. Maybe they drive 30-75 minutes to
| work, but they are 25-35 and own a home in California.
| The older ones own a home within 15 minutes of their job.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| That they bought themselves? What's the cheapest home
| available within an Hour of SF, 500k or more? Do you
| really think a car salesman barely pushing 100k a year
| can swing that? Or are you implying that car salesman in
| the Bay are making top 1% salaries?
| cromd wrote:
| If you put $5M in index funds, you'd grow it by about
| $400k a year (8%) on average, to start. It's hard to
| imagine going broke with that by doing "normal middle
| class" things. For added security, one could add in a
| part-time job.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| 8% is extremely optimistic. 4% is more like it, maybe
| even 3.5%. I'll use 4% for what follows. That's $200k.
| Take out 20% LTCG, now you're at $160k.
|
| Rent is like $3k/mo, so $36k/yr. Say you have modest
| living expenses of another $34k/yr. Now you're at $70k/yr
| to break even. That leaves you with $90k to
| save/compound.
|
| So, ok, you're doing very well as a renter with $5M
| invested, even in the Bay Area. And, given that you have
| more than twice the income you need, you'd probably be ok
| with only $2-2.5M. As in, breaking even with passive
| income.
|
| Which would work so long as you don't want to own a
| house, and so long as markets don't melt down. That extra
| security seems to cost extra.
| dannyw wrote:
| 9% is the long term annual return of the stock market
| over the past century.
| michaelt wrote:
| Sure, but if you retired in 1997 to live off the interest
| on an investment in the S&P 500, by 2008 you'd have made
| an annual return of... 0%.
|
| If you used cromd's figures of $5M in funds and lifestyle
| expenses of $400k/year you'd have spent ~80% of the
| principal (although you'd probably have reigned in your
| spending unless you were mad)
|
| A boat doesn't just need to survive the harbour's average
| water level - it needs to survive low tide and high tide.
| sunjester wrote:
| financial security is subjective.
| AYBABTME wrote:
| You don't need $5M to be "safe" in the Bay Area. You do
| need some money - enough to afford to get a mortgage on a
| place to stay - but once you get past that, things get
| easier. The thing is, it takes money to start making
| money. It takes money to start to be able to afford the
| things that will make your cost of living go down. It
| does suck, but it's not $5M.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Come on, do some math on this. Any engineer at FAANG,
| even excluding their stock grants, will probably have
| close to 10M in retirement accounts by the time they
| retire given max contributions and historical returns.
| totetsu wrote:
| Like lossing it all day trading XD
| black_13 wrote:
| What fucking sinful country i live in
| donthellbanme wrote:
| hnews_account_1 wrote:
| $42 million is a pittance for a man at his level. VCs
| with a tenth of the risk have taken home more money than
| that over the years from several deals. He has also been
| at the company for a very long time. I'd be enraged at a
| $42 million exit when I'm a child prodigy who has worked
| his ass off to finally helm one of the most publicly
| visibly corporations on the planet.
| ransom1538 wrote:
| I wonder if he will leave Cali to avoid taxes?
| sgjohnson wrote:
| Too late for that.
| ascar wrote:
| Most child prodigies and most people that work their ass
| off don't become millionaires, much less ones that can
| earn a million a year from interest. Also he did receive
| compensation for all the years he worked, no?
| geodel wrote:
| Huh, it's just a job even at position of CEO. To think he
| has taken risk while doing his well paid job is freaking
| hilarious. He did not build the company,nor is he some A
| level tech celebrity. So 42 million is BIG FUCKING DEAL.
| jrvarela56 wrote:
| Yeah I was like, wtf is GP talking about this guy is an
| employee who climbed from SEng to 42m exit in a decade.
| At no point was he even remotely close to missing a
| credit card payment; what a sweet deal he's set for life
| now.
| broodbucket wrote:
| No human being needs $42 million for anything, let alone
| more. I'm sure he'll be fine.
| eastbound wrote:
| The initial ideal of capitalism is, the people who make
| good decisions capitalize more "decision power" (=money)
| because it will be good for the future economy to
| concentrate power in their hands. Those who hold power
| are the best ones.
|
| It's just a fun theoretical thought exercise, in which
| there's no limit to how much one would accumulate, if
| their decision making is good to the infinite. He didn't
| tank Twitter into the ground, therefore he deserves a
| good share. In practice, they use this money for
| themselves instead of reinvesting it into other
| endeavours.
| strken wrote:
| You need more than that if you want to set up a
| steelworks or a silicon fab. I understand that you
| probably mean no human being needs $42 million in pocket
| money to spend on gigantic houses and medium-sized
| yachts, but c'mon.
| rayiner wrote:
| Yeah but he's no Musk.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| > _$42 million_
|
| I would be happy enough right now with an extra $420,000!
| eyelidlessness wrote:
| That would be nice
| serenitylater wrote:
| IAmEveryone wrote:
| There's a possible difference here between "doing things
| that Twitter and its owner(s) will profit from" and "doing
| things as Musks wants them". If the two diverge, the first
| is the winning strategy, burning far fewer bridges than the
| alternative.
|
| If it's unclear, people who don't particularly care for
| Musk (aka people who know Musk minus people who want to be
| Musk) may well start from the assumption that the current
| CEO was right. And if Musk-era Twitter doesn't succeed as
| wildly as some (one) person predicts, they stand to look
| even better in contrast.
|
| I'm not saying that Musk will necessary fail--he's had
| quite a bit of success compared to, well, anybody. But he's
| been involved with a few duds, as well, and has set rather
| high expectations. It's an almost classic case of decision-
| making under uncertainty and I'd guess a Twitter CEO has
| seen a relevant case study or two.
| eru wrote:
| > realistically, he will be able to retire for life after
| this if he chooses, [...]
|
| People who have enough drive to become CEOs seldom want to
| retire like that.
| altacc wrote:
| If the deal falls through then Twitter will probably have to
| announce some big changes to keep its stock price from
| falling too much. Although this move could have been made
| after the deal's collapse is announced but maybe he wants to
| have things in place before that happens.
| kenrik wrote:
| It'll be a bloodbath if the deal falls through since there
| was a runup when Elon first started sniffing around.
|
| The fact that it's not pegged to the purchase price already
| shows there is some skepticism that it actually closes.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| If Elon bails the deal. Twitter will be at 1/3 the price and
| there will probably be massive layoffs.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Ding ding ding. Congratulations, you are tonight's HN winner.
| The Twitter deal didn't go through, and you totally called
| it.
| version_five wrote:
| I remembered the parent comment from yesterday and came to
| say the same thing. It aged very well.
| duxup wrote:
| I worked at a big company that was being acquired. The bigger
| acquiring company needed our company to sell off some
| divisions to avoid regulatory issues. So we were in this
| "going to be acquired.. one day" phase for like 18 months.
|
| In the meantime our company actually had to tell the a
| subsidiary of bigger acquiring company.... to sort of shove
| off on a partnership we had with them.
|
| This subsidiary was crap and they were not holding up their
| end of the partnership. It was reiterated many times that
| "while we will likely be acquired by their parent company our
| job is to operate in the interest of our current stockholders
| and that best interest is to no longer work with
| <subsidiary>".
|
| No word if the acquiring company ever responded negatively.
| By all accounts they understood (and really had a bigger
| picture in mind).
|
| That situation seemed pretty logical to me.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| so what happened?
| duxup wrote:
| Company eventually acquired.
|
| Never heard about the subsidiary again.
| Traster wrote:
| But what's changed? If Parag wanted to go this direction why
| didn't he do it when he took over as CEO?
| sulam wrote:
| A thoughtful CEO doesn't take the role and immediately
| start making changes. It takes some time to absorb what's
| going on.
| Traster wrote:
| It's not like he was an outsider, he was CTO for about 5
| years before he became CEO. He knew what was going on in
| the company.
| sulam wrote:
| Knowing Parag, he probably didn't actually have strong
| opinions about Product until it was his job to.
| e-clinton wrote:
| It's been like 5 months. I'd imagine he's still learning
| about the issues.
| devmunchies wrote:
| He's been at twitter for 11 years and was the CTO, should
| take a couple weeks to get up to speed on the knowledge
| delta between CEO and CTO.
| Infinitesimus wrote:
| You might be underestimating the complexity of being a
| good CEO (not to say he is) at a public tech company
| under a lot of global government scrutiny.
| blenderdt wrote:
| There are a lot of other options as well.
|
| Maybe he already wanted to make those changes but didn't dare
| to make them. Maybe he now changed his mind thinking: if I
| don't Musk will.
|
| And on goes the list of reasons you can think of..
| Blackstrat wrote:
| Third possibility is getting Musk to withdraw his offer. The
| article comments on missed intermediate growth targets. Musk
| has put the deal on holding pending proof that the user count
| is not inflated by fake accounts. So I see this all as an
| attempt by Parag to "save" the company from Musk and his goal
| to make it an open "free speech" platform.
| mlindner wrote:
| This has nothing to do with Musk so I wouldn't try to attribute
| it to him.
| soheil wrote:
| A third possibility is the stock market tanking and inflation
| rate spiking. Many top companies are either freezing hiring or
| downsizing.
|
| However, it does look better on the balance sheet when you get
| rid of two of your major cash burning expenses and their future
| vesting schedules.
|
| CAP rate = net operating income / value of the asset
|
| Basically you can immediately increase the value of your
| company by lowering expenses without having to justify a lower
| CAP.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| So many possibilities. Top people with favorable clauses might
| be finagling their own golden parachutes.
| morelisp wrote:
| Also my first thought - you'll probably get a better
| severance from your long-time coworker than the new guy who
| came in with the stated belief you've done everything wrong.
| hericium wrote:
| > It also seems weird for Musk to already have the insight into
| the company to know specifically who to fire
|
| If in his viewpoint (he wouldn't be alone thinking so) Twitter
| recently became less appealing - booting the Lead of Consumer
| Product team seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
| Despite "we know he'll be gone" Parag may as well want to try
| to keep his chair when Elon takes over and is making changes
| that would be favored by the new leadership. And if the deal
| doesn't pass - firing the team leads (possibly) responsible for
| company's recent bad press and maybe Elon's move itself seems
| justified.
| romanhn wrote:
| Others provided a bunch of alternative options. I'll throw
| another one in the mix. Parag has been a CEO a few short
| months. If he's about to be out, he won't have much to show for
| his time. Bold moves now can show potential future boards of
| directors that he has what it takes to take on this role
| elsewhere.
| lettergram wrote:
| Imo mostly likely scenario is they're removing evidence /
| firing people as if the evidence is discovered.
|
| If you saw their prior earnings they were over reporting by at
| least a million users. The people they fired would have
| potentially known that, or at the very least should have.
|
| Further, due diligence will be done prior to sale. At which
| point items such as the above can / will be discovered.
|
| Finally, there have been _a lot_ of political decisions made by
| Twitter (banning a sitting president, etc). If that was done at
| the behest of government (as some claim) or advertisers (others
| claim). The result is the same, they made a decision which
| strategically let Trump start a competing and growing platform.
| Not good for business.
|
| In any case, I suspect that's the reason for firing.
| lettergram wrote:
| And what do you know?
|
| > Twitter deal temporarily on hold. Elon Musk wants to
| evaluate if spam and fake accounts do indeed represent less
| than 5% of the platform's users base.
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1525049369552048129
| maxerickson wrote:
| What if they wanted to leave and he gave them cover?
|
| What if the board wanted them out?
|
| There's lots of possibilities that don't have much to do with
| ol' Musky.
| miohtama wrote:
| Twitter full of spam bots, user numbers not genuine and all
| growth in fake users might be justifiable reason for firing:
|
| https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1525049369552048129
| darawk wrote:
| I think there's also the possibility that Parag is vying to
| keep his job as CEO, and so he's trying to guess what he thinks
| will impress Musk, and executing on it while he's still in
| charge.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| My own guess is that this is doubtful that Musk drove this.
|
| That said, he is a very large shareholder already, and so if
| he, as a large shareholder, communicated something to the
| board, and they acted, then the claim that isn't kosher rings a
| bit hollow - large shareholders communicate with boards and
| some activist ones go further.
|
| Internally I suspect there is some concern about Musk. The head
| of legal was reportedly crying regarding this buyout. They've
| got their misinformation management efforts around the biden
| laptop story and other issues (vaccines etc etc) that musk may
| not back as fully as Gadde did. So they could be moving some
| deck chairs in advance of Musks arrival. Be interesting to see
| how it shakes out, may not be smooth - Twitter is HQ'ed in San
| Francisco.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| > So there's two options right
|
| There are far more possibilities than those two. Here's just
| one off the top of my head (I assign no probabilities here,
| just pointing out this false binary): This person is being
| fired as a result of some investigation or process that began
| prior to the acquisition process and whose results have only
| just been reached. There are a whole range of process driving,
| "my hands are tied" scenarios that could explain this.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| Another possibility is the interim person lobbied hard to
| have the job and made some rather convincing arguments.
| fooey wrote:
| They could have ignaled that they're not willing to work for
| Musk, so they're being shown the door ahead of time to
| minimize turmoil later on.
| twic wrote:
| Another would be that this person was doing something that
| could derail the deal (deliberately or not), and the CEO felt
| the best thing to do was to protect the deal by firing him.
| Given that he's on paternity leave, and "Parag asked me to
| leave after letting me know that he wants to take the team in
| a different direction", that doesn't seem likely.
| Macha wrote:
| Although if you were fired after being investigated and the
| company is keeping it quiet, then surely going with the
| standard "spend some time with the family excuse" and keeping
| it quiet rather than drawing attention to that fact would be
| basic self preservation.
| sounds wrote:
| There's more to this than just today's events supporting your
| theory that the wheels were in motion before Elon's bid -
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/21/technology/twitter-
| securi...
| faangiq wrote:
| Burn his reputation? No one knew who this guy was 2 weeks ago.
| Now he will just fail up like all other execs.
| Shadonototra wrote:
| twitter has no strategy, it became apparent the day they killed
| vine, and it is still true today
| [deleted]
| tikiman163 wrote:
| There is also a simple possibility that these two executives
| would have been fired anyway. Average executive tenior at a
| company is only about 4 years, and executives leave or are
| asked to leave pretty frequently.
|
| As for the hiring freeze, new funding sources are essentially
| cut off until the purchase either goes through or officially
| fails. New loans or lines of credit requests are likely to be
| reject due to the uncertainty around whether Twitter will be
| acquired or not, and addition sales of stock would be seen as a
| bad faith act because it would essentially lose the company
| funding if the sale goes through. Increased spending could
| cause liquidity issues for Twitter for this reason. It is a
| known fact that Twitter is not a particularly profitable
| business, and given all of these facts those executives may
| have been let go purely for financial reasons.
|
| Trying to read into this without more knowledge regarding
| internal motivations is purely speculative and cannot provide
| reliable information. What's more, every major company would be
| aware of these likely motivations and would see his actions as
| ordinary under the circumstances even if it turns out his
| motivation was to keep Musk from having access to those
| employees.
|
| In short, there would have be extremely compelling evidence of
| intentional malfeasance for this to impact his reputation or
| future career prospects any more than Musk acquiring Twitter.
| trashtester wrote:
| Look at the tweets of these guys a few months back. Both have
| several positive mentions of Tesla, Starlink and/or Musk
| himself. They may actually be Musk fanboys....
|
| It may be that they are fired because Parag and the other
| leaders are concerned they will (or have already) share(d)
| information or otherwise cooperate(d) with Musk in ways Parag
| wants to prevent.
| spoonjim wrote:
| Fourth option is that the deal doesn't go through. Deals fail
| to go through all the time. If you just sit around and the deal
| doesn't go through you're fucked. The CEO's job is to manage
| the company as though the deal won't go through, until it
| actually closes.
| marricks wrote:
| Isn't there usually some sort of removing of the skeletons from
| the closets before a deal closes? Yahoo revealed there massive
| data breach while their deal was closing and such.
| m12k wrote:
| It's also possible the deal provided an ad-hoc loyalty test and
| these to execs failed it.
| javajosh wrote:
| Well as CEO it's his Parag-ative.
| hemreldop wrote:
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| cronix wrote:
| Another option - get rid of the talent before the next guy
| comes in to run it, because you don't like him.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Or the deal is not going to close?
| belter wrote:
| "SEC is investigating Elon Musk over his late disclosure that
| he had purchased Twitter stock"
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/sec-investigates-elon-
| musks-...
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Was there a time in the past few years where Musk wasn't
| actively investigated by the SEC? Hasn't hindered his
| business ventures much, so far at least.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _So there 's two options right - the first is that Parag is
| for some reason making big strategic decisions about the
| direction of the company despite the fact that we all know
| he'll be gone if the deal closes. Or he's making big strategic
| changes at the behest of the acquirers before the deal closes._
|
| It's conceivable that he already had a backlog of changes in
| his mind that he wanted to do at some point, sooner or later.
| But due to acquisition coming, sooner or later has turned into
| now or never.
|
| If he legitimately believed these changes were best for the
| company before, he might still believe so.
|
| In other words, yes, there's a reason, but not necessarily a
| nefarious one. It could be, or maybe it's as innocuous as
| urgency.
| rabite wrote:
| nickstinemates wrote:
| In this version of events, it's likely we'll be able to see
| how lean Twitter could actually be.
| LightG wrote:
| Hope so.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Seriously? Having been on both sides of a number of
| acquisitions I can tell you that these kinds of personnel
| changes are made typically at the (possibly indirect) request
| of the acquiring company. Things like "We've got a really
| create CMO that we're bringing on, we don't need any headwinds
| to them getting traction quickly" means "Get rid of the people
| who think they are in charge of marketing so that our person
| can set the table they want to set it." Or, "Some of our team
| is uncomfortable with Bob in the role he's in, he just doesn't
| seem like a good fit you know?" or any number of ways to
| communicate what executives they want moved out so that there
| will be spaces to be filled when the new team moves in.
|
| And in a deal like this where there is no "plan B" the CEO's
| exit compensation is entirely predicated on their ability to
| "set the table" well for the incoming executive team. So yeah,
| Parag is doing what Musk or Musk's team told him need to be
| done prior to starting there, and if he told them he wouldn't
| do it then no big package for him.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| That would normally happen post close. You are normally
| mandated to maintain the current operating position prior to
| close.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| I understand the 'normally' part as in "this is how it
| should be done." And yet in the roughly ten or so
| acquisitions I've been on the "inside" for (which is to say
| was at one of the two companies and was related either
| peripherally or intimately in the transaction from start to
| finish), every single one of them had some executive
| shuffling (aka separating) prior to the close.
|
| Clearly, it is biased to Silicon Valley and my experience
| is probably different than someone who worked in non-tech
| companies, but if I put it into a rule of sorts I'd say;
| During a fund raising round executive positions are the
| most secure and individual contributors the least, during
| an acquisition these are reversed.
| donohoe wrote:
| He is on paternity leave so unclear how much any of these
| options hold-up.
| sam345 wrote:
| Not weird that he's doing things at behest of Musk which I
| think is likely. It may be part of acquisition agreement either
| implicitly or explicitly. Musk most likely has people he knows
| in company (he is friends with Jack) that are advising him and
| suggesting changes. Much easier to oust top execs before coming
| in then later.
| pbreit wrote:
| Agree. This seems very odd. They should be all hands on deck
| through the buyout and then see what new ownership wants to do.
| ineedasername wrote:
| There's a third option, which is that Parag is doing what he
| things is in the best interests if the company under the
| circumstances.
|
| Because regardless if whether the acquisition falls through or
| not, this whole thing has underscored the need for changes at
| Twitter. The top two execs may need to go in order to move
| forward no matter what.
|
| Your options are reasonable guesses as well, just not the only
| two possibilities.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| In what way has Musk behaved that makes it weird for Parag to
| be following his orders?
| ManBlanket wrote:
| What about the possibility guy was going to be asked to leave
| regardless of recent events, but the executive team decided the
| least they could do after he put in good time is allow him to
| collect some PTO on parental leave before handing him the
| official pink slip? I don't know what Twitter's benefits are
| but I imagine they have an, "unlimited leave" policy. Could be
| they've disagreed for a while and an argument came to an
| affront similar to, "Look man, I'm going to take leave to spend
| time with my new child, then we'll decide if it's the right
| move for me to return." Frankly this is a pretty boring
| conspiracy regardless, people leave jobs all the time. All I
| have to say is I hope dude enjoys a nice Summer with his family
| without worrying about this dumb product that for the most part
| narcissists use to trick themselves into thinking anybody gives
| a shit about what they have to say.
| gernb wrote:
| Is it plausable that people at that level would need PTO?
| They've got 10s of millions in the bank.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Twitter does have an unlimited leave policy.
| [deleted]
| dwighttk wrote:
| "INSANELY proud...Twitter's DAU has grown by over 87% since Q2
| 2018..."
| xyst wrote:
| twitter cleaning house, preparing for the inevitable scorched
| Earth effect of the transition to being privately owned.
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| Are we all going to pretend Twitter's consumer product is not in
| desperate need of reworking?
|
| It's failing hard to users and on the business side.
|
| The decision makes sense...
|
| This is extremely personal matter, beyond the Elon hate, I can't
| imagine why anyone would think its a good idea to make a public
| show about all this.
|
| Good luck to him though. Would be awesome if he can prove Twitter
| (and the world) wrong and not be a one-hit wonder with Periscope.
| Or, not..
|
| Time will tell.
| Cupprum wrote:
| Maybe its a way to give his "friends" golden parachutes before he
| also quits after they sell twitter?
| ranjitcool1 wrote:
| tfp137 wrote:
| If he was fired on paternity leave, the credited play is to say
| nothing. This is potentially a beautiful lawsuit and the last
| thing you want to do is lose ground on something you said on the
| internet.
| Proven wrote:
| 5bolts wrote:
| If he's fired now the current board can offer him a severance
| package that may not be on the table once Elon takes over. Might
| be a good thing, or strategic?
| WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote:
| Wild. Technically is that legal?
| nickff wrote:
| Severance packages are usually a deal: company pays you $X,
| and you agree to say (or not say) certain things, and also
| agree where you might work in the future (i.e. not at a
| competitor). The current board/CEO may want to keep things
| stable, and offer generous money to keep things on an even
| keel; Elon may not care what a former executive says or does.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Why wouldn't it be? The sale hasn't finalized, so unless
| there's evidence that they're intentionally harming the
| company they can continue to operate as usual.
| 1290cc wrote:
| This is the correct answer, Elon will not be as generous when
| cutting numbers.
|
| I'll never forget letting go of staff in France and Italy. The
| employees were overjoyed we were letting them go and got into
| fights over who would be taking the packages. I learned that
| they received 1 year of salary upfront tax free with a bunch of
| additional benefits to help with job training and placement.
|
| An average middle manager friend has had this happen 3 times,
| each time after a US acquisition. He now has a chateau in the
| south of france and is very happy with himself.
| Vladimof wrote:
| lol.... only 2 top comments visible on this post
|
| https://i.imgur.com/TiIKxnr.png
| csefam14 wrote:
| dylan604 wrote:
| "To the hard working (current and former) Tweeps out there who
| made all this happen: Thank you for pouring your heart and soul
| into this place "
|
| Tweeps? Is that really a term of endearment they refer to each
| other as? Really?
| moate wrote:
| Feels less condescending than Apple "Geniuses" or Best Buy
| "Nerds", and pretty in line with "Googlers", "Toasters" or
| "Hulugans".
|
| Is this a thing most people refer to other employees as most of
| the time? No, but it helps corporate create an image of a fun,
| playful workplace. I think it's utter bullshit, but you know,
| to each their own.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _No, but it helps corporate create an image of a fun,
| playful workplace_
|
| Nah, all of these corporate 'pet names' are applied
| unilaterally, by the executives to the workers. Condescension
| is the point. The application of such a nickname is a show of
| power, meant to remind workers of their place in the system.
| moate wrote:
| I don't disagree with you, hence the sentence immediately
| following that. That said, tons of middle managers seem to
| buy into the BS more than the people above or below them,
| and seem to proudly think of themselves as _stupid nickname
| that is applicable_.
|
| If your culture involves calling me anything other than an
| "employee", I'm not a fan. Personally, I will always think
| of myself as a "Mercenary" regardless of who's signing my
| checks currently.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It all sounds like too much Kool-aid has been drunk by the
| employees. That's the creepy thing about it to me. Another
| example of where the employees wear company branded clothing.
| I've worked for a place where the company sold their branded
| items to employees and the employees would purchase each and
| every new version that was offered. I swear I could hear them
| chanting "one of us".
| hprotagonist wrote:
| meta-me-tes
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| Metastasized
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Metastases
| corobo wrote:
| Meta "Creeps"
|
| It's like peeps, but more Facebook-y
| jayd16 wrote:
| Better than Twits, Teets, Twats, and Tweebs I guess. Even birds
| is pretty bad.
| jrootabega wrote:
| Twittalowda is the non-colonial term, I think.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| I guess Peeps is already spoken for. Drowning their post-
| firing sorrows in alcohol wouldn't be a good idea anyway.
| robbiemitchell wrote:
| > Spaces, Communities, Topics, Creator tools, Safety controls
|
| Interesting: as a casual Twitter user since 2008, I am completely
| unaware of Spaces, Communities, Topics, and Creator tools.
| Probably because I use Tweetdeck (desktop) and Tweetbot (mobile).
| I never see trending posts or ads, either.
| sefrost wrote:
| I use the regular app and website as a casual user and am only
| aware of Topics.
|
| My experience with Topics was really bad, I followed the "web
| development" topic and it just surfaces tweets of people who
| took a coding bootcamp and posting the thread emoji a lot. I
| tried for a while marking tweets in the Topic as not relevant
| but it didn't change anything.
| brk wrote:
| Without knowing details of the severance, non-compete clauses,
| etc., it is hard to read too much into this. It could be a giant
| favor, or a giant kick in the balls.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Must have been bad blood if he wasn't even given the opportunity
| to resign and save face. I can't even imagine the vipers nest of
| toxicity that building must be at this point.
| afavour wrote:
| Might be a severance issue. If he resigns, no severence. I
| imagine if he is fired he gets some. So he might have forced
| them to fire him. I know I would.
| minhazm wrote:
| > Parag asked me to leave after letting me know that he wants
| to take the team in a different direction.
|
| I interpreted that as he was asked to resign. Which in practice
| most people consider the same as getting fired. At this level
| it's rare for someone to actually get terminated though, you
| would have to do something illegal or highly inappropriate.
| It's almost always that you're asked to resign and you get a
| generous severance package to go with it.
| hintymad wrote:
| Growing up outside of the US, I feel kinda cringed when he said
| he was "INSANELY proud of our collective teams achieved". Such an
| interesting cultural difference.
| stagger87 wrote:
| It's boring executive marketing speak, and it's prevalent
| worldwide, not just in the US.
| mypalmike wrote:
| What's the issue? Using the adverb "insanely" in a positive
| light? Or that he's proud?
| [deleted]
| TameAntelope wrote:
| What's odd about it? Why wouldn't he be proud of his team for
| successfully building stuff he thought was important to build?
| robonerd wrote:
| Being so proud you lose your sanity? That's quite odd. It's
| an _insane_ amount of hyperbole.
| jmeister wrote:
| Didn't Steve Jobs make that usage of 'insane' popular in
| SV?
| astrange wrote:
| I thought it came from surfers/skateboarders.
| civilized wrote:
| I think so. I think he also coined a number of other
| annoyingly ubiquitous speech patterns, like "Do X. Fast."
| cmelbye wrote:
| Wait til you find out that "sick" and "ill" can also be
| synonyms for "really great".
| babypuncher wrote:
| Seems like a pretty typical use of the word "insane" in the
| US.
| robonerd wrote:
| Yes, I agree. That's probably why hintymad shared the
| context of not being raised in the US.
| thieving_magpie wrote:
| The cultural difference doesn't seem like something to
| "cringe" over. I also don't think the hyperbolic use is
| restricted to the US. Pretty much any english speaking
| country will use "insane" to describe something with
| emphasis. Certainly normal in the UK and Australia.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _I also don 't think the hyperbolic use is restricted
| to the US._
|
| _Strictly restricted_? Of course not. But for what it 's
| worth I've been told by numerous Europeans that they
| perceive casually throwing around extreme hyperbole to be
| characteristically American behavior. I guess it goes
| with waitresses pretending to love you.
| isbjorn16 wrote:
| it's kind of insane to me that this is seen as insane, if
| I'm honest
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Insanely is just operating as a term of emphasis in this
| context. Maybe that's not an easy translation?
|
| One definition for "insanely" is [0]:
|
| > to an extreme degree.
|
| [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insanely
| [deleted]
| seydor wrote:
| I will expect more people to mock this decade of extreme
| marketingspeak that was funded with fake money and fat
| investor pockets. The people doing the mocking will lead the
| next wave of tech growth
| samatman wrote:
| This quirk of dialect should be called the California
| Superlative.
|
| Everything is awesome, amazing, radical, insane, great, gnarly,
| not to mention sick, ill, righteous, dope. Californians just
| love superlatives, use them constantly, wear them out, and need
| new ones.
|
| This spreads like a fine coating of mold over the rest of the
| country before going on to annoy the Commonwealth, and then we
| repeat. It's pretty cool.
| dehrmann wrote:
| Considering this is Norcal, you forgot hella.
| samatman wrote:
| Good point, and the place of hella in the dialect is hella
| distinctive, because it's a superlative _modifier_ : hella
| sick, hella insane, "I just bought hella strawberries at
| the market", and so on.
|
| So you have a politeness continuum from very, to hecka, to
| hella, to fuckin'. Which is dank.
| _moof wrote:
| It really seems to me that in American English, every word
| eventually gets watered down to mean either "good," "bad," or
| "very." Take the word "terrific" for example. It used to have
| connotations of terror. Now it's just another synonym for
| "excellent." Or "fantastic," the old meaning of which is still
| found in the related "fantastical," but now simply means "very
| good." Or "incredible," which used to mean "not believable." I
| could go on.
|
| And when every superlative has been watered down like this, you
| need to pick a word that's completely over the top to express
| anything with any strength of feeling. It's good, it's great,
| it's awesome! It's fantastic! It's incredible!! It's insanely
| unbelievably wonderful!!!
|
| "Insanely" is just the latest entry in our internal linguistic
| arms race.
| jrootabega wrote:
| Yep, and people using "absolutely" all the time is the crown
| jewel.
|
| In the past few years there's been a similar but opposite
| degradation: the only adverbs anyone uses are "super", "super
| not", and "not super". I think it came from the infantilized
| condescending culture on Twitter.
| websap wrote:
| Can you say more? Why did you find it cringey?
| [deleted]
| Ombudsman wrote:
| This comment is insanely cringey
| biztos wrote:
| I agree with the other replies about California Superlative in
| general, but at least in German it would not be weird for some
| corporate bro to say he was "WAHNSINNIG stolz..." which means
| exactly the same thing.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| I grew up in the US, and I also found that odd. Not
| unprecedented, but odd. The literal interpretation of that
| statement might be more justifiable than the one he meant...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| it's cringeworthy in the US outside of the job-finding/bragging
| echo chamber this kind of post normally shows up in
| bogomipz wrote:
| I also believe there would also be a large segment of the US
| that finds these "job-finding/bragging echo chamber" Twitter
| posts cringeworthy regardless of context. They appear oddly
| performative and obligatory. Stay tuned for the follow up
| "I'm incredibly excited to announce that today I am joining
| ___" post.
| bobro wrote:
| you should read this more from the perpective of a dude who
| just lost his job and will need to soon get rehired. not really
| a US culture thing.
| ryanSrich wrote:
| Not entirely related, but I do not understand how someone could
| say this with a straight face
| https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1524787804743475201?s=21&t=...
| exolymph wrote:
| > I'm proud that we changed the perception around Twitter's
| pace of innovation, and proud that we shifted the culture
| internally to make bigger bets, move faster, and eliminate
| sacred cows.
|
| Lol
| kyledrake wrote:
| I've been using Twitter since it's main novelty was that it was a
| successful Ruby on Rails app, and honestly I've been trying to
| figure out where the exit is for my personal use of Twitter
| lately. If the acquisition goes through, Twitter won't make
| enough money to service it's debt, and the things they will do to
| fix that are pretty much guaranteed to lower the quality of the
| platform, which frankly has never worked very well for me
| anyways. The fact that they're doing a leadership purge right now
| is not helping my opinion on this.
|
| I also think the proposal to have Twitter allow all content that
| is "legal under US law" is a dangerous idea for the platform
| being a healthy community that most people actually want to
| participate in. Content moderation debates have never been so
| ham-fisted as they are online so I won't try here, suffice to say
| there's some pretty horrible, disgusting things that are "legal
| under US law" (and as a content moderator, I've seen them all).
| If Twitter allows people to do them, it will make it difficult
| for Twitter to maintain a healthy community, and the platform
| could quickly devolve into a scarychan-style sewer that only the
| craziest people on the internet will want to dwell in. To say
| nothing about whether advertisers will tolerate some of it, or
| even Apple's app store.
| ellyagg wrote:
| You'd have to be pretty naive to assume Musk would let trolls
| run Twitter into the ground.
|
| The most likely upshot of Musk's hints is that Twitter will
| stop censoring or adding warning labels to "misinformation",
| the classification of which is highly subject to partisan
| biases.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| generally curious, what are some examples of disgusting things
| legal under US law (I'm not a content moderator)?
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Although banned in most states, sexual abuse of animals isn't
| prohibited by federal law.
|
| Animated depictions of humans having sex with animals is
| (probably) legal.
|
| Saying "I hope someone kills misiti3780" is legal. Saying
| "Next year I will drive to misiti3780's house at <insert
| correct address> and kill them and their family " is
| (probably) legal.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| the animal shit is horrible, i love my pets.
|
| i weirdly dont care about hypothetical death threats as
| much.
| ryan_lane wrote:
| You don't care about death threats until they're directed
| at you, your family, or the pets you love. If you're
| being dogpiled by extremists, there's a very real
| possibility that it'll escalate to doxing, swatting,
| and/or actual attempts. This happens frequently on
| twitter, even with its attempts at moderation, but it
| would be considerably worse with no moderation.
|
| People making life-sized dolls of you, then filming
| themselves shooting it in the head and posting the video
| is legal. Them doing sexual acts to the doll, saying
| they're practicing for when they break into your house,
| filming it and posting the video is legal.
|
| A lot of things that are absolutely terrifying are fully
| legal. Sites don't allow them because having subsets of
| users scare away other subsets of users is bad for
| business. If you have to pick between one set of users
| and another, usually the one posting hateful, threatening
| content are the ones to (rightfully) go.
| misiti3780 wrote:
| i agree. if someone did threaten my family and they were
| serious it would be a problem.
| maccolgan wrote:
| I'm assuming you don't know how horrific porn can be.
| strangeattractr wrote:
| But porn is allowed to be posted on twitter at present.
| ramoz wrote:
| Found this out on a work computer searching a hashtag I
| had overheard from a group conversation.
| secondcoming wrote:
| > it will make it difficult for Twitter to maintain a healthy
| community, and the platform could quickly devolve into a
| scarychan-style sewer that only the craziest people on the
| internet will want to dwell in
|
| Twitter is the furthest from a healthy community I've ever
| ventured. It's full of nutters.
| [deleted]
| ilamont wrote:
| > I also think the proposal to have Twitter allow all content
| that is "legal under US law" is a dangerous idea for the
| platform being a healthy community that most people actually
| want to participate in.
|
| This is key. If @dang suddenly threw up his hands and said
| "anything goes on HN within U.S. law" this wonderful virtual
| discussion forum would die and most of us would sign off
| forever. I say that as someone whose been here for ~15 years.
|
| I've used Twitter for the same amount of time. Despite
| Twitter's many faults and loopholes, the things that keep me
| going back day after day is there is enough good discussion,
| news tidbits, and photos (for me, mostly local nostalgia,
| birds, and retro computing) that it's a worthwhile place for me
| to hang out. I won't stick around if it gets too negative and
| my people start to leave, as they surely will under such a
| policy.
| knubie wrote:
| The difference between Twitter and Reddit, hacker news, or
| 4chan, is that on Twitter you ostensibly only see content
| from people you follow. If you don't like the content someone
| is putting out, you just unfollow them. Twitter is more like
| email than Reddit in that sense, and no one is arguing for
| email to be moderated.
| Drew_ wrote:
| Reddit is much better at what you're describing. Twitter
| constantly inserts content you haven't asked for in your
| feed and when viewing tweets.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| > on Twitter you ostensibly only see content from people
| you follow
|
| But that seemed to becoming less and less true in recent
| months. I was often seeing tweets from people I wasn't
| following because the algorithm was starting to recommend
| them based on other tweets I had clicked on. I deactivated
| my account this past weekend and moved over to mastodon -
| it seems so much more chill.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| I don't think Twitter is more like email than Reddit.
| Twitter is built around increasing engagement via
| increasing what you see and who you interact with. Which
| makes sense: it's a centralized platform for speech and it
| needs to grow its user base and their level of engagement
| to make money. You need to fight against that system to
| curate your feed so that you don't ever see something you
| don't like. I don't think Musk has any brilliant ideas to
| 10x Twitter's revenue and somehow change this
| characteristic about it.
|
| Considering that, there are also many different ways you
| can experience harassment on Twitter. Are these ways
| solvable with technical solutions? Perhaps. But these are
| people we're talking about here, not 0s and 1s. You can't
| solve all people problems with technology. And as parent
| comments have said, anyone who's been in a position of
| having to guide a community knows this to be true.
| bigDinosaur wrote:
| One major benefit to HN is that it is text only. There's a
| lot of 'legal, but horrific to look at' imagery which gets
| moderated out on other platforms but here is not possible in
| the first place (excepting external links).
| numpad0 wrote:
| It will partially solve locality/language dependency problems
| of following UGC laws though. There were enough of it for
| Mastodon devs.
| drewcon wrote:
| I also have a reasonable expectation that HK is FOCUSED and
| CIVIL. I do not have that expectation on Twitter.
|
| Twitter is just a raw society fire hose and I'm fine with
| that. I think the future is to give SUPER clear power to
| individuals to manage their own experience. Freedom of speech
| is both the right to speak, but also the right of the
| listener to hear (or not hear) as an individual.
|
| I would also love to see twitter evolve to become more
| substack-ish where communities are more "owned" and
| moderation is delegated to communities to determine rules
| based on trust and shared goals vs. just blanket twitter
| safetytism.
| rocqua wrote:
| If you could 'subscribe' to a moderation service on
| Twitter, much like you used to subscribe to the editorial
| board of a newspaper, that might work.
|
| It would make the right-wing less up-in-arms about
| censorship by unchosen companies. And create more space for
| various viewpoints.
|
| At the same time, it would create even stronger bubbles.
| saimiam wrote:
| This is actually a wonderful idea but also somewhat like
| giving the keys to the kingdom to theirs parties.
|
| If a Twitter moderator is anything like a Reddit
| moderator, good luck monetizing those millions of tweets
| people post every day.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| > I think the future is to give SUPER clear power to
| individuals to manage their own experience. Freedom of
| speech is both the right to speak, but also the right of
| the listener to hear (or not hear) as an individual.
|
| That's the road to filter bubbles and radicalization
| because people never realize how obnoxious they are to real
| society. You can always find a few hundred other extreme
| fringe and deranged people from all over the Internet,
| while if you tried saying that stuff in real life, your
| community would slap some sense back into you. Online you
| can just block and move on and never face consequences, so
| you develop this righteous attitude that you know it all
| and you get validated by other loners from all over the
| world.
|
| I think the only good way forward can be a return to
| physical spaces. People will realize this more and more and
| there will be some sort of hybrid approach. Actual real
| life communities are important.
|
| Sure, niche hobbies may not sustain a large enough
| community in each little town, but do we really need to
| specialize so much? Does that really improve our affairs?
| Couldn't people compromise and get into some slightly
| different but still adjacent hobby?
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| paganel wrote:
| That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free.
|
| I'm not a regular Twitter user but afaik that platform is
| pretty heavy on politics, more than that, it's pretty heavy
| when it comes to a certain political spectrum, the other side
| has been mostly de-platformed by now. I don't consider that
| as a healthy platform to comment on for the general public
| (even though, I agree, it might be ok for people who happen
| to share the same political opinions that have not been
| banned by the Twitter higher-ups).
| KerrAvon wrote:
| > has been mostly de-platformed by now
|
| Completely inaccurate. No one side has been deplatformed in
| aggregate. A few individuals have been suspended
| permanently for violating TOS. They should have been
| removed earlier, but were considered special cases due to
| their prominence. It amounts to Twitter removing its own
| inhibition on enforcing its TOS for certain prominent
| users.
|
| If you want a hard-right-wing heavy experience, you can
| certainly get that on Twitter today (and two months ago) by
| following the hard right wingers. Most of them never left.
| The subscriber count jumps you heard about when the emerald
| scion announced his Twitter purchase? Very small
| percentages.
| jkubicek wrote:
| I totally agree with this take.
|
| I'm also surprised that there hasn't been more strident
| push-back against the "conservatives are being banned
| from Twitter" story from conservatives themselves. If I
| were right-leaning I would certainly not want to be
| associated with the q-anon advocates for violence that
| _are_ being kicked off the platform.
| ryandrake wrote:
| This is exactly the "Oh, you know the ones" take, that
| conservative opinions _in general_ are not what 's being
| banned[1]:
|
| 1: https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/105039166355
| 267174...
| pessimizer wrote:
| Trump wasn't kicked off the platform for being q-anon.
| myko wrote:
| Right, he was kicked off for fomenting an attempt at
| revolution which included urging QAnon people (who need
| medical treatment) to attack the nation's capital in an
| effort to illegally reinstate himself as POTUS and using
| Twitter in his effort to do so.
|
| Much worse than just promoting QAnon conspiracies IMO!
| antifa wrote:
| Who had been deplatformed that isn't objectively a
| terrible person and wasn't violating the ToS for a long
| time?
|
| It's weird they would push such a dishonest narrative.
| guelo wrote:
| > pretty heavy when it comes to a certain political
| spectrum, the other side has been mostly de-platformed by
| now
|
| That's what right wing has told you via sensational
| anecdotes. The actual studies I've seen shows that the
| algorithm boosts right wing stuff more than left wing
| stuff.
| boplicity wrote:
| > That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free.
|
| I have to disagree with that one. This discussion --
| content moderation-- is one of the most political topics
| possible. More things are political than most people
| realize.
|
| However, I do think that the quality of the political
| discourse here is much better than other places; it is
| often _just_ based on ideas, and even if they 're plainly
| wrong, they're not usually presented in an inflammatory
| way. That is what sets things apart, rather than the lack
| of politics.
| d23 wrote:
| > That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free.
|
| It's only politics-free because it's heavily moderated.
| There's nothing magical about the people here that make
| them apolitical. Political posts are often removed
| outright, and comments that are political have to be pretty
| fact-based (or at have the appearance thereof) to not be
| removed.
| pessimizer wrote:
| I'd add 1) that HN also didn't start politics-free, that
| was something that was consciously imposed on it well
| into its life, and 2) that HN post politics-moderation is
| far less influential than HN was pre politics-moderation.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > HN post politics-moderation is far less influential
| than HN was pre politics-moderation
|
| Influential in what way?
| vincvinc wrote:
| Hmm, are we on the same HN? I feel like I see a lot of
| topics debated I'd call political ("about how society ought
| to function") on a daily basis.
| turtledove wrote:
| I was going to say.... HN is full of politics. Not always
| the Red vs Blue kind, but there's political discussions
| _constantly_. At any given time several front page
| stories are explicitly political, and several more are
| implicitly political (e.g. cryptocurrency).
| [deleted]
| ixtli wrote:
| Richard Stallman once said that "geeks like to think they
| can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but
| politics won't leave you alone." When people imply that
| there is such a thing as an a-political take on the world
| we live in, what they're saying is that they cant
| identify the mainstream ideology that they themselves are
| adherents of. As such things which adhere to it look
| "natural", without "bias", or "non-political."
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Discussions without politics are a bit like science
| without the mathematics field: If you take the larger
| definition, there's hardly any way to avoid it.
| Especially if you define things like crypto currency as
| political, it's basically impossible to have a tech
| discussion without scratching it.
|
| What people mean when they say that is that political
| topics are usually a side concern to the technical topics
| at hand, not pure political discussions. The off-topic,
| angry and/or ad-hominem comments are also quite rare -
| yes, they exist, but compared to (most of) Reddit and
| Twitter it's very relaxed. And policy is almost never the
| primary topic, unless it directly affects the tech field.
| ByteJockey wrote:
| > political ("about how society ought to function")
|
| I feel like this is a technical definition of political,
| but that's not how the layman uses the word _.
|
| I tend to hear the word political used as a synonym for
| the current arguments within a society, especially those
| that professional politicians feel the need to weigh in
| on and/or there is a significant chance of legislation
| around.
|
| So, for example, a passionate essay about a Georgism and
| a land value tax might be political under the technical
| definition, I don't think it would qualify as political
| under the layman definition. There's not a sufficient
| mass of people trying to institute a land value tax for a
| society wide argument to occur. I don't think the average
| person would describe aforementioned person as political,
| I'd say they'd be more likely to be written off as a
| kook.
|
| _Could also be a regional difference. I'm not intimately
| familiar with all the dialects of the english language.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Right, it's an equivocation that often comes up, when
| people try to tell you that basically almost everything
| is political, ergo you are already allowing politics,
| ergo you must allow all politics, ergo I must be allowed
| to spew the generic mindless stuff on your platform too.
|
| Orwell introduced the term duckspeak in 1984, and it best
| describes the way how people understand "politics".
| "Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue
| from the larynx without involving the higher brain
| centres at all."
|
| People usually don't have a problem discussing societal
| issues, most discussion topics somehow relate to how we
| live and work together and is political in that way, but
| more people have issues with the sort of partisan
| politics where the point is to score points against the
| "other team" over all else, painting the other side with
| vile adjectives, generalizing them, considering your own
| side as obviously, axiomatically good etc. You know it
| when you see it.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Political comments made up about 2/3 of my upvotes. It's
| everywhere here, it's just moderated so that it's
| discussed in a very armchair manner.
| myko wrote:
| > the other side has been mostly de-platformed by now
|
| This is not true, far from it. Why do you think this?
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I 'm not a regular Twitter user_
|
| followed by
|
| > _the other side has been mostly de-platformed by now_.
|
| This is probably my biggest peeve when it comes about
| discussions on Twitter. The media has made it seem that
| Twitter just routinely bans conservatives voices for "a
| difference of opinion" when that is not the case. Twitter's
| high profile bans are on Wikipedia, and they weren't banned
| for simply saying "abortion should be repealed".
| femto113 wrote:
| Everything is politics, but most of HN's comment section is
| sufficiently homogenized around Silicon Valley libertarian
| ideology that political conflict is rarely at the forefront
| of discussions. A much more practical reason HN survives is
| there are no images or videos. It is profoundly easier to
| filter, downvote, or ignore someone's text ramblings than
| it is to curate media.
| Pxtl wrote:
| > That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free.
|
| That not accidental, but the result of firm-handed and
| aggressive moderation. My account is rate-limited because
| of getting into political arguments on Hacker News.
| kranke155 wrote:
| There are pro-Russian accounts on Twitter. I don't know
| about right wing US but I follow Marco Rubio. I don't know
| how you'd get removed just for being right wing.
| ilamont wrote:
| > but afaik that platform is pretty heavy on politics
|
| Twitter is what you want it to be, topic-wise, based on who
| you follow and what they like to talk about. Further tuning
| is possible using blocks and muted keywords.
|
| However, there is bleed because people you follow and
| Twitter's recommendation features can't help themselves
| (and not just about politics; anything "newsy" pops up).
|
| What happens when Elon's "anything under U.S. law" approach
| kicks in is toxic behavior and arguments will get so
| extreme that it will drive millions of people away, and
| those who are left will see the quality of their feeds
| decline. Then many of them will bail, too.
|
| > That only works because HN is, mostly, politics-free.
|
| This place holds together because the signal:noise ratio is
| so high and @dang and the community work to keep it that
| way. Toxicity and low-value contributions kill communities,
| regardless of the topic at hand.
| 2bitencryption wrote:
| > it will drive millions of people away
|
| I don't see this happening. I see the opposite. With free
| reign to post "anything under U.S. law", content on
| Twitter will become even further optimized to get the
| most eyeballs. You'll see things that make you so mad
| that you just HAVE to reply. And on and on it goes.
|
| Surely you've seen those Twitter/Youtube/Insta ads that
| would show a trivially easy puzzle (like, toddler-level
| easy), and show a person somehow failing it. "Can YOU
| solve it"? the add entices. Obviously. Of course you can
| solve it. It's designed to be brain-dead easy to cast the
| widest net, and to give you just that brief moment of
| discomfort while you watch someone ELSE fail (as
| scripted). And you want to dispel this discomfort, so you
| click on it (or, more likely, you scroll on, but you
| better believe that other people click on it).
|
| It's like cigarettes. Everyone knows they kill you in the
| long run. But boy do they tickle those neurons that make
| you want just one more.
| dleslie wrote:
| > Twitter is what you want it to be, topic-wise, based on
| who you follow and what they like to talk about.
|
| I've tried this. It's false. It's a myth that Twitter
| users tell themselves, AFAICT.
|
| Even disregarding the trending topics and explore
| interfaces, all it takes is for one of the curated
| members that you follow to retweet something you're not
| interested in seeing.
|
| > What happens when Elon's "anything under U.S. law"
| approach kicks in is toxic behavior and arguments will
| get so extreme that it will drive millions of people
| away, and those who are left will see the quality of
| their feeds decline. Then many of them will bail, too.
|
| But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is
| what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't
| it?
|
| Because Twitter _isn't_ what you claim it is. Twitter is
| optimized for outrage-oriented engagement. It _wants_ to
| show you things that will encourage you to engage, to
| return, and there's nothing quite as engaging as content
| that upsets you.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| > What happens when Elon's "anything under U.S. law"
| > approach kicks in is toxic behavior and arguments
| > will get so extreme that it will drive millions
| > of people away, and those who are left will see
| > the quality of their feeds decline. Then many of
| > them will bail, too. But that's
| contradictory to your claim that Twitter is what
| you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't it?
|
| What? It's not contradictory in the slightest.
|
| Nobody is claiming that Twitter would somehow magically
| somehow continue "be what you want it to be" if most of
| the quality contributors leave. Because
| Twitter _isn't_ what you claim it is. Twitter is
| optimized for outrage-oriented engagement.
|
| I have a few accounts and I simply don't see what you
| describe.
|
| I don't follow or engage with controversial crap. My
| follows are people in my hobbies, and funny people. My
| feed is pretty close to 100% strife-free.
|
| Either it's really easy to avoid the hellscape of outrage
| that you describe or I'm extremely lucky/talented.
| dleslie wrote:
| Or you have a higher tolerance for negativity and hate
| than I do.
| JohnBooty wrote:
| Good point. Although, I don't think it's the case: mine's
| essentially zero.
|
| Don't misunderstand: I've seen that stuff on Twitter.
| I've reported a few people. And political topics and
| other controversial topics are absolutely rife with it. I
| do not excuse it in any way.
|
| I just find it easy to avoid?
| dleslie wrote:
| You've just described how you haven't avoided it, but
| instead have actively engaged with it by availing
| yourself of moderation tools.
|
| It leads me to suppose that you're underestimating how
| much you're exposed to that you find disquieting.
| ilamont wrote:
| > I've tried this. It's false.
|
| So I have I. I currently have about a half-dozen
| accounts, each following different types of accounts with
| limited overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account
| feed is limited almost entirely to genealogists and
| historians posting about those topics and very little
| else. People that stray too much get unfollowed.
|
| That said, my personal account has overlap with a
| separate startup/media/tech account because of some
| shared interests in the tech space. But there is also a
| lot of very different items I see in the personal account
| because of local accounts in the city I live in as well
| as topical news accounts relating to Asia and Europe that
| interest me. Naturally, anything relating to current
| events in those areas also touches on U.S. politics,
| foreign policy, and military policy, so I get that too,
| despite some muted keywords.
|
| > But that's contradictory to your claim that Twitter is
| what you want it to be, based on who you follow, isn't
| it?
|
| You missed the part in the paragraph that followed:
|
| _However, there is bleed because people you follow and
| Twitter 's recommendation features can't help themselves
| (and not just about politics; anything "newsy" pops up)._
|
| And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only
| have one account. Those are the most likely to leave.
|
| Not disagreeing with your point about outrage, though.
| Like you said, there's nothing quite as engaging as
| content that gets lots of responses/RTs/shares/"likes,"
| and this content tends to be negative.
| dleslie wrote:
| > I currently have about a half-dozen accounts, each
| following different types of accounts with limited
| overlap. So, what I get on the genealogy account feed is
| limited almost entirely to genealogists and historians
| posting about those topics and very little else. People
| that stray too much get unfollowed.
|
| > And not everyone knows how to filter it, or they only
| have one account. Those are the most likely to leave.
|
| You're describing how you have general views into
| twitter, but which are imperfect and require _active_
| maintenance on your part to retain utility.
|
| My experience is that _while engaging in that
| maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and
| value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage
| outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's
| simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter
| for strong content and not eventually either recede into
| accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness.
| jasonladuke0311 wrote:
| > My experience is that _while engaging in that
| maintenance_ Twitter rapidly depleted in utility and
| value for me, because the dark patterns that encourage
| outrage engagement infected all those that I follow. It's
| simply not possible, AFAICT, to actively filter Twitter
| for strong content and not eventually either recede into
| accepting outrage or reducing one's feed to uselessness.
|
| I reached the same conclusion. It's garbage, and I quit.
| Occasionally I'll get a text from a friend linking to
| Twitter and I regret following the link, every time,
| within 60 seconds or so.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| I also quit it and whenever someone links to it, I get a
| physiological reaction, like nauseousness and just have
| to close the tab. It's toxic fumes all over. Not possible
| to curate. I have blocked some words and mostly follow
| researchers but the controversial politics are shoved in
| my face. Everyone bending over backwards regarding
| Ukraine-Russia, some are still ranting about masks pro or
| contra, performatively being very concerned, some gender
| stuff, people at each other's throats regarding privilege
| and inclusivity, people bragging, humblebragging about
| their careers, self-claimed gurus telling their
| communities off, hot takes, then people complaining about
| too much bragging and calling out hustle culture and
| toxic positivity, others one upping these in some way or
| agreeing and fuming together. People only seeing other
| people as caricature stereotypes, like ah you must be a
| techbro, you must be an sjw, everyone assuming the worst,
| everything too serious and no lightheartedness.
|
| It's pure monkey emotions and it brings out the worst of
| otherwise intelligent people. I've lost respect for
| several highly regarded scientists through this.
|
| Twitter should just run itself into the ground.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > I'm not a regular Twitter user but afaik that platform is
| pretty heavy on politics, more than that, it's pretty heavy
| when it comes to a certain political spectrum, the other
| side has been mostly de-platformed by now.
|
| Please. Despite the howls of protest this is far from true
| and that would be obvious to anyone who's spent much time
| reading political discussion on Twitter.
| brundolf wrote:
| I'm not sure the comparison holds up. Twitter right now
| doesn't _moderate_ content, really, it only does anything
| about outright scams, misinformation, etc. _Toxicity_ can
| mostly run wild and free. Whereas HN has various moderation
| mechanisms that seek to decrease the amount of low-quality
| interaction.
|
| I.e., I think dropping all moderation from HN would have a
| much bigger effect than doing the same on Twitter
| Pxtl wrote:
| Twitter absolutely does moderate content. If you say
| something that the algo interprets as being a suggestion to
| commit suicide, you'll get an instante 24-hour ban. A tonne
| of really awful toxic accounts are soft-blocked and their
| tweets get stuck in the "more replies" box.
|
| And if you're overtly and explicitly racist or sexist,
| there's a good chance you'll get straight-up banned.
| garbagetime wrote:
| I've never once thought to myself "I'm happy that the people
| I follow are only allowed to express some views" or any
| similar thought. If someone is too rude, I block the person.
| If I don't enjoy reading a person's Tweets, I unfollow him.
| [deleted]
| seydor wrote:
| Does twitter have a community? My use case for it is that of an
| RSS reader. I thought reddit was for community
| ramoz wrote:
| Yes, manufactured influencers and echo chambers.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| twitter is the successor of irc, it's one giant channel with
| a firehose of information. in the same way #yourfavtopic on
| your fav $irc_server, community can be the point or the
| problem
| wfhordie wrote:
| I hope you're right. I hope Elon takes over and turns into a
| cesspit . Burn it to the ground once and for all, let the
| public stare into the abyss that their fellow humans.
| the_doctah wrote:
| You're assuming it can get any worse than it already is
| rchaud wrote:
| It can get much worse.
|
| After yesterday's UST/Luna crash, the main Luna subreddit
| has stopped all posting because of the volume of suicide
| threats. Only a few of those posts remain and are at the
| top, with automated messages linking to helplines.
|
| r/terraluna
|
| The average person doesn't realize how manicured the social
| media experience is. People that want zero censorship are
| in for a nasty surprise.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Places like 8chan are much much worse than anything twitter
| had to offer
| dillondoyle wrote:
| If twitter becomes 4chan they will NEVER gain traction with
| brand advertisers. They already struggle, from the little I buy
| it's crap.
|
| But FB is forced to be worse too so maybe they'll gain some.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| It's interesting that a lot of people who are on twitter just
| don't like twitter already as it is. I imagine that's only
| going to get worse under a "no moderation" regime. I'd been
| wanting off of twitter for quite some time now as I'm pretty
| sure it was negatively impacting my mental health. Just this
| past weekend I decided to pull the trigger and commit
| twittercide - it's interesting how hard it is to push that
| 'deactivate' button. But I realized that that's an indication
| of addiction so I pressed the button and now I'm free of
| twitter.
| ramoz wrote:
| Parent, Child, comments want off Twitter.
|
| Interesting how some of you make it sound like a drug.
|
| I deleted Twitter just fine over Covid period.
| memish wrote:
| > and the things they will do to fix that are pretty much
| guaranteed to lower the quality of the platform
|
| The stated plan is to focus on making the platform more
| transparent and trusted. Why would that lower the quality?
| dawsmik wrote:
| I know many people share your view if social media platform x
| allows content y, then it will be reduced to anarchy. I never
| understood that. Reddit used to allow some pretty insane sub-
| reddits, but I never knew that until it was on the news that
| they banned them. I used the platform daily and only looked at
| what interested me. Vegetarians and Keto(atarians?) both go to
| the same grocery stores. They just pick the part that works for
| them and don't worry about the rest. Could you explain how you
| would imagine that Twitter "could quickly devolve into a
| scarychan-style sewer?"
| pessimizer wrote:
| > I also think the proposal to have Twitter allow all content
| that is "legal under US law" is a dangerous idea for the
| platform being a healthy community that most people actually
| want to participate in.
|
| I'd counter that platforms like Reddit, Youtube, or Facebook
| grew into institutions with extremely light content moderation,
| and it's only after they were successful and were targeted by
| politicians and media panics that they moderated heavily, and
| with that moderation their growth slowed.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| > Facebook grew into institutions with extremely light
| content moderation
|
| Facebook used to have a strong social cost to being a dick.
| Then as photos started to explode, they stopped nipples
| pretty quick.
|
| in 2009 they had a fully formed photos policy and moderation
| system.
|
| Moderation has been there since the start and its there to
| stop normal people getting barraged by niples, pictures of
| dead things, and spam.
|
| Self moderation doesn't really scale when you go over 400
| people in a group. After that its drama, then after that it
| turns into 4chan.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Correlation doesn't imply causation. They didn't /need/ to
| moderate heavily because they didn't attract legions of bad
| faith actors when they were small, and they stopped growing
| because growth isn't infinite. And the Internet is a lot
| different in 2022 than it was in 2007.
| oarsinsync wrote:
| > and it's only after they were successful ... their growth
| slowed.
|
| Could this simply be because it's easy to sustain a high rate
| of growth when you're small, and harder to sustain that same
| rate of growth when you're large?
|
| See Apple, as another example of a firm who's growth rate has
| slowed, as a natural result of their scale.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| Reddit always has had community moderators which ensured that
| the subreddits were respecting the rules of their
| communities. For example, on LGBTQ issues subreddits telling
| people that they are groomers is not tolerated. If it was,
| people would quickly go away. While on some other subreddit,
| it might be tolerated but the targeted people are not present
| and will not see those messages.
|
| It is similar on Facebook where people will gather in groups
| that have their own moderation.
|
| This is different on a public platform like Twitter where
| everyone can see everything. If users can hate-speech each
| others within the confines of the law, it will not take long
| until a lot of people leave.
|
| I use hate-speech as an example because the "groomer" as a
| slur issue is at a peak right now and is fresh in my head.
| But the same concept applies to a lot of topics.
| the_doctah wrote:
| >I use hate-speech as an example because the "groomer" as a
| slur issue is at a peak right now and is fresh in my head.
|
| Mm. I think the problem is that censorship advocates like
| you try to add words like this into the lexicon of "hate
| speech" and try to have it censored. It's not, and it
| shouldn't be, and you should be ashamed of even thinking
| it.
|
| It is not other people's responsibility to stay up to date
| on what may or may not be triggering you on any particular
| day.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| I did not want to focus on the example as it was but one
| example of common user behavior, but let's do it anyway.
| I should preface this by saying that I have been a
| moderator on online spaces for the last two decades.
| First starting on BBS, IRC, and more recently social
| networks. Social networks contain some of the worst
| behaviors I have ever experienced.
|
| It is not words that need to be banned, banning words
| would be useless. Users could simply call people
| "gr00mers". Another way people use to talk about trans
| people in a hateful way is "troons", which is defined on
| Urban Dictionary as:
|
| Troon, Noun. A transphobic slur referring to a trans
| woman. The word Troon used to mean "an ugly woman who
| looks like a man." However, over time the word has been
| co-opted and turned into a particularly nasty slur
| against trans women.
|
| This word was quickly identified in groups and people
| would get removed from groups for using it in an abusive
| way by setting that word to trigger an moderation
| warning. The people using it quickly adapted, proving
| that banning words is useless. This changed to "trains",
| which was added to the watch list. The little dance kept
| going on, right now the way it is written is by using a
| train emoji. So you would see "Look at this filthy[train
| emoji]".
|
| Banning words is useless. Words are not hardcoded
| constants that cannot be replaced, they are descriptive
| and evolve in meaning. Banning "groomer" would simply
| lead to people using another word. Most slurs are just
| that, words that are borrowed and then infused with hate.
| Just take a look at
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs, you
| will find that a lot of the terms are harmless when they
| are not weaponized or used in a hateful context. Even one
| of the oldest word used to indicated an intolerant
| position toward transgender people was simply a way to
| write "[a car's] transmission", or "bundle of sticks"
| towards homosexual people. This list is not exhaustive at
| all and only community websites such as Urban Dictionary
| is able to track slurs as the list grows constantly.
|
| What I am talking about is seeing through the thing veil
| of false politeness and banning harmful actions.
|
| Adding to the previous example: people often come
| ("raid") in private Facebook support groups. To enter
| those groups, you need to answer several questions. For
| example, "Are you transgender?/Do you understand that
| this is a support group and that confrontation is frowned
| upon?/Do you agree with the rules of the group?". Every
| single day, people lie to those questions to enter. Upon
| entering, they quickly drop all false pretense to quickly
| find the most vulnerable of users and spam them with hate
| via their inbox (where moderators cannot keep a watch).
| On threads about depression, they leave comments
| encouraging the person to end their lives through words
| that are absolutely legal. Imagine the worst 4chan has to
| offer but directly in your inbox. Many users are not web-
| savvy and this type of content will be absolutely
| crushing. Worst of all, trolls gather in groups where the
| only purpose is to list the profile of the vulnerable
| users they find. Some of those groups that I am aware of
| have up to 25k members. This is worrisome to me. Since
| they only contain links to profiles and are worded using
| legal ways, Facebook does not shut them down. They result
| in users receiving hate and thinly veiled threats from up
| to a hundred users a day. Since those message are worded
| in a way as to avoid reports from sticking.
|
| Trans issues are a hot and controversial topic, so let's
| take a step back and use another community as an example.
|
| Imagine you ran a community of people with anorexia
| gathering to talk about treatments, solutions and review
| doctors. One facet of anorexia is body dysmorphia where
| the person sees themselves as very overweight even when
| dangerously underweight. The hateful person or troll can
| find someone on door's death and convince them that they
| are fat. Is it ethical? Not at all. But if worded by
| someone skilled at trolling, it can be done in a legal
| way. They can send that person image of fat people and
| tell them that they look the same. Another way they go
| through that is by undermining the authority of doctors
| and hinting towards false and often dangerous treatments.
| This kind of trolling will go on for weeks, even months.
| With people advocating strange concepts under a false
| account with a false profile photo. Some of them even
| staying undercover for so long that they manage to gain a
| high standing in those community only to then use the
| insider information they have gathered to nefarious
| purposes.
|
| Often, the trolls do not even hold a grudge or hate
| towards the targeted communities. To them, it is a game.
| Many are very young teens acting under the impression
| that they are great hackers for managing to infiltrate
| support networks and destroying them.
|
| We can all agree that those behaviors are not only
| hateful, they are dangerous and target the most
| vulnerable of individuals. Worst of all for the
| corporations running those websites, they result in huge
| exodus of users. One I can think of is a 40k strong
| Facebook group that moved to Discord due to the constant
| abuse their members received.
|
| Can Twitter decide to accept the behavior described
| above? Absolutely. It is a private entity. However this
| kind of "everything is allowed" at all cost mindset comes
| with a cost. Often, this cost is the migration of users
| to other platforms. What happened to Tumblr is a great
| example.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > It's not, and it shouldn't be, and you should be
| ashamed of even thinking it.
|
| I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for
| the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content
| within a community. Do you think LGBTQ spaces on reddit -
| for instance - should be prevented from banning users
| that compare them all to child molesters? Is that
| "censorship" that the OP should be ashamed of? Must all
| spaces be entirely laissez-faire about all user-generated
| content legal within the confines of the law? I do not
| think so.
|
| You may quibble with a segment of our population being
| derided as "groomers" as "not hate speech", but at the
| very least it is received as hate _ful_ by many. We 're
| not talking about legal statutes in this conversation,
| we're talking about community moderation.
|
| Frankly, I think you should be ashamed of your own
| comment. It was incredibly aggressive, presumptuous, and
| built on a straw-man argument.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| >I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for
| the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content
| within a community.
|
| This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the
| use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users
| _is_ censorship. I 've often found that Americans
| confused "censorship" with "violating the Constitution."
| Most of us are not given Constitution protections because
| we don't live in America. Further, the Constitution only
| covers some kinds of free speech, not all. Censorship is
| much more broad than the Constitution, and covers private
| companies censoring citizens.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| > This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging
| the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of
| users is censorship.
|
| You are using "censorship" as a big scary word when
| talking about generalities. I can't quite get a clear
| picture of what you actually believe. Come down to my
| level and talk specifics vs. generalities:
|
| 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating
| a content-specific space for user interaction should not
| have any right or ability to moderate the content?
|
| 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a
| space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle
| should have no ability to moderate that content?
|
| 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-
| generated conversation and content necessarily welcome
| all contributions? In other words, should everything
| goes, everywhere, in all communities where user
| interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point
| semantically?
|
| I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making
| but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Your argument for "spaces" and "communities" goes out the
| window when moderators of subreddits are forced to make
| sure their space adheres to what Reddit wants. That's not
| your space, it's Reddit's. No one is stopping subreddits
| from moderating how they want, the problem is when they
| are forced to moderate how Reddit wants. Furthermore,
| your "communities" and "spaces" are nothing more than an
| excuse to create echo chambers, which are not productive
| for free speech either, but that's just Reddit for you.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| Forgive me, but I'm copy-pasting my comment from
| elsewhere.
|
| ----
|
| I can't quite get a clear picture of what you actually
| believe. Come down to my level and talk specifics vs.
| generalities:
|
| 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating
| a content-specific space for user interaction should not
| have any right or ability to moderate the content?
|
| 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a
| space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle
| should have no ability to moderate that content?
|
| 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-
| generated conversation and content necessarily welcome
| all contributions? In other words, should everything
| goes, everywhere, in all communities where user
| interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point
| semantically?
|
| I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making
| but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.
| gitgud wrote:
| > _It is not other people 's responsibility to stay up to
| date on what may or may not be triggering you on any
| particular day._
|
| The internet moves fast now, if there's a growing trend
| of a slang-word to get around hate speech laws without
| actually breaking any, and everyone reacting to it
| understands it... then it's hate-speech right?
|
| "groomer" is only used in the context of hatred towards a
| particular group without technically violating any hate-
| laws. It's quickly becoming a way to say "fagg*t" without
| saying it...
| kjeksfjes wrote:
| I'm pretty sure banning words that people use to get
| around hate speech isn't a particularly good idea...
| gitgud wrote:
| It's just disturbing to me when comments using this
| hateful slang is promoted to the top of some posts on
| social media...
|
| I'm not sure what a good solution would be, as anything
| that interferes with the speech of others infringes free
| speech I guess...
| the_doctah wrote:
| We wouldn't have any words left to use if it was up to
| you I guess.
|
| And what "hate-laws" are you referring to, in regards to
| speech, that people are "getting around"? You do know
| Twitter TOS is not the actual law right?
| gitgud wrote:
| > _We wouldn 't have any words left to use if it was up
| to you I guess._
|
| Good point, that's a bit of an extreme though and
| context/intent does matter.
|
| > _And what "hate-laws" are you referring to, in regards
| to speech, that people are "getting around"? You do know
| Twitter TOS is not the actual law right?_
|
| True, I meant the Twitter TOS I guess. But Musk wants to
| model the TOS as anything within the confines of the law
| right?
| dillondoyle wrote:
| It is 100% hate speech to call all LGBTQ people groomers,
| to imply ones sexuality is because they were groomed.
|
| It's hateful and a disingenuous political argument to use
| that cast that term on anyone who objects to DeSantis'
| banning of discussions of LGBTQ topics. Which is why we
| are discussing this.
|
| Not knowing that is triggering is gross.
|
| If you have certain distasteful beliefs, at least have
| the respect not to say it in public.
|
| It's the same as racial epithets.
| the_doctah wrote:
| >It is 100% hate speech to call all LGBTQ people
| groomers, to imply ones sexuality is because they were
| groomed.
|
| Literally no one said this. Maybe you need to think about
| where you perceive this to be coming from.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| This isn't perception. it is the reality and factual that
| a large amount of people / politicians on the right are
| saying this exact slur. re their counter response to
| critique of FL and TX laws, and book bannings across the
| country.
|
| You should see the comments we get on FB. I run ads for
| political campaigns. It's insanely effective how much
| this has seeped into that electorate. And very very sad.
| [deleted]
| chrsw wrote:
| Well, it depends. I've never heard this term "groomer"
| before. I don't even understand the term but it sounds
| like there's a community or subculture out there that
| takes it very seriously. So, if I were in public spaces
| where people from that community where known to
| communicate with one another I would absolutely want to
| know if something I said was offensive or hateful. I
| would expect to have the issue brought to my attention if
| I inadvertantly said something problematic. I'm not
| trying to hurt anyone, I just want to talk with people. I
| don't feel like my free speech is being impinged upon
| either.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| We are talking about it because Republicans are using it
| as a slur in political arguments. There is strong
| pushback against DeSantis' Don't Say Gay Bil, there has
| been a mass banning of LGBTQ books in schools, and plenty
| of other attacks/laws on the community (mostly in just a
| couple states whose Govs are running for Pres...)
|
| The response of the proponents, which sadly seems
| politically effective, is to label anyone who objects to
| these laws groomers.
|
| Implying/whistling that queer people exist because they
| were groomed, e.g. sexual predator turned them gay.
|
| It is aimed at queer people.
|
| * And ironically those of us who are standing up against,
| you guessed it.... free speech. *
| iudqnolq wrote:
| The term originally referred to an adult gradually
| influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual
| abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching
| children progressive values, which I think is hateful.
|
| It's also generally used in extremely low signal
| comments. For example, a person might talk on Twitter
| about how they think teachers putting up posters saying
| they support gay students is helpful. They'd then get
| tens of replies with only the exact phrase "Ok groomer".
| the_doctah wrote:
| >The term originally referred to an adult gradually
| influencing a child to make them vulnerable to sexual
| abuse. Now it's commonly used to refer to teaching
| children progressive values, which I think is hateful.
|
| The problem is, you seem to be intentionally
| misconstruing the definition of the word "hateful" in
| order to categorize words you don't like as "hate
| speech".
|
| There is no other way that the thing you described meets
| any reasonable definition of "hate".
| iudqnolq wrote:
| Saying teaching a child progressive values is similar to
| teaching a child to be vulnerable to sexual abuse is
| accusing progressives of being like sexual abusers of
| children.
|
| That's hateful. (I deliberely didn't say hate speech)
| tiahura wrote:
| _teaching a child progressive values_
|
| We aren't talking about lectures extolling high marginal
| rates.
|
| Some parents object to exposing children to inappropriate
| sexual themes for the purpose of conditioning them to
| accept the same as normal, i.e. grooming.
| iudqnolq wrote:
| I wasn't talking about that. When that happens I find it
| alarming. I've yet to see the snide throwaway line "Ok
| Groomer" used in a case of actual child sexual abuse.
| pgcj_poster wrote:
| That is not generally occurring, and even it were, it
| would not qualify as "grooming." Grooming is when an
| adult tries to gain the trust of a child so that they can
| manipulate and eventually sexually assault them. If a
| teacher showed furry porn to kids in class to teach them
| that it's normal to be a furry, that would be extremely
| inappropriate, but it would _still_ not be grooming
| unless the teacher also planned to have sex with them.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| It does in the context we are talking about it.
|
| The only reason it's up for discussion is because it's
| being used as hate attack against queer communities and
| those standing up against censoring of teachers,
| students, and banning of books on lgbtq topics and
| gender.
| boplicity wrote:
| Hate speech is usually full of euphamisms, indirect
| language, and inference. It also often depends a lot of
| context.
|
| In the specific case of the use of "grooming," I can see
| how it is _not_ obvious that this is hate speech, but
| once you connect the dots, based on the context, it
| becomes quite obvious.
|
| For example, teaching books that feature any LGBTQ
| characters has been called "grooming." What is the usual
| definition of grooming? Preparing a child for sexual
| abuse, which is morally reprehensible -- a behavior that
| is, frankly, deserving of hate.
|
| However, when the only reason "grooming" is brought up is
| specifically because a book feature a gay character, we
| are expected to "hate" the "morally reprehensible." Why
| is it morally reprehensible (hateful), in this context?
| Certainly not because children are being groomed for
| sexual abuse. The only reason is that the gay character
| is in the book.
|
| Now, some people might think that presenting characters
| that are gay is morally reprehensible. They might think
| the same thing about featuring Black characters, Asians,
| Jews, or some other group. It's all hate speech. Even if
| it's not using the most blatantly obvious inflammatory
| language.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| on top of this, there is approved hate speech, you just
| have to use different words/dogwhistles like justice or
| privilege to activate it
| myko wrote:
| Could you share an example in a sentence? I'm having a
| difficult time seeing this as hate speech as written.
| fleddr wrote:
| Not sure what you're talking about because this kind of
| hate speech is very common on current day Twitter.
|
| The "grooming" remark typically coming from right-wing
| accounts is very common and as far as I can tell, not
| moderated. Likewise, left-wing "woke" accounts openly
| hating whites, men in general or white men specifically is
| also "just another tuesday".
| Sebb767 wrote:
| > This is different on a public platform like Twitter where
| everyone can see everything.
|
| Aren't subreddits public, too? You can also ping people;
| T_D famously enraged /u/spez enough for him to start
| editing the comments of other users. I don't think anyone
| argues that filter bubbles don't exist on Twitter, either.
| Now, Twitter groups aren't as clearly segregated as
| subreddits, but I still don't see visibility as a big
| differentiator, to be honest.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| They can be public but there are also private invitation-
| only subreddits. Often they have websites as a front to
| manage new users. Some use forms, other are managed
| through emails, Discord bots, etc.
|
| But even the public ones, usually they are so distant
| from each others that they might just as well be
| different websites.
|
| People interacting in a right-wing one will not encounter
| the posts of left-wing users unless they directly seek
| those posts and vice-versa. On Twitter, you could be
| scrolling your feed and see "The far left hates everyone,
| themselves included!". As a left-wing user, this could be
| distressing and put you off.
|
| Meanwhile on Reddit you would have to go out of your way
| to go on a specific subreddit. This lessen the impact of
| having people at different extremes of the political
| spectrum being together in the same platform. I think of
| it like a house. If I do not enjoy my uncle's political
| speech at Christmas, I can simply move to the living room
| and gather with people who share similar beliefs as me.
| However if I feel like having a debate, I can stay in the
| room where the uncle is and talk through our differences
| (similar to going on the "all" page or going directly on
| the subreddit of the opposite party). On twitter, it's a
| single large room.
| anonAndOn wrote:
| How much of the DAU do you think is bot driven? I suspect it's
| larger than a publicly traded stock company is willing to admit
| and that some of that cesspool rhetoric is Aktive Measures to
| provoke unrest. Perhaps taking Twitter private and removing the
| chorus of machines will actually make it a more pleasant
| experience. Content Mod is never easy but expunging the bot
| armies is a big first step.
| XorNot wrote:
| Bot removal is going to grind to a halt if it turns out that
| bots were also clicking on ads though.
|
| Researchers identify bots by anomalous clustering behavior -
| there's probably some human accounts in there, but bots
| follow bots because they're a quorum which is optimized for
| "followers" in order to try and lure in real human users.
|
| But AFAIK there's no data from Twitter (for obvious reasons)
| on whether suspected bot accounts have ad-revenue activity:
| and they _might_. If a crackdown happens the first defense
| mechanism will be for bot operators to add more human mimic
| activity.
|
| I suspect at the moment they probably don't - after all why
| do more work - though conversely this is the sort of thing I
| personally would implement if I was trying to stay ahead of
| anti-botting measures.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| >50% would be my guess
| XorNot wrote:
| > Twitter won't make enough money to service it's debt
|
| This isn't (necessarily) true. While _buying Twitter_ seems
| like a stupid investment if you want to make money, it 's
| financials[1] very obviously point to streamlining which would
| make the debt serviceable.
|
| In 2021 Twitter spent _USD$1.2 billion_ on "Research and
| Development". Think about number - when did Twitter actually
| substantially change the platform? In their financial report
| this is recorded as essentially all salaries, and is separate
| from their server/operational expenses and salaries.
|
| So right out the gate, the roughly $1 billion interest payments
| you take on buying it the way Musk is can be handled by
| essentially dropping that department which observably seems to
| have produced nothing Twitter _needs_ to operate (you can even
| keep 15% of it to have some R &D). Stories like this tend to
| support the idea that their R&D is a drag and should go:
| https://twitter.com/n8agrin/status/1518860754757189632?s=21&...
|
| Now, all that being the case - it's still a bad purchase,
| because every single one of their user acquisition graphs show
| that Twitter is very near saturation - their user growth has
| been slowing in a conventional looking sigmoid curve where
| they've probably hit the maximum market size. This is not a
| company you'd want to buy, because the purchase price doesn't
| justify any reasonable expectation of future growth (Twitter's
| 30 million US users are pretty much all they'll ever have).
|
| Except: it's probably not a bad purchase if you happen to own a
| _vastly_ overvalued car company which represents a huge amount
| of on paper wealth, and would like to liquidate that _somehow_.
| And this is (I suspect) Musk 's actual goal - or part of it.
| Twitter is well-established and not going anywhere - I'm
| embedding tweet's in this very post! It's just not growing. But
| if Musk were want to sell say, 40 billion of Tesla stock, the
| likely outcome would be that it would turn out to be worth half
| or less of that number and the valuation would collapse.
| Whereas using Tesla stock to buy Twitter - key to supporting
| Tesla's valuation anyway via it's memestock status (price goes
| up based on him, personally, tweeting about stuff).
|
| Using Tesla stock to buy Twitter doesn't look like you're
| selling out of Tesla because you think it's overvalued, it
| looks like a crazy billionaire buying Twitter so he can keep
| posting and "oh lol how funny". But buying Twitter, saying
| you'll "fix Twitter" (which you can - firing a 1000 people
| suddenly means other then the debt, Twitter looks profitable
| now) - and then liquidating your stake in Twitter, let's you
| cash out without necessarily burning Tesla (as it is, Tesla
| holders are concerned anyway - acting/being crazy has its own
| drawbacks).
|
| tl;dr Musk tends to look crazy, and might _be_ crazy but his
| actions have plenty of rational underpinnings.
|
| [1] https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-
| information/annual...
| polski-g wrote:
| Twitter has 7500 employees. There have been no major changes
| in the UI or functionality since its original release over a
| decade ago. What exactly are those people doing? You could
| cut 7000 of them and nothing would change.
| kranke155 wrote:
| Musk's idea of "anything that is legal" is a terrible idea, it
| comes from someone who's clearly never moderated a community.
|
| Generally any unpleasantness and lack of civility needs to be
| moderated out in some extent, or the platform gets completely
| taken over by trolls and normal people leave. That's just the
| end result. Anyone who's been involved in online communities
| know this.
|
| I see this in subreddits. The subreddit of my own country is
| poorly moderated and virulent in trolling and insults. But you
| look at something like AskHistorians and you see academic level
| content. NeutralPolitics is the only politics subreddit that
| isnt instantly toxic. Why? Moderation and rules.
|
| It's astonishing how far you can move the content with
| moderation.
|
| A rule I've learnt recently and really loved is - every
| community can be judged quickly by how comfortable women are in
| it. The first sign of lack of moderation is male sexual
| harassment - because that's the first thing male assholes do.
| You have to deal with the assholes. Assholes exist and are
| relatively common. If you allow assholes, women leave, and when
| women leave, you can tell something went wrong.
| toolz wrote:
| There's an extremely wide chasm between moderating trolls and
| banning subject experts and even the former president of the
| USA. It really doesn't matter what you or I think of the
| president, he was a democratically elected leader of
| arguably, the most influential nation in the world.
|
| Musk claims to be all about freedom of speech. Moderation and
| freedom of speech are not antithetical to one another. You
| can downrank or make trolls more convenient to block and not
| stifle their ability to say something. If you solve the bot
| problem you make a lot of other moderation problems much
| easier to solve.
|
| Essentially my point is that we don't know what Musk will do,
| exactly, and any speculation proposed as an understood fact
| is simply spreading FUD and it makes me question (not a
| strong concern, mind you, but a concern none-the-less) if
| your concerns are sincere or if you have an agenda.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| > At really doesn't matter what you or I think of the
| president, he was a democratically elected leader of
| arguably, the most influential nation in the world.
|
| And a beautiful thing about America is that we can build
| systems and institutions here where even the most powerful
| person in the world can be excluded for inappropriate
| behavior.
| toolz wrote:
| Wholehearted agree that it's beautiful that twitter has
| the freedom to ban anyone, including the president. I
| disagree with the ban, but I don't really care what
| social media platforms do at all, to be frank. Musk
| buying twitter or banning everyone from twitter has
| little impact on my life.
| saxonww wrote:
| > he was a democratically elected leader of arguably, the
| most influential nation in the world
|
| This aspect of the discussion around Twitter constantly
| baffles me. They have no obligation to offer service to
| anyone, and they have no obligation to ensure freedom of
| speech, balanced representation, or any other thing you can
| think of that would ensure everyone gets a voice.
|
| General, universal freedom of speech in the US is not a
| right we have. We are protected via the 1st and 14th
| amendments from Federal or State governments (respectively)
| passing laws restricting our speech, which is not the same
| thing. Even with those amendments, some speech is
| restricted (hate speech, etc.). There's _nothing_
| preventing Twitter from moderating someone off its
| platform.
| toolz wrote:
| You've misunderstood me. I don't believe twitter has an
| obligation to be a platform for free speech. You're
| arguing against points I never made which makes me
| believe you may be misunderstanding other arguments as
| well.
|
| Musk wants twitter to be a platform for free speech, that
| does not mean he or anyone else is legally obligated (or
| in my opinion even morally obligated) to make their
| platform a place for free speech.
| saxonww wrote:
| The way you wrote your reply certainly read to me like
| you believe Twitter should act as if it has that
| obligation.
|
| You start by drawing a line between moderation and what
| Twitter has done, which is ban the former President. You
| then point out that he was democratically elected and
| that the US is influential, neither of which are relevant
| to the discussion but are often brought up as reasons why
| it's astonishing he was banned (with the implication
| being that he should not have been).
|
| You continue by stating again that moderation and freedom
| of speech don't have to be at odds, and describe a
| scenario where accounts you would normally just ban can
| continue to post, instead.
|
| You then finish by suggesting that another commenter may
| have an agenda, when they were pointing out the need for
| moderation.
|
| So. I am definitely open to the idea that I just don't
| understand what you're trying to say, or even that I
| don't understand what anyone is trying to say. If it's
| the former, perhaps you can help me by restating your
| concerns more clearly. If it's the latter, I suppose
| there's no helping me and you can just ignore this reply.
| slibhb wrote:
| Is the first amendment a good thing? If so, why? Does the
| reason you come up with magically not apply to twitter?
| Of course it applies.
|
| Twitter is not legally obligated to allow free speech but
| there are other reasons to do something than legal
| obligation.
| saxonww wrote:
| In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the
| amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested
| or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind,
| disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with
| like-minded people.
|
| I don't agree that this should be _expected_ or
| _required_ of businesses, because the dangers and
| incentives are different. Twitter is not going to have
| you arrested or killed for criticizing Twitter.
|
| I agree that it's reasonable for Twitter to try and get
| as many users onto its platform as possible, because that
| earns them more money (I guess?), but if they are faced
| with having to choose between two groups of users to
| support, and they like one group better than the other,
| they should be able to choose to withhold service from
| the other group to keep the first. Even if it means a
| group of users loses the ability to speak via Twitter.
| slibhb wrote:
| > In short: yes, it's a good thing. As written, the
| amendment is designed to prevent me from being arrested
| or killed by the Federal Government for speaking my mind,
| disseminating my thoughts on paper, or congregating with
| like-minded people.
|
| You didn't say _why_. You restated the law. There are all
| kinds of arguments for free speech. I 'll quote Mill:
|
| > First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that
| opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To
| deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly,
| though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very
| commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the
| general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or
| never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of
| adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any
| chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received
| opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it
| is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and
| earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who
| receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with
| little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
| And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the
| doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or
| enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the
| character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal
| profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the
| ground, and preventing the growth of any real and
| heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
|
| That has nothing to do with _required_ and there 's no
| mention of a government, federal or not. _People should
| be allowed to say what they think_. That used to be a
| bedrock of American culture and I continue to find it sad
| that we 're living through its recession.
| [deleted]
| saxonww wrote:
| _Why_ is that the American colonists were very familiar
| with life in contemporary England, which had recently had
| a civil war over (among other things) religious freedom;
| the Pilgrims were mostly people who had fled England
| because of religious persecution. I believe you were
| risking a charge of treason to run your mouth about the
| King or members of the royal family. I guess I just
| assumed that the framers wanted to try and design a
| government where that wouldn't easily happen.
|
| Come on now. It is clear what you believe, and it's fine
| that you believe it. I'm just personally tired of reading
| people whack Twitter, Facebook, etc. with a stick that
| doesn't exist. When we pass laws or ratify amendments
| requiring the Twitters of the world to platform everyone,
| the people crying about free speech on Twitter will have
| a legitimate gripe. Until then, they just won't.
| slibhb wrote:
| Your inability to come up with a solid reason why free
| speech is good is very telling. You don't think it's
| good!
|
| And I'm tired of reading comments written by people
| trapped in a legalistic fiction where the only thing that
| people are obligated to do is follow the law.
| saxonww wrote:
| How is it legalistic fiction? What are people _obligated_
| to do, that is not required by law? I hope you 're not
| talking about stuff like breathing. I'll also say that I
| haven't been thinking about morals, which I would agree
| cause people to _feel_ obligated to do things that they
| aren 't legally required to do.
|
| Also, what is a "solid" reason? Is it just a reason you
| agree with? Does it have to be a purely original reason
| no one has uttered before? What was the right answer, so
| I know for next time?
|
| I'll remind you that you specifically asked whether I
| thought the 1st amendment was "good." I answered that,
| but you didn't like my answer, so you asked me _why_
| while pivoting to free speech in general (which I 've
| already asserted I don't believe is granted by the 1st
| amendment). Then, when I provided a _why_ to the original
| answer, you followed up with this. You 've moved the
| goalposts, basically dismissed my answers as not good
| enough, and now you just want to I guess unmask me as
| some sort of anti-speech person.
| XorNot wrote:
| Can Twitter collect taxes from you, send you to prison,
| or - depending on state - have you executed?
| kranke155 wrote:
| 1st amendment does not apply to private companies in my
| understanding.
| krapp wrote:
| >It really doesn't matter what you or I think of the
| president, he was a democratically elected leader of
| arguably, the most influential nation in the world.
|
| The United States is not a monarchy, theocracy or
| autocracy. The President of the United States is a citizen
| like any other, with rights equal to any other. Being "a
| democratically elected leader of arguably, the most
| influential nation in the world" does not entitle one to a
| Twitter account, or to carte-blanche rights to endanger and
| undermine the legitimacy of the peaceful transfer of power
| of one's own nation, which is _why Trump was banned in the
| first place._ Not because of his beliefs, or his political
| views or because of some radical globalist agenda, but
| because people were legitimately afraid he was going to
| trigger a civil war.
|
| The President having to play by the same rules as everyone
| else, even to the degree that he can be banned from social
| media like anyone else (even though Trump was still given
| far more leeway than most people,) is a feature of American
| democracy, not a bug.
| toolz wrote:
| This is just silly, do you know which tweets twitter
| cited as reason for Trumps ban?
|
| > "The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for
| me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will
| have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be
| disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or
| form!!!"
|
| and
|
| > "To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to
| the Inauguration on January 20th."
|
| https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspen
| sio...
|
| Now let's contrast that to a politician tweeting just a
| few days ago that isn't banned (and likely won't be
| banned)
|
| https://twitter.com/LoriLightfoot/status/1523844510735908
| 864
|
| > To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community--the Supreme
| Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call
| to arms.
|
| > We will not surrender our rights without a fight--a
| fight to victory!
|
| and believe me, I wouldn't have to look hard at all to
| find much worse examples of things that could be
| interpreted as calls to violence from heads of states.
| saxonww wrote:
| The big difference being that Trump's two tweets came 2
| days after an actual large scale violent event at the
| Capitol, where it was essentially invaded and trashed by
| a large mob almost certainly comprised of the same people
| Trump was speaking to via his tweets. Trump also was
| arguably the most powerful person in the entire world, at
| the time.
|
| The LGBTQ tweet is from the Mayor of Chicago. An
| important person to be sure, but at ~150k followers, does
| not have nearly the reach as Trump did (~88M followers at
| the time). And I don't really know what to tell you about
| the tweet content; I can read that and realize she's not
| actually advocating for armed violence, and more
| importantly, I don't believe the people she's speaking to
| would interpret her tweet that way.
|
| I know for a fact the people Trump was speaking to have
| interpreted things that way, because a lot of them showed
| up and trashed the Capitol on January 6th.
| munificent wrote:
| _> A rule I've learnt recently and really loved is - every
| community can be judged quickly by how comfortable women are
| in it._
|
| I've thought about this rule for many years. It applies
| equally well to offline real-world communities.
| GaylordTuring wrote:
| I would be careful using this rule. Women are, in general,
| most uncomfortable around weak/strange (but totally
| harmless) men.
|
| Bring your average woman to a Richard Stallman meet-up and
| then to a UFC match and ask her which setting she found
| most uncomfortable. I can guarantee you that Richard
| picking his own nose in a room full of sweaty needs will be
| more disturbing to her than being close to thousands of
| jacked-up men cheering while two combatants almost kill
| each other.
| glouwbug wrote:
| Aren't you just exemplifying basic laws of attraction?
| Our lizard brains want to pair with the strong, even if
| the modern day equivalent of strong is a good paycheck
| and a maxed out Roth and 401k
| munificent wrote:
| Note that I was describing communities and not
| individuals. Some properties get fuzzy when you scale
| down.
|
| But, also, I have faith that most women have a _very_
| good intuition about which strange awkward men are
| harmless and which are not. If you 're not a women or
| haven't talked to many of them about this, it's hard to
| really internalize how profoundly important it is for
| women to be able to make those calls correctly many many
| times throughout their lives.
| kranke155 wrote:
| If programmers are nice to her she won't be
| uncomfortable.
|
| Lots of women will feel uncomfortable at a UFC fight.
| We're talking about communities, not some random event.
|
| You just sound too red pilled to understand so.
| wussboy wrote:
| Unfettered free speech is evolutionarily new to humans. Is it
| any wonder we don't handle it well?
| cwp wrote:
| I think the only real way to do content moderation is to
| delegate it to users. Let people create something like a
| subreddit, and then be in charge of content policy for it.
| Different communities can have different standards, and kicking
| people out of a given community doesn't ban them from Twitter
| entirely. There's even some informal version of this already as
| you can see with the "this part of Twitter" meme.
| mywittyname wrote:
| It's ridiculously easy to get banned from some subreddits for
| saying truthful things. And if leftist groups make a land-
| grab to secure the popular sectors of this new twitter-verse
| (read: the portions the news will report on), then Musk is
| going to look very silly.
| w-j-w wrote:
| emodendroket wrote:
| > I also think the proposal to have Twitter allow all content
| that is "legal under US law" is a dangerous idea for the
| platform being a healthy community that most people actually
| want to participate in. Content moderation debates have never
| been so ham-fisted as they are online so I won't try here,
| suffice to say there's some pretty horrible, disgusting things
| that are "legal under US law" (and as a content moderator, I've
| seen them all). If Twitter allows people to do them, it will
| make it difficult for Twitter to maintain a healthy community,
| and the platform could quickly devolve into a scarychan-style
| sewer that only the craziest people on the internet will want
| to dwell in. To say nothing about whether advertisers will
| tolerate some of it, or even Apple's app store.
|
| Yeah, I feel like this theory has been repeatedly tested.
| Anybody remember when Voat was going to overtake Reddit? Turns
| out people actually don't want to read a forum for people who
| were so noxious Reddit was embarrassed into banning them.
| shrimpx wrote:
| Does this deal have a serious chance of going through? My
| estimate, based on the direction of Tesla stock, is this deal
| will not go through.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Seems unclear whether Musk actually wants it to go through,
| doesn't it?
|
| The presidency didn't fix Trump's relationship with his
| deceased father, and whatever ails Musk won't be fixed by
| purchasing Twitter and having to deal with all of the
| attendant headaches.
|
| And it will distract him from Tesla and SpaceX. SpaceX can
| probably get along without him; Tesla clearly cannot.
| outworlder wrote:
| I don't think he wants the deal to go through.
|
| Unclear what the end-game is. But paying 3x the annual NASA
| budget for a social media app is clearly too much. Users
| have value, but it's too inflated.
|
| If he broke the contract (and lost one billion), added
| another billion to create a new social media
| platform(that's quite the funding!) that measured up to his
| standards, spent an additional 6 billion dollars in
| advertising in the US (putting him in the number one ad
| spend - ahead of Comcast), it would still be a bargain.
| Heck, he could _pay_ for people to switch from Twitter to
| his platform and still be ahead.
|
| Why bother? Torpedoing Twitter (by blaming the deal going
| south on them not wanting 'free speech') could energize his
| supporters - and people in the sidelines - enough to switch
| away from the sinking ship. And he also gets to sell TSLA
| shares high (ostensibly to finance the deal) and rebuy low.
| So, win-win?
|
| If the deal actually goes through, he gets the users, but
| he also gets a huge mess that he has to clean up.
| nomel wrote:
| > which frankly has never worked very well for me anyways. >
| The fact that they're doing a leadership purge right now is not
| helping my opinion on this.
|
| These two things don't seem compatible to me. The leadership
| created/perpetuated the twitter that didn't work well for you,
| so getting new leadership seems like a potential positive.
| ed_elliott_asc wrote:
| Just delete your account, I got rid of mine a few weeks ago -
| can't think of anything I miss tbh
| Pxtl wrote:
| Realistically, I'll go where the conversation is happening. I
| mostly use Twitter to follow municipal politics and YIMBY
| activists in my city and province.
|
| I also follow a bunch of artists and creatives see their work.
|
| So I'll stay as long as that continues.
|
| But a shitload of those creatives I follow are trans. More, now
| that a lot of them took the dead times of COVID shutdowns as an
| opportunity to transition in private. And if Twitter abandons
| its policy of blocking users that engage in hate-speech, I
| think a lot of those trans artists will be exiting the
| platform.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| Tangential question: who all previously had a Twitter account,
| abandoned it, then came back when Elon Musk announced he was
| buying it?
| smm11 wrote:
| Is Tumblr still a thing?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| it is and its kinda coming back. alot of genz are opening
| accounts there.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Am I just getting old or is Twitter just always been a shitty
| format? I never got the appeal and still do not.
| draw_down wrote:
| kringo wrote:
| And keeps himself? Didn't he hire or was responsible for hiring
| these two?
| haoc wrote:
| Getting fired during paternity leave, sounds brutal.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| Twitter's consumer product team is truly awful and have just made
| the product more and more miserable to use, so I don't cry too
| much about the change in leadership.
|
| Having said that, firing someone on paternity leave is terrible
| and would be rightly illegal in many countries.
| criley2 wrote:
| Firing someone for being on paternity leave is definitely
| illegal in most places, but laying off executives and high
| level business folks before a transition at the top isn't
| illegal. I wonder if being on paternity leave is a "get out of
| layoffs free" card where you simply cannot be laid off with
| others while you're out.
| spiderice wrote:
| My wife was on maternity leave when Covid layoffs happened at
| her company. She didn't get laid off. But at the time we both
| looked at each other and wondered "did we just get saved by
| maternity leave?"
|
| She is great at her job so we have no reason to think she
| would have otherwise been laid off. But plenty of people who
| were great at their jobs got laid off due to Covid. So it's
| hard not to wonder.
| atonse wrote:
| I haven't seen claims anywhere that he was fired FOR being on
| paternity leave.
|
| It's that he was fired when he happened to be on paternity
| leave.
|
| But at the end of the day, isn't it another form of paid
| leave?
|
| So if he was paid out in advance for that time off would that
| fulfill the company's obligations?
|
| Genuinely asking, I am neutral on this since I don't know the
| intents involved.
| YSoManyRaptors wrote:
| I mean, what do you expect from the United States, one of the
| only countries in the UN that doesn't require employers to have
| paid parental leave.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Ridiculous claim. Here is some actual information
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2018/06/14/6196042.
| ..
| asojfdowgh wrote:
| I'd strongly disagree just because of periscope alone, putting
| twitter at the forefront of citizen powered news, like
| livestream before it.
|
| if your boss or board wants numbers, no product will ever end
| up good, no matter the people in the product teem
| weego wrote:
| Twitter is an engineering for the sake of it company.
|
| Pair that with their actual consumer product being a chaotic
| scattergun of failed sub-projects, terrible client UI
| relaunches and the apparent inability to ship anything
| meaningful given years of time and resources and frankly if I
| was a large enough investor I'd have been wanting wholesale
| firings and reorganisation years ago.
| nullc wrote:
| > firing someone on paternity leave is terrible
|
| If he was paid through it, which I would assume-- any kind of
| senior dismissal will come with months of severance, what would
| the problem be?
| runjake wrote:
| > what would the problem be?
|
| Well, for one: PR at a critical time, obviously.
|
| And, general employee morale.
| pastaguy1 wrote:
| The problem is, if they decided they wanted to move on,
| when would it be "appropriate" "PR-wise"? After he comes
| back? A few weeks after? They all seem like bad options.
| runjake wrote:
| I don't know. That's why I'm not in PR.
|
| I'm a systems guy. I'm into straight up logic. Emotional
| intelligence scares and confuses me.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| We have no information on what his severance package is. It
| would be hard to cry Foul Play if they receive a giant golden
| parachute
| e_commerce wrote:
| nickdothutton wrote:
| It is normal to ask the outgoing management to clean house before
| the new management moves in. Often a condition of any severance
| payment.
| Operyl wrote:
| I can't help but wonder if this is to ensure he gets a good
| severance package before Musk comes in and cleans house? I can
| only hope, but it doesn't seem likely based on tone :(.
| runjake wrote:
| You could simply read the linked URL where it doesn't sound
| like it was a good firing?
| Operyl wrote:
| I did say "but it doesn't seem likely based on tone".
| Railsify wrote:
| Good, Twitter has problems worthy of firing people over and in
| all cases it's ultimately executives that are responsible for all
| problems, so it makes sense that even if they don't publicly
| enumerate the specific events that led to the firing, these
| executives most certainly deserved to be fired.
| kadenwolff wrote:
| Interesting that he co-founded Periscope and they also just
| removed any mention of Periscope from their TOS. Maybe just an
| artifact of them considering removing him, or it has no meaning.
| Just found the timing notable.
| peppertree wrote:
| Periscope was one the main reasons they killed Vine.
| newsclues wrote:
| Funny that Vine was essentially TikTok and they killed it.
| HaZeust wrote:
| TL;DR: The world wasn't ready to monetize and mass-produce
| short clips at Vine's time.
| natly wrote:
| That makes no sense to me, they're completely different
| products. (Periscope is about livestreaming vine was short
| clips.)
| peppertree wrote:
| Beykpour convinced the board live video was the future.
| Vine founder left so no one was around to defend Vine.
| paulpauper wrote:
| What if this is just a huge PR stunt on elon's part to get more
| followers and engagement for his own brand, without having to
| actually buy twitter?
| outworlder wrote:
| It likely is.
|
| Don't be surprised if a new company emerges though. There's
| always some truth behind what he does - even though it doesn't
| necessarily aligns with what he says.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Literally head of product at Twitter, and still not enough clout
| to have paternity leave respected.
| encoderer wrote:
| It's sort of the opposite.
|
| A low level IC would not be called while on leave to be fired.
| But when the company needs a change of excecutive leadership,
| they aren't going to wait _months_ because you had a baby. I'm
| sure he's being paid through the end of his leave period and
| besides is compensated in the millions.
| firstSpeaker wrote:
| Yep, that is how it is. People are fired when they are on
| parental leave only if they are high enough in the ladder
| that matters.
| [deleted]
| oh_sigh wrote:
| What's wrong with firing someone on paternity leave? It's not
| like he was fired _because_ he was on paternity leave.
| justinator wrote:
| Maybe they would like to focus on their newborn, their wife,
| the new family dynamic - you know: important things - and not
| some stupid web app - which is what I would assume, since
| they're on maternity leave in the first place.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Would it be better if he was fired the day he came back
| into the office?
| Domenic_S wrote:
| Good news then - he doesn't have to focus on some stupid
| web app anymore! And lord knows he's not worried about
| providing for his family.
| justinator wrote:
| And all without agency over the decision!
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Does anyone ever have 100% agency in a decision when
| there are multiple mutually consenting parties involved?
| justinator wrote:
| I absolutely agree. I don't care what the work email is - even
| if it's "hey you're fired". You're making them work while he's
| on _leave_. The guy is tweeting all these bullshit, empty "my
| incredible journey" tweets for Twitter damage control.
|
| Absolutely toxic workplace.
| jjmorrison wrote:
| He's still doing his paternity leave and will be paid through
| it. Company just needs to get going on hiring someone else in
| the job.
| nashashmi wrote:
| Related: Twitter diff check on terms of service. Lots of removal
| of periscope language in the tos.
| bogomipz wrote:
| While trying to read the Head of Consumer Product's exit Twitter
| post which was split across 8 or 9 separate Tweets, I was
| prevented from reading them by the login wall pop up. For me this
| sums up a lot about the state of the product.
| thunkshift1 wrote:
| Parags role has changed from ceo to hatchet man
| dpeck wrote:
| Letting people go while they're on maternity or paternity leave
| us not cool.
| bobro wrote:
| what should they have done? waited til he returned? they very
| likely are giving him a severance, so why wait?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| yes, they should have waited... paternity leave isn't
| vacation, it's leave you're taking because you're living in
| stressful conditions that make it hard to get things done
|
| that said, in this case this guy's likely a millionaire so
| it's less of a big deal... kind of rude though
| passivate wrote:
| What difficulties do you think a highly-paid exec is going to
| face?
| jasonhansel wrote:
| Yeah, it sends a pretty clear message discouraging other execs
| and high-level employees from taking parental leave.
| schnebbau wrote:
| Don't worry, he'll be getting a severance larger than you can
| ever imagine.
| mypalmike wrote:
| The severance is on top of the $20M worth of TWTR stock he
| already holds, according to public records. Plus whatever
| other assets he holds, which I would presume to be not
| insubstantial. I think he'll be OK.
| shadowmatter wrote:
| Yeah, but it's the rank and file employees who will now think
| "I'm not there to defend myself against being fired if I take
| maternity/paternity leave" who will suffer most. The ones who
| won't be getting a severance larger than you can ever
| imagine.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _Yeah, but it 's the rank and file employees who will now
| think "I'm not there to defend myself against being fired
| if I take maternity/paternity leave"_
|
| If an executive is gunning for a rank and file employee,
| there is no defending yourself except through wrongful
| termination lawsuits, etc. Being sat in the office when it
| happens won't help you save your job from an executive that
| wants you gone.
| kosyblysk666 wrote:
| good
| minimaxir wrote:
| > I'm just now learning that Parag fired Kayvon while he was on
| paternity leave, which is truly awful.
|
| > Parag is on his way out too. Why is he firing his product
| leaders during his lame-duck period?
|
| https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1524790595968901122
| knorker wrote:
| If parental leave should legally be counted as "working" (which
| it is, in many jurisdictions), with pay increase, bonus and
| promotions being based on virtual work, then why shouldn't
| firing be just fine too?
|
| Obviously not fire in any way related to parental leave, but if
| it's to be counted as work then it should be consistent.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| 100% agree. I think it's bizarre that folks think there is
| some kind of moratorium on getting laid off or fired if
| you're on leave, especially since Twitter offers 5 months of
| paternity leave. So everyone that is _not_ on leave is at
| risk, but everyone that 's on leave is magically protected?
|
| You can't, and shouldn't, be fired for taking leave, bit
| obviously there are a million and 1 reasons for there to be
| changes in Twitter's exec leadership given what's happened
| over the past month.
| [deleted]
| RektBoy wrote:
| ar_lan wrote:
| We get it, you hate America. Just don't come here, we'll be
| fine without you. :)
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Fairly specific anti-American jibe gets translated into
| "you hate America".
|
| Seems you could do with a little more George Carlin in your
| system. He fucking loved America....apart from the shitty
| bits that the rest of the world agrees with him about.
| ar_lan wrote:
| It's so lazy to hate America with a jab that is literally
| not true. If I get fired for going on paternity leave,
| I'm suing my company, and I will win - even in cRaZy
| America.
| LightG wrote:
| DannyBee wrote:
| Firing for someone for taking leave is definitely illegal.
| Firing them for unrelated reasons while on leave is not. This
| is true even in very progressive places like california.
| [deleted]
| bradlys wrote:
| Firing while on paternity leave isn't really that bad as long
| as they give you severance to cover paternity leave plus some
| extra - which I'm guessing they did since severance packages
| for higher ups tend to be pretty good. (As compared to no
| severance or two weeks that many ICs get)
| rcoder wrote:
| I strongly disagree. Firing someone while they're on leave
| sends a direct signal to anyone else considering taking
| leave: "watch out, you won't be able to defend yourself if
| you aren't here."
|
| ICs follow the lead that executives set. A chilling effect
| like this will cause folks who most _need_ the leave --
| single parents, people with family in need of care, or those
| struggling with their own health issues -- to second-guess
| their choice, while those who can just walk away w/o any real
| risk can go ahead and try taking time away.
|
| It also puts the lie to the idea that employer-subsidized
| leave beyond the federally-protected time window is an
| entitlement rather than an easily-canceled perk. We all know
| that rationally, but a BigCo obviously exploiting that trust
| is a good reminder that the company (any company) is not
| there to help you, they are not your family, and you have to
| be ready for this kind of "switcharoo" whenever the numbers
| (or politics) justify it.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Totally disagree, primarily because Twitter offers nearly
| _5 months_ of paternity leave. I don 't know when the
| Twitter's Head of Product originally left for paternity
| leave, but if it was a couple months ago, obviously the
| world has changed under Twitter's feet in that time.
|
| A business can't just stop because someone is on leave. I
| would expect them to be treated fairly, and the same _as if
| they were not on leave_ when it comes to personnel
| decisions. What would not be fair, to both the employee and
| all of their colleagues, is to say that when someone goes
| on leave that there is a moratorium on any changes to their
| status for 5 months.
| jaywalk wrote:
| From looking at his tweets, he left just over a month
| ago. So if he had four months left in his leave, it would
| have been absolutely unreasonable to wait that long.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The ENTIRE point of parental leave benefit is to ensure
| that your employment status doesn't change while you are
| using it. The business doesn't have to stop in it's
| tracks, but the legal expectation is generally that you
| will come back to the same job you left.
|
| This sends a horrifying message to employees.
| jaywalk wrote:
| > The ENTIRE point of parental leave benefit is to ensure
| that your employment status doesn't change while you are
| using it.
|
| That's strange, I always thought that the point of it was
| to allow parents to spend much needed time with their
| newborn child.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Anyone can get that time with their child by quitting
| their job.
|
| The 'benefit' part is that you get your job back after a
| few months.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| No, the "benefit" part is that you get full salary and
| benefits while you're not working.
| ze9epp4g5dto8su wrote:
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| So if the company has widespread layoffs (not saying
| that's what happened in this case), then anyone on
| paternal/maternal leave is automatically immune?
|
| > This sends a horrifying message to employees.
|
| Yeah, as someone without kids, your proposal certainly
| sends a horrifying message to me.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| It's not a proposal. It's how the law works. If there are
| layoffs, then yes you can lose your job on parental
| leave, technically as long as the elimination of your
| position is unrelated to taking leave. I'm not saying
| that there is no way to do it. I'm saying that it's a
| dumb thing to do.
|
| The message should be just as horrifying whether or not
| you have kids. The message is: "We made a commitment
| about your terms of employment. We are willing to break
| that promise openly and publicly with one of our leaders.
| Do you think we won't do it to you?"
|
| Anyone at twitter right now should see this as a red flag
| at a time when everything is in flux.
|
| Management is in chaos in the middle of a politically
| contentious buyout, and doing things like firing people
| on parental leave that will necessarily read badly in the
| press.
|
| If I were at twitter right now I would be getting
| everything in writing, and lining up a new job that
| starts the day my RSUs go liquid.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| You have very odd ideas about what this "commitment about
| your terms of employment" is.
|
| Yes, its true, legally you can not, and should not, be
| penalized for taking parental leave (a point I made in my
| original post). At the same time, you should not get some
| guarantee that because you are on leave you can't be
| treated the same as if you were working.
|
| If this guy would have been fired had he been working, a
| parental leave doesn't act like some sort of "get out of
| jail free" card.
| rmk wrote:
| If you are being fired, you generally do not "defend"
| yourself. Also, people at this level are very well-
| compensated, and the comp generally prices in the risk of
| things like this. Whether you are on leave or not scarcely
| matters unless you can show that you are fired because you
| are a parent (and that's an employment law issue).
|
| It is my experience that people taking time off to be
| parents also take time off from the machinations that will
| lead getting promoted (at certain levels), thus hampering
| their advancement, but they are usually not fired, in tech
| anyway. Now the treatment of women, who already get a
| pretty bad deal even if they aren't mothers, is another
| matter altogether...
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I mean, it's still getting fired heading into a recession
| shortly after having a kid.
| rchaud wrote:
| His stock options have probably been in the black for
| years.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| I mean, he apparently sold $1.5M worth of Twitter stock
| last week, and is estimated to hold (based on some super
| basic internet research) ~500k more shares, which is ~$25M
| in stock[0].
|
| I think he'll be able to weather the financial impact of a
| recession and having a kid.
|
| [0] Note that this is Twitter only, and wouldn't include
| any other form of diversified holdings.
| bradlys wrote:
| He's very high up. He's not going to be suffering like the
| serfs below him. I've seen many let go with no severance or
| two weeks in a worse recession - including those who don't
| have a 8+ figure NW...
|
| Don't be fooled - the guy is quite rich.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| This my feeling as well. Maybe I'm thinking too logically
| about all this:
|
| A) spend paternity leave enjoying your newborn, but in the
| second half gearing up and remotivating to go back to work,
| getting back to work and being let go with a "we didn't want
| to dismiss you while you were gone, thanks for coming back,
| here's the door"
|
| vs
|
| B) you're on paternity leave and the company lets you go, but
| still your leave is fulfilled (I.e you get the payout and
| time off). Now, instead of investing energy on the return to
| work, you can just move on with a "best to quit while your
| having fun" attitude.
|
| I fully support paternal leave. As a father of four who
| despairs at a fatherless world around me, anything we can do
| to strengthen fathers (and equally mothers) is a great thing.
|
| But there is a sad reality to extended leaves as well. We
| hire people with 6 month probationary periods, but rarely are
| people filtered by this. But I have been in meetings where a
| person on extended leave (medical, parental, whatever) and it
| becomes group apparent that the individual hasn't been missed
| for a variety of reasons, and the consensus emerges that this
| "individual not being here" is actually a net win for the
| company and its aspirations. Do we know that that's not what
| happened in this case?
|
| Remember, "My Job" is an oxymoron.
| rleahy22 wrote:
| I feel like you're missing the part of scenario B where you
| have to take time away from your newborn to find a new job.
| SamBam wrote:
| When you have a few tens of millions to your name, you
| can probably do that part at your leisure...
| Hallucinaut wrote:
| It's strictly better though in terms of being able to
| budget time in the conditions GP posted as the net "last
| pay day" remains the same.
|
| Psychological effects notwithstanding
| travisgriggs wrote:
| I feel like you're missing the part where I said I was
| father of four. I failed to mention I recently helped my
| oldest with newborn twins (if you're thinking 2 is twice
| is hard as one, you're wrong, it's more like 4x).
|
| I've accrued some experience with newborns. It's a very
| tired time at times. It's a time of wonderment.
| Especially with your first, it's surreal, after 2 weeks
| you can barely remember "what was life like before this
| again?" But despite its otherworldliness, it's also a lot
| of downtime. It's different than normal downtime, because
| you're tied to this growing little life, but it's there.
| And I did indicate that it is in the latter half where
| having this project to work on would be ideal. Guess
| that's just me and apologies if that seems insensitive.
| It worked for me.
| paxys wrote:
| He is going to get a severance package larger that most of us
| will make in our lifetimes. There's no reason to weep for him.
| sp332 wrote:
| Laid off, sure. Fired, maybe not?
|
| Edi: Kayvon says he was "asked to leave" which is not the
| same as fired.
| aetherson wrote:
| When the CEO "asks you to leave," it is absolutely the same
| as being fired.
| sp332 wrote:
| If it's for cause, some or all of the severance package
| might be off the able.
| MuffinFlavored wrote:
| What does a "head of consumer product" do? Has Twitter's
| platform/offering changed all that much in 7 years?
| Mindwipe wrote:
| "Head of bigger fonts and more padding so the product is
| more unpleasant to use."
| dmix wrote:
| The only positive change I can remember in the last 5 or so
| years (besides maybe extending the character count which
| I'm neutral about) is the toggle to go back to
| chronological tweets. You used to have to use lists of
| Tweetdeck, then they added an option but was hidden away or
| didn't stay default.
|
| For all the hype AI/recommendations algorithms get I don't
| think it works well on a platform where you already choose
| who to follow.
|
| Otherwise I've always wondered what the thousand Twitter
| employees do besides keeping the site running and
| advertising sales/development. Although I've never worked
| at a giant tech company before.
| 0xy wrote:
| Presumably he presided over the only new features added to
| Twitter, which is more censorship and "adding context" to
| tweets that have a certain political slant. In any case,
| it's clear he did almost nothing.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Twitter's launched a Snapchat competitor, a
| Substack/Patreon competitor, and a Clubhouse competitor,
| plus Twitter Blue.
| astrange wrote:
| And now a Google+ competitor.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Spaces, Communities, Twitter Blue?
| pessimizer wrote:
| Yes. It was once somewhat pleasant to use and less algo
| reliant, and now it is very unpleasant to use and reading a
| tweet's thread has become difficult.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| "Fired while on paternity leave" hurts a hell of a lot less
| when you're a mega millionaire who will be able to walk into
| a leadership position anywhere he likes, but it still sucks.
| lesstenseflow wrote:
| When does getting fired not suck?
| lm28469 wrote:
| When you have enough money to stop working and still be
| able to comfortably feed and shelter the next few
| branches of your family tree I'd say it doesn't suck so
| bad
| [deleted]
| Supermancho wrote:
| When you want to get fired or don't care.
| lesstenseflow wrote:
| My point is there's never a "good time" to get fired from
| a job you don't want to leave. GP doesn't like that this
| guy was fired on parental leave. OK so fire him on his
| first day back? There's never a time that won't "suck."
| gibolt wrote:
| Paternity leave is likely worse, due to losing insurance
| coverage and other benefits that are useful and otherwise
| costly for a newborn.
|
| Yes, there is COBRA and he is probably doing just fine
| financially, but significant unplanned changes in
| income/costs are never fun
| lesstenseflow wrote:
| https://www.benzinga.com/sec/insider-trades/twtr/kayvon-
| beyk...
|
| I assure you, my guy isn't worried about COBRA.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Idk, if I got an 8-figure severance for being fired, I'd
| be pretty damn happy. I would say that definitely does
| not suck.
| simulate-me wrote:
| Does it really suck? His leave is getting paid and he's
| getting severance, which is essentially more paid leave. He
| can spend more time with his child. He might actually find
| it preferable. Having recently went on paternity leave
| myself, I would love to have more paid time with my child.
| lesstenseflow wrote:
| Why would firing someone who's on paternity leave be an issue
| at all? We're talking multi-millionaires who will get multi-
| million dollar severance.
|
| It's pretty hilarious to see the pearl clutching of techno-
| bourgeoisie over something like this, pretending other tech-
| lords are getting mistreated over some supposed breach of
| decorum. The mere fact that he gets to take parental leave puts
| him head and shoulders above most workers in the country.
|
| Parental leave, high salary, severance... where do I sign up
| for some of this "truly awful" treatment?
| ergocoder wrote:
| Multi-millionaire doesn't paint the right picture.
|
| That guy combining with his wife is worth 70-100m range.
|
| His startups with like 10 people was acquired by twitter for
| 100m.
|
| I don't see any issue firing them during paternity leave.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| Assuming that being fired while on paternity leave is even
| notable as a tragedy is a very 2022 thing.
|
| People can disagree on whether paternity leave is a good,
| bad, or indifferent thing, but it didn't even exist as a
| concept for most of humanity's existence in an official
| capacity. It went from being an idea, to a right, to
| something roughly comparable to "fired while undergoing
| chemotherapy" in a generation. It's odd.
| wutbrodo wrote:
| There's a very weird strain of culty utopian-maximalism in
| our culture right now. It'd bother me less if the entire
| last century wasn't filled with horror stories about what
| can happen if this sort of childishness festers too much.
|
| I assume it's yet another consequence of social media's
| effect on culture: being as hysterical as possible has
| suddenly become heavily rewarded. The downstream effects on
| broader political culture (and culture in general) are
| utterly fascinating to me.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| I thought they paid him something in the 10's of millions
| range to bring him on through periscope?
|
| I thought the comp packages were more in the single digit
| millions range for these folks, and stock oriented. My guess
| is they've taken bigger losses on just the general stock
| market decline than most, though for those who hold twitter I
| personally think Elon is wildly overpaying (as usual, see
| solar city) and they will make out like bandits as a result
| there.
| corrral wrote:
| Seriously.
|
| HN: "Firing a millionaire on paternity leave--and by "firing"
| I mean continuing to pay for the rest of their leave, plus
| probably a bunch of severance--is horrible!"
|
| 99% of the rest of the US: "WTF is paternity leave? Is that
| when your boss generously lets you use some of your annual
| leave for part of the week in which your kid is born?"
| [deleted]
| vmception wrote:
| Lack of empathy between wage workers, pitted against other
| wage workers, perpetuates this.
|
| These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california
| income + top federal income + additional taxes). Not the
| ones with multiple orders of magnitude more money that get
| taxed at 4%.
|
| Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you to
| fall for the division.
| ChadNauseam wrote:
| Dude has 19 million dollars worth of twitter stock alone.
| His interests are more similar to Bezos' than a
| struggling wage worker's.
| corrral wrote:
| > Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you
| to fall for the division.
|
| Sticks, stones. I'm rubber, you're glue. Et c.
|
| I'm well aware of the problem of false divisions
| distracting from the very real and much more important
| class war, but the level of concern on this one's still
| kinda silly, considering the broader context. Besides,
| I'm with the faction that'd rather get this news during
| paternal leave, than on the first week, or even month,
| back. Provided any pay for the leave--assuming at least
| some portion of it was paid--continued, anyway, which I
| expect it will unless they _really_ want to risk a
| lawsuit for little benefit.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california
| income + top federal income + additional taxes).
|
| Since income taxes are graduated, there is literally no
| one that pays 55%. Instead, you just approach that rate
| as your income rises (and never reach it since your front
| income is taxed at lower rates).
| vmception wrote:
| accurate that they are graduated and that it approaches
| the top tax rates.
|
| you can have many dollars at the top tax rate. wouldn't
| recommend.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Many states in the US have family leave (including
| paternity leave). California is more than 10% of the US
| population and the rules for paternity leave are extremely
| broad:
|
| - Welcomed a new child into the family in the past 12
| months through birth.
|
| - Paid into State Disability Insurance (noted as "CASDI" on
| most paystubs) in the past 5 to 18 months.
|
| - Not taken the maximum eight weeks of PFL in the past 12
| months
|
| Insinuating that 99% of the US lacks paternity leave is
| disingenuous.
| corrral wrote:
| Nice, didn't know about that. Expanded-qualification
| FMLA-like unpaid leave and more limited provisions for
| paid leave, for some workers, is pretty good compared to
| most of the country.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| It's only through birth? I didn't know that and would
| have expected CA to do better. E.g. adopting a young
| child or baby. And does surrogacy count as birth?
| zymhan wrote:
| Maybe it's trying to rule out "gaining" a child through
| marriage (i.e. a step child)?
| someonenice wrote:
| Looks like adoption is under different category and you
| get 12 weeks.
| https://www.yeremianlaw.com/uncategorized/can-i-take-
| leave-f...
| ben174 wrote:
| This is good information, but the original point is still
| valid. Kayvon is not struggling in the least bit.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I think the issue is more that firing someone during
| paternity leave discourages others at your company from
| taking paternity leave, not that this person is in some
| way financially devastated from the firing.
| lpv wrote:
| I don't see the issue either. In a fancy job like this it
| seems much better to get fired now so he can calmly plan his
| next move, instead of them waiting for him to return and then
| firing him, which would just waste everyone's time.
| bredren wrote:
| That there is high compensation attached to this job is
| unrelated to the principal of firing an employee on family
| leave.
|
| Companies are having to hold the line on what we value in
| this country, as legislation from environmental to health is
| not keeping up.
|
| Twitter is specifically of note because the CEO recently had
| a child and rightfully took paid leave himself.
|
| Whatever your personal opinions are on Elon Musk, he is very
| influential.
|
| The man has six children and a varying track record on how he
| has communicated his views and personal use of parental leave
| and the role of the father following the birth of a child.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/59806585473604403.
| ..
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/12/elon-m.
| ..
|
| The culture and policy Twitter matters. It doesn't matter if
| the individual experience is that a janitor or senior
| management.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Why would that be? Surely the badness in being fired is
| tied to the sudden loss of income, which is less bad if
| you're super wealthy.
| bredren wrote:
| You mean, "the badness of being fired" while on parental
| leave?
|
| Does Bottomless offer parental leave?
| lesstenseflow wrote:
| From elsewhere in this thread:
|
| - Part of the deal with being an executive is no job
| security. It's part of the trade you make for gigantic
| compensation.
|
| - What would be preferred, firing him the first day he's
| back?
| bredren wrote:
| > - Part of the deal with being an executive is no job
| security.
|
| This is the case in any at will hire.
|
| > It's part of the trade you make for gigantic
| compensation.
|
| This trade is made by people regardless of the
| compensation amount.
|
| > - What would be preferred, firing him the first day
| he's back?
|
| Yes, optics matter and it would send a better message and
| set a better example.
| aetherson wrote:
| Part of the deal with being an executive is no job security.
| It's part of the trade you make for gigantic compensation. I
| never really feel bad for executives who are fired, even for
| unfair reasons -- it's just part of what they sign up for.
| thrwy_918 wrote:
| >Part of the deal with being an executive is no job
| security.
|
| I would say that in the US labor market having no job
| security is the norm rather than the exception, so it seems
| peculiar to couch it as "part of the trade you make for
| gigantic compensation".
| no-dr-onboard wrote:
| Curious why anyone would see this as "awful"
|
| The sheer amount of equity, cash and packaging going into
| Kayvon's severance is going to be princely. Additionally, he's
| a founder of periscopeco, so he's not without direction.
| victor22 wrote:
| Absolutely, that's how you replace the team, the old leader
| fires everyone then leaves last.
| skybrian wrote:
| My guess: the new boss gets started on a more positive note if
| they don't have to fire people because the old boss did it for
| him?
|
| Or at least, that would be a good explanation if we weren't
| talking about Musk.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| What's in it for Parag to play bad cop for Musk? Enhanced
| pay-off?
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| His next company knows that he will do the same for them.
| geodel wrote:
| That he can take tough/unpopular calls and do what is asked
| or need be done. Just like being popular among techies is
| good thing in some circles. Being unpopular can be good in
| other places.
| VectorLock wrote:
| Maybe the dude just wanted to feel what it was like to fire
| someone while he still had the chance.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| kamaal wrote:
| Top management taking Paternity leave, and returning to work as
| though nothing changed after a few weeks is nothing short of
| great privilege.
|
| I've seen normal employees take such leave, only return to find
| others have taken over their work, and by all means they are no
| longer needed and they have start working their way into the
| team all over again.
|
| Paternity leave is more or less a kind of paid short term
| temporary severance already. Sometimes the company does make it
| permanent.
|
| If you are gone for weeks/months and no one feels any
| difference, then sometimes its an indication you were never
| needed at the first place.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| It's deeply weird, too.
|
| In the enterprise, if someone high ranking is going to be
| replaced, they're _never_ fired unless there was company-
| hostile bad behavior.
|
| If the organization is trying to move in another direction,
| they reorganize and reduce the role of that high ranking
| leader- maybe to a position where they're alone! and give that
| high ranking person time to make their next move comfortably.
|
| This goes double when the person is on leave.
| jmeister wrote:
| Unless there is some severe political rivalry. IIRC this guy
| was in contention for the CEO position before Agrawal was
| appointed.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| > In the enterprise, if someone high ranking is going to be
| replaced, they're never fired unless there was company-
| hostile bad behavior.
|
| What? Perhaps in shitty companies that are incapable of
| making tough decisions, but this is definitely not my
| experience.
|
| On the contrary, for most cases I don't think there is much
| "shame" for being fired as a senior exec because a lot of
| times it's just that there are disagreements among senior
| leadership about where to take the company, and so it's
| better to have people leave who aren't on board with the
| company direction than to have those disagreements fester.
| slotrans wrote:
| > shitty companies that are incapable of making tough
| decisions
|
| > the enterprise
| tannhauser23 wrote:
| You're thinking firing for cause. These two were probably
| told that they would no longer run their divisions, here's a
| nice severance package if you want to leave. What are they
| gonna do, stick around in a lower role?
| RyanShook wrote:
| Maybe this is Parag trying to keep his job?
| 0xy wrote:
| Pretty laughable, considering Parag as CTO presided over the
| slowest product velocity at pretty much any major tech
| company. The product is almost unchanged, except additional
| censorship, since he started as CTO in October 2017.
|
| With that track record, one must assume his head will be one
| of the first on the chopping block.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| I don't see slow change as a net negative. It's not
| necessarily positive, either, but not trying to fix things
| that work perfectly well is a good mantra (looking at you,
| Google).
|
| Also, he was recently promoted to CEO, which would be
| strange if the common opinion at Twitter was that he failed
| as a CTO.
| tinktank wrote:
| > The product is almost unchanged,
|
| That we can see. Either the entire leadership is stupid and
| promoted a dud, or maybe there's more going on than meets
| the eye?
| [deleted]
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Considering employment law in the US, the person's seniority,
| and their pay level, frankly it makes no difference.
|
| At least now the guy can 'extend' his paternity leave freely.
| barelysapient wrote:
| Just freeing up a chair for himself after the deal closes.
| prescriptivist wrote:
| OT but one thing I've noticed is that Twitter has scaled back its
| aggressive modal/login prompt when viewing the site without being
| logged in. This seems to have occurred recently. It seems like it
| would have nothing to do with the acquisition talks but,
| curiously, it coincided with them.
| google234123 wrote:
| Seems the same to me. Maybe A/B testing?
| [deleted]
| corrral wrote:
| It's gotten a little worse, AFAI can tell. Every few days I
| have to re-load the Twitter tabs I've got in private browsing
| on my phone (without private browsing, the modals have always
| come much faster, basically as soon as I scroll down) because
| they start throwing modals. Then they're fine for a few more
| days. I didn't used to have to reload the page, ever.
| runjake wrote:
| Still happens here.
| b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote:
| use a US proxy/VPN
|
| or better yet, use Nitter
| lmc wrote:
| This may be in the middle of an A/B test - I still get pestered
| every time when in incognito mode.
| prescriptivist wrote:
| Huh. I haven't been logged in on any of my devices and I
| never get pestered. Thanks for the update.
| bogomipz wrote:
| This has not been experience at all. I receive this login wall
| pop up every time I look at Twitter, including today while
| trying to read this post. I generally look at Twitter once a
| day for some link that gets sent to sent to me and this is
| consistently true.
| b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote:
| if this is the individual responsible for that shit, I wish him
| a lifelong career in some other field
| chrsig wrote:
| I haven't observed this yet, but it definitely limits my
| interactions with twitter -- it's a blessing in disguise,
| really.
| m1117 wrote:
| Why need product when they have Elon Musk.
| moralestapia wrote:
| >Twitter's DAU has grown by over 87% since Q2 2018
|
| LOL, that's why you got the boot, pal.
| pdq wrote:
| Is he the one who gave final approval of the anonymous login-
| wall, which pops up after 2 screens of scrolling in Twitter?
|
| If so, good riddance, as that is an incredibly hostile user
| pattern.
|
| BTW, maybe it's purely coincidence, but after refreshing my
| browser cache it seems to have gone away today.
| fckgw wrote:
| If you click the login button, then click the X, it makes that
| popup go away. Still annoying but just a little lifehack for
| ya.
| BetaDeltaAlpha wrote:
| I got hit with this wall halfway down the thread, really
| resonated with this comment.
| rhplus wrote:
| _Is he the one who gave final approval of the anonymous login-
| wall_
|
| From the second Tweet in the thread:
|
| _Twitter's DAU has grown by over 87% since Q2 2018 and our
| team has shipped bold and exciting new evolutions to the
| product_
|
| You can't measure DAU precisely without logged-in users! So...
| yeah, that's probably a big part of how they got their DAU
| metric to grow 87%...
| carabiner wrote:
| Twitter will never succeed without satisfying the old school
| whims of HN users.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| Really the company started failing when they turned off
| Jabber.
| Spivak wrote:
| Really went downhill when they turned off SMS support.
| vdnkh wrote:
| "Without RSS Twitter will never succeed"
| [deleted]
| bozhark wrote:
| Reddit does the same thing now if you use their website.
|
| Good thing hardly anyone uses their website to read their
| website
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| I would be very happy if it (asking to login) is gone. If
| that's the case then I can keep being away from social media
| accounts and still casually surf twitter.
| cronix wrote:
| That's exactly what got me to use nitter.net to browser
| twitter. No forced logins. No time limits. No trending section.
| Most javascript is disabled (you have to click a button to
| enable it to even play videos). Just tweets.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Nothing could be worse than the crap reddit has been doing for
| the last year or so to force users (or from their perspective,
| useds, as rms likes to say) to download its app or login. First
| they outright blocked viewing posts unless logged in, then they
| disabled that, and now brought it back so that random posts are
| blocked from viewing with a message "This hasn't been reviewed"
| whatever that means.
|
| Someone at reddit said, hey we can't be honest with users that
| we're trying to force them to use our app, we need to lie to
| them while we're doing it!
| jamiequint wrote:
| Reddit is doing this because it works and has real impact on
| the bottom line, and effectively zero impact on user
| retention. As long as users continue to behave the way they
| do it would be fiscally irresponsible to shareholders for the
| company not to do it, same with Twitter.
|
| If you don't like it the best thing you can do is to bounce
| and never use the product again. Users doing this en masse is
| the only thing that will get companies to do anything
| differently.
| UweSchmidt wrote:
| This is such a short sighted thinking, aggravating users
| because it makes some "user retention" metric look good.
|
| You can either remain the central forum hub of the
| internet, or be replaced when the next big thing comes
| around. Just think how many major websites came and went
| during those last short 20 years.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > think how many major websites came and went during
| those last short 20 years.
|
| Notably in the context of this conversation, Digg.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| Agree nothing more hostile than going to reddit on a mobile
| device these days.
| simmerup wrote:
| I ended up buying a blocker to block Reddit on my device
| because of the pain. It's a shame I couldn't stop visiting
| the website just from willpower though.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| pihole deploy, blacklist reddit.com
|
| what's there to buy? :)
| simmerup wrote:
| When you're on an apple iPhone, everything's to buy
| kenrik wrote:
| Maybe Elon buys Reddit next /s
| throwaway427 wrote:
| Apollo has the ability to intercept clicks on reddit links
| and open them in the app. It works pretty well.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > Nothing could be worse than the crap reddit has been doing
| for the last year or so to force users (or from their
| perspective, useds, as rms likes to say) to download its app
| or login.
|
| They're doing pretty good... at driving away users. I rarely
| ever look at Reddit now, particularly compared to a couple
| years before the change.
| azemetre wrote:
| I'm kinda hoping that reddit will finally remove old.reddit
| and the old design, not that I think the new design is good
| but it would finally make me drop reddit from my social media
| addiction.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| Yeah the new reddit is unusable. Not borderline unusable,
| but like actually useless. I can't believe they released it
| and I can't believe people actually use it.
| windowsrookie wrote:
| The people that I know who use new reddit, don't even
| know old reddit exists. They chuckle and say "are you
| using a website from 2005?" when they see me on old
| reddit. One of them even works in IT.
|
| Yes I am using a website from 2005. And it's superior in
| every way.
| pndy wrote:
| If you want just to browse reddit then you can do that
| through teddit or libreddit front-end instances. And with
| extensions like Privacy Redirect [1] you can do it
| automatically.
|
| There are also front-ends for twitter and instagram but these
| seem to be most faulty - sometimes it takes a while to reach
| a stable instance and extension tends to overwrite manually
| selected instances.
|
| Edit: seems there's already a fork of mentioned extension but
| it's available for manual installation [2]
|
| [1] - https://github.com/SimonBrazell/privacy-redirect
|
| [2] - https://github.com/libredirect/libredirect
| sva_ wrote:
| i.reddit.com works for the most part on mobile (isn't great
| with media though).
| phailhaus wrote:
| Not for me, doesn't look like it's changed. But also, it is
| _hilariously_ unlikely that Parag went "hey I really hate the
| login wall, you're fired!!"
| LegitShady wrote:
| its the reason i completely ignore twitter now. its not a site
| to reach out to the publicc its a site to communicate to a
| small subset of logged in users.
| Spivak wrote:
| I think as far as Twitter is concerned if you never bothered
| to create an account and your only use of Twitter was being
| linked to a tweet and then closing the tab you were already
| ignoring them.
| LegitShady wrote:
| I created an account. I followed some people. They told me
| it looked like I was a bot and needed to send them a scan
| of my ID. I laughed and just favorited the few people I
| wanted to follow. Now I can't even browse their stuff
| without getting the popups blocking it
|
| So twitter is dead to me.
| [deleted]
| omega3 wrote:
| I would be silent and grateful for the severance package if I had
| developed a product that has this functionality:
| https://bayimg.com/EabiBAaHF
| danso wrote:
| More info and more firings:
|
| https://twitter.com/mikeisaac/status/1524793136051986434
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/12/technology/two-twitter-le...
| r00fus wrote:
| Parag was explicitly hired as a hatchet-man:
| https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hatch...
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| It's amazing how horrible a UE is involved in reading that
| thread. It's so fractured.
| socrates1998 wrote:
| I deleted twitter around the time Elon's bid got approved. I was
| thinking about it for a while, as the app is just another way to
| get pissed off at the world.
|
| These moves seem odd given that Elon isn't even the owner yet and
| still has some ways to go to get it all done.
|
| I am getting the feeling twitter will be dead in a couple of
| years. End up like Tumblr or something. It will still be there,
| but it will have lost it's place in the top 20 social media
| platforms.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I wonder what changed....
| georgia_peach wrote:
| Looking at this guy's CV, seems as though the industry has
| decayed into the electronic version of a direct mail operation--
| one social/video company buying another for its customer list. A
| thinner ethnic version of Karl Rove has been let go. Forgive me
| if my eyes remain dry.
| jmyeet wrote:
| The two execs fired were:
|
| - Kayvon Beykpour, Head of Consumer Product (3 years, 11 months)
| [1]; and
|
| - Bruce Falck, Revenue Product Lead (5 years at Twitter, 3 years
| and 11 months in this position) [2]
|
| Kinda weird that both people were just shy of serving 4 years in
| their current roles. When I see moves like this my immediate
| thought is always, it's to save or make money. For example, there
| could be an options pool in the event of a change of control.
| Well, you've just fired a couple of people right before a huge
| vest (probably; I have no concrete information) and increased
| your share of that options pool.
|
| It just reminds me of Skype firing executives at the Microsoft
| buyout to avoid payouts [3].
|
| Otherwise making these moves before an acquisition has closed
| doesn't make a lot of sense. My money is on this having
| everything to do with money.
|
| EDIT: Updated comment as the link was updated from the original
| Twitter thread by Kayvon Beykpour about his firing.
|
| [1]: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kayvon-
| beykpour-2b264b4?original...
|
| [2]:
| https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucefalck?original_referer=http...
|
| [3]: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/skype-fires-
| executives....
| wnevets wrote:
| Are there really no clauses in contracts or laws to prevent
| something like this? That sounds incredibly scummy.
| stingraycharles wrote:
| I always understood that, while it's frowned upon, it's
| definitely allowed.
|
| It's very scummy yes, but option plans are always a bit of a
| disguise trick, as it's seen as part of your compensation,
| but in reality should really be considered a retroactive
| bonus you get after staying with the company for N years.
| ntkachov wrote:
| That would be on the executive and the company to negotiate
| that aspect in the contract deal. Executive contracts almost
| always have lawyers behind them.
| [deleted]
| dexterdog wrote:
| Is it also scummy if they leave immediately after getting
| that payout?
| staticassertion wrote:
| There can be so-called 'acceleration' clauses where certain
| events trigger vests.
| t_mann wrote:
| Well, there are clauses saying after condition X is met you
| get Y. Clauses that would say you can't be fired up to Z days
| before you reach X are neither common, nor would they
| fundamentally fix the problem if you think about it. If you
| can prove that preventing bonus vesting was the reason you
| were let go, it might be worth talking to a lawyer, though -
| courts have the power in principle to intervene in such
| cases.
| jmyeet wrote:
| There's a ton of scummy behaviour with things like this.
|
| Skype was particularly scummy. Not only were executives fired
| to avoid a payout, their options/shares were bought back at a
| low price (called a clawback agreement) and the company was
| incorporated in the Caymand Islands (IIRC) so suting them was
| going to be incredibly difficult.
|
| Mark Pincus of Zynga fame decided a bunch of people didn't
| deserve to get rich on the IPO so went to some people to get
| them agree to a smaller options package than they had in
| exchange for not being fired.
|
| These two fired suggests they didn't have clauses in their
| contracts for acceleration in the event of termination and/or
| they possibly had clauses that would give them a big payout.
| Or maybe it was just the timing to avoid a final vest
| (assuming a 4 year vest, which isn't a given).
|
| The two may even have grounds to sue so Twitter may have
| settled with them prior to this announcement for less than
| they would've had to pay out. This avoids litigation, the two
| exxecs get something and Twitter has to pay out less. Win,
| win, win (sort of).
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| It's so trivial to fire young people and keep them out of
| court. Not if they're stupid, I wasn't stupid, more if they
| don't know the magic words. So in my case a lobotomist
| deleted all kinds of magic words--well "lobotomy" for one.
| The intention is to fuck all employees over at least one
| time. Then they get told the magic word and don't get
| fucked again (except in my case, I need to get fucked twice
| to learn the magic word twice, at least so far, knock on
| wood I only have to learn all the magic words twice).[2]
|
| Similar to college students, same thing, we're talking
| about harm to youngest adults, the 18-22 age category and
| ongoing if you get cheated out of your career. Those kids.
| So I tell college students that if they live on campus
| they're homeless unless they have a second place to live
| when they get evicted, which can happen at moment's notice
| with no accountability[1]. So practically every college
| student is homeless and might end up on the street unless
| they suck up to the numerous people around them that have
| them by the balls.
|
| Obviously they're homeless if they have no idea where
| they'll sleep that night!
|
| So Stanford in practice has a gigantic homeless population,
| everyone on campus is homeless, no tenant rights. It looks
| like it has a small homeless population but really it has a
| similarly small non-homeless population.
|
| [1] Did I say no accountability? Let me read this shit I
| wrote. Yeah, it says no accountability. Surely I fucked up
| saying that, oh no! Famous last words then. There's no
| accountability! I've been waiting for my trial since
| Friday, February 6, 2009, well I guess that trial could be
| called into order on Monday, or on Wednesday, maybe I'm
| speaking too soon and it's in the pipeline. The dean of
| freshman verbally swore I'd get a trial, as a guarantee
| after telling her I had to drop out without one. She gave
| me girl scout cookies in that meeting, surely it wasn't a
| lie if she gave me cookies!
|
| Any day now. Older adults always say to be patient and
| humble. Saying so is an act of impatience and arrogance on
| their behalf, it's arrogant to call people arrogant, asking
| for patience is impatient. Just like it's selfish to accuse
| others of selfishness. To the extent I'm a fucking arrogant
| guy, and I am (slave of GOD, the last shall be the first),
| I'm not also giving self-serving advice too.
|
| [2] Oh a new memory came back, at 17:24 May 12, "vicious
| cycle." A magic word came back to me as I wrote this! Maybe
| it's a vicious cycle and I'll be getting cheated, told the
| magic word, lobotomized, and repeat, forever!
| nradov wrote:
| As an employee, or potential employee, you can always request
| a contract that guarantees employment for a certain period,
| or immediately vests all options upon termination. Most
| employers would only agree to such terms for the most
| valuable employees.
| roguecoder wrote:
| These are highly-paid executives, so it depends on what they
| individually negotiated with the company.
|
| Being promoted internally, they might not have pushed as
| hard, but it is very normal for anyone at Director+ level to
| bring their own lawyer in to negotiate employment contracts.
| Executives aren't signing the same employment docs you are
| signing.
| dymk wrote:
| The vesting / payout theory makes no sense, firstly Twitter
| vesting at that point would be quarterly, so the company would
| be saving at most 1/16th of what those employees had already
| vested from their initial grant.
|
| Secondly, it's the employees who would have the incentive to
| leave, not the company to fire them. Assuming a typical 4 year
| vesting period, it's right at this year when their compensation
| would have _dropped precipitously_.
|
| Thirdly, the second individual had been at Twitter for more
| than 4 years, and unless they left and came back (doesn't look
| like they did), they'd still be vesting their original equity
| grant. The amount of time they've been at the company isn't
| even common between the two, so I don't see why you'd use it to
| establish a theory.
| jmyeet wrote:
| It's true that there's a lot we don't know. Executive
| employment contracts are bespoke and quite different to peon
| contracts. There will be various incentives that might be
| cash or incentivized stock options ("ISOs") as well as
| regular compensation that might be RSUs, non-qualified stock
| options ("NSOs") or both.
|
| But we do know:
|
| 1. The acquisition is imminent but not closed;
|
| 2. Executive contracts often include bonuses on acquisition
| and/or accelerations for change of control;
|
| 3. There are numerous examples of companies cleaning house to
| avoid payouts prior to an acquisition closing;
|
| 4. Generally a company on the verge of a likely acquisition
| just keeps the lights on and doesn't make any big moves so
| things like hiring freezes make sense; and
|
| 5. The circumstancial evidence that both executives just
| happen to be shy of their 4 year anniversary (in their
| current roles).
|
| Conclusive? No. Kinda sus? Absolutely.
| tinbad wrote:
| It's not uncommon for companies to "clear house" right
| before close of acquisitions, especially on exec level.
| However I don't believe it's for the reasons you mentioned
| (saving money). Instead it's likely to better align with
| new ownership (whether perceived or actual alignment) and
| ensure the company is well positioned for the change.
|
| An established/relatively healthy org like Twitter will
| likely not be penny pinching at the risk of more
| fallout/attrition. In fact, I'm sure the convo went
| something like "if you leave now, you will keep xyz/golden
| parachute".
|
| This has at least been my experience based on limited
| experience of being part of a few acquisitions and working
| closely with execs.
| fshbbdssbbgdd wrote:
| Since the company knows the comp will drop at year four, they
| will give a large grant for the minority they really need to
| retain. For rank and file employees, those grants are
| relatively rare and many will stay anyway because they aren't
| optimizing their comp. I think at the executive level, not
| getting such a grant is tantamount to being fired because
| executives don't get overlooked.
| hitpointdrew wrote:
| How the hell do you know the vesting period? I get RSU's at
| my publicly traded company that vest yearly, in May. This
| could absolutely been done in order to prevent RSU vesting.
| dymk wrote:
| here ya go -
| https://www.levels.fyi/company/Twitter/salaries/
|
| > At Twitter, RSUs are subject to a 4-year vesting
| schedule: 25% vests in the 1st year (8.33% every 4 months),
| then 25% in each of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years (6.25% every
| 3 months). Every year employees get a new grant that vests
| over 4 years to bring them up to their target compensation.
|
| it's Twitter, hundreds if not thousands of their employees
| post detailed compensation information.
| throwaway_1928 wrote:
| This may be Parag's hail mary play to appease his new master
| and keep his lucrative job.
|
| I would not be surprised if his next move is to publicly
| extol the virtues of Free Speech and the First Amendment.
| enos_feedler wrote:
| Thats what I was thinking too. It felt weird that Dorsey
| was replaced with such quiet low profile thinker in the
| first place. He has no presence on earnings calls or
| spaces. I've listened to him take questions and he seems to
| handle them no better with no deeper insight then even I
| could provide. Maybe he was keeping things close to his
| chest. However, it just made me think they sort of put a
| puppet in charge for the purpose of acquisition. Parag
| would be easy to control as a lever into change within
| Twitter. Attractive feature for a buyer. I thought it would
| be big tech. Never thought Elon would be the one buying and
| controlling him. What a plot twist!
| throwaway_2341 wrote:
| Honest question. Would a CEO be that desperate to keep his
| job? I imagine Parag can walk away with plenty after the
| buyout and do something else that he likes.
| hello_moto wrote:
| CEO jobs aren't plenty like standard SWE jobs.
|
| CEOs typically don't apply for jobs, they can't walk into
| a company's Career page an apply as a CEO; they are
| headhunted by specialized headhunter.
|
| Yes, CEO is desperate to keep their job because if they
| were to let go, they won't score a much higher profile
| job than their current; they'd be gone to a lower rank
| companies bidding their luck.
| Graffur wrote:
| I'd love to read a blog post about CEO movements. One
| thing they could do is raise money and start a company
| themselves.
| furyofantares wrote:
| I imagine it's a pretty intense job that takes up most of
| your life and permeates your sense of identity.
| Everything you said can be true and I'd still expect a
| CEO to be very strongly attached to their position.
| partiallypro wrote:
| There is basically no way that Musk keeps him on, so I
| don't buy this. He will be replaced in due time once the
| acquisition is complete.
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| Even if Musk wouldn't fire him immediately Musk's
| management style likely will be quite involved and no fun
| if you don't align with Musk's goals and ideas.
| donthellbanme wrote:
| pikseladam wrote:
| wow. i think this is the true answer.
| Simon_O_Rourke wrote:
| All of these higher up executive firings do nothing but remind
| me of those lines in Goodfellas "we had to sit still and take
| it. It was among the Italians. It was real grease ball s*t."
| jiveturkey wrote:
| maybe twitter accelerated their vest, or (at the exec level)
| there's a clause for that in their agreement. i'd lean that way
| before i considered this is a money saving move.
| jollybean wrote:
| No, this is not about 'a few options'.
|
| They are about to transform the company - and they need the
| talent to do that.
|
| It's difficult to tell, but it could be that these guys are
| scapegoats, or they are going to be stumbling blocks to the
| 'new approach', or they company wants fresh blood there, or
| might have fresh blood lined up.
|
| Whatever this is - it's in the domain of 'strategic', not
| likely to due to someone's equity package.
| dang wrote:
| Ok, we'll change to that first link (submitted URL was
| https://twitter.com/kayvz/status/1524787801757126656) - thanks!
| mattmaroon wrote:
| If the moves were made at 11 months I'd agree. It'd be really
| unusual if there was some large vest at the 4 year mark. Unless
| maybe they've recently been granted something for retention.
| toyg wrote:
| More likely they had initial vests at two years, then
| additional ones every extra year, on a rolling basis.
| yuvadam wrote:
| Is it common to have huge vesting cliffs at senior management
| level at those time frames?
|
| This isn't some junior developer waiting for their 1 year
| cliff, even in that scenario options usually vest on a monthly
| basis after that.
| lmkg wrote:
| Aside from that 3.93 is slightly less than 4, it's odd that
| both employees were in their current position for the same
| amount of time. I.e. they were part of the same cohort. What
| was Twitter doing in June-ish 2018 that resulted in them hiring
| multiple people in key roles? Was there an expansion, or a re-
| org, or executive turn-over?
|
| Or just overfitting two data points?
| [deleted]
| arthurcolle wrote:
| That's when the Chik-fil-a "scandal" happened
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-
| leadership/wp/2018/06...
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| > What was Twitter doing in June-ish 2018
|
| I think your timeline is off, wouldn't executive hires have a
| much longer timeline from inception to close such that the
| "event" predicating their hires could have been 5 years, 6
| years out?
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| Is him on Elon's side or not?
| Graffur wrote:
| Probably a good thing - Twitters product sucks. I feel bad for
| Kayvon Beykpour since he said he was on paternity leave but I
| guess that is what happens when you fly high.
| paxys wrote:
| Why is Parag making _any_ major changes at this point? What "new
| vision" is he going to execute in his last few months at the
| company before Elon comes in and torpedoes it anyways?
| jeffbee wrote:
| Elon Musk has no intention of actually acquiring Twitter. He's
| just using it as a smoke screen to liquidate a huge amount of
| Tesla stock. The fact that TWTR is currently trading at a 25%
| discount to the supposed acquisition price shows I am not the
| only person in the market who doubts the ultimate consummation
| of the acquisition.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Interesting thought. But if he doesn't go through with it, he
| will be on the hook for a $1B penalty. Is that perhaps a
| selling fee that makes sense for him to pay?
| jeffbee wrote:
| He would only be trading it for the chance to go to court
| and argue over who owes the $1e9 and to whom.
| whoisjuan wrote:
| Parag is likely the first one getting the boot after the
| takeover is finished.
| mr90210 wrote:
| "I may go down, but I won't go alone"
| austinl wrote:
| I think Parag is making decisions that he sees as inevitable,
| whether the deal goes through or not. The deal, and all of the
| discussions that have come from it about the future direction
| of Twitter, is probably enough of a catalyst for certain
| changes. Twitter is likely not left unchanged even it falls
| through.
| didip wrote:
| Maybe Parag is trying to meet his own KPI before he got booted
| out to ensure his golden parachutes?
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Its not over till its over. Elon may still not end up owning
| twitter.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| But it's clear he's already 0wn3d it.
| encoderer wrote:
| He's being paid millions to keep his hand on the wheel and not
| be distracted by a deal that may never close.
| paxys wrote:
| That's my point though. The board accepted the buyout offer.
| "Hands on the wheel" means keeping the lights on and making
| sure everything stays stable until the deal closes. Firing
| the company's product and revenue leads is the opposite of
| that.
| ctvo wrote:
| You do realize it's going to be months before the deal
| closes, and there's a chance Elon walks away from it due to
| market conditions or other reasons? In this reality,
| counting something like this as done seems premature. The
| reasonable course of action is that plans made prior to
| this deal continue. Elon can sort it out if / when he takes
| the helm.
| gojomo wrote:
| "Keeping the lights on" isn't enough: to be a good CEO, he
| needs to keep making progress, especially on shared goals
| of both old & possible-new ownership.
|
| One guess (albeit not one of high confidence) is that the
| outgoing head may have expressed some reservations about
| whatever balancing-of-concerns Agrawal was expecting, or
| even mentioned a firm intent to leave if/when new-ownership
| arrives. In that case, it'd be very reasonable for the CEO
| to say, "I need someone here who at least has a chance of,
| and can earnestly simulate an intent to, stay through the
| change-of-ownership."
| ckastner wrote:
| You're assuming that the deal will definitely close.
|
| The deal can still fall apart for a number of reasons. The
| risk of this happening is far from remote. This is evident
| from the current stock price of about $46, which is
| significantly lower than the $54.20 Musk is offering.
| shrimpx wrote:
| And the only reason it's $46 and not lower is that people
| are staying in the stock waiting for the Musk 15-20%
| payout. When it becomes clear that Musk isn't buying
| Twitter, Twitter stock will implode instantly.
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| Yep. Aside from Musk having the attention span of a 6
| month old puppy: the margin loan requires Tesla's stock
| drop less than 40%, otherwise he has to personally
| bankroll the Twitter purchase.
|
| Right now it's down 26% this month, more than twice the
| general market drop, and shows no sign of slowing.
|
| Musk has already started trying to ditch the margin loan.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| These mergers never are almost never at parity months
| before closing. This one isn't even so far a spread, 15%
| rebate on proposed takeout price. Activision, with an
| offer from Microsoft for which even Buffett is partaking
| in the arbitrage, sits at 20%. Even back at the
| announcement in January, before this market turmoil which
| can threaten these deals, it traded at a like 14%
| discount.
|
| With that in mind, special situations are clearly still a
| valid strategy.
| throwaway92394 wrote:
| If the market was highly/certainly confident the deal was
| going to go through it would be at ~54.20$ or higher
| (technically, although not likely much higher).
|
| If you're 100% sure the deal goes through then that's
| essentially a free 6$ per share guaranteed right now.
| c-fe wrote:
| Out of interest, why higher? Twitter does not pay
| dividends, and if you discount it to today, the 54,20$ in
| the future are worth less than 54,20$ today since no
| interest is paid on these shares? Even when i take
| inflation into account, the 54,20 have more buying power
| now than in the future so again I dont see why you would
| pay more.
| throwaway92394 wrote:
| Interestingly if the market was 100% sure the deal would
| go through I'm not really sure how it would work because
| that would mess up the options chain IV. The main reason
| would be speculation other's might push it higher before
| the actual deal. Call hedging will amplify this but it
| would be weird in this scenario.
|
| EDIT: Actually it could go higher because of people
| covering cash-covered calls that are exercised or closing
| shorts that existed before the announcement - see below.
|
| --
|
| It looks like Twitter actually did go higher then 54.20
| on April 5th to 54.57~54.92 [1]
|
| The reason why it did IRL is several factors. One is
| speculation it could go higher due to
| volatility/inefficiencies. The biggest reason is most
| likely hedging against sold call options and closing
| short positions - which are both essentially positions
| that the deal won't go through. If somebody sold a share
| of twitter for 50$ thinking it would go back down but now
| wants out of the position they must buy the share which
| increases buying pressure and thus the price. Similarly
| if somebody sold a cash covered call and is exercised or
| hedge against it to limit losses they must buy shares at
| the current price (which is 100x per option). Again this
| increases buying pressure and thus the share price.
|
| I swear there's a few other reasons I can't think of
| right now. It's basically from market inefficiency
| factors. Speculation (of the share value not future
| company value per-se) and hedging are the main ones in
| this case. In non-acquisition scenarios other factors
| include portfolio rebalancing, margin-calls, market
| orders, and poor order-book liquidity.
|
| [1] I'm seeing different numbers from different sources
| but they're all around there - I'm not sure if they used
| sale price or the quote price etc, quoting a stock is a
| whole can of worms in itself.
|
| Disclaimer: I can't claim to be any type of expert - some
| of this may be incorrect, and I'm a bit rusty
| thaway2839 wrote:
| And that's because a lot of such mergers/buyouts fail.
|
| That's why the price is never on parity.
|
| Putting everything on hold until the merger closes is a
| severe dereliction of duty.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| Indeed, there's no such thing as free money. You get
| payed (or burned) when trading on these mergers for
| bearing the risk of the deal failing or renegotiating.
| boringg wrote:
| Only reason twitter hasn't tanked is people holding on
| hoping this deal goes through otherwise it would have
| dropped significantly with the rest of the tech index. My
| point is that its market cap is artificially overvalued
| currently on hopes that elon buys at 54$ (which i doubt
| he will)
| ckastner wrote:
| I too believe that he'd be crazy not to renegotiate.
|
| As far as I recall, they agreed on a break fee of ~$1bn
| if Musk walks away. But if he can lower the price to $40
| a share (which is still far higher than market would
| probably be, at least in this market), he gets Twitter at
| $31bn instead of $42bn.
| boringg wrote:
| Painful break fee - worth it in current market conditions
| though his equity hes putting up will have been
| reevaluated downwards too.
| mikeryan wrote:
| So there's a few things that _could_ be in play here.
|
| 1. The tech market right now is a shit show, Twitter has
| only been saved from the general market trends because of
| the Elon offer. Once the Elon offer closes or falls
| through, Twitter's stock will correct. While Twitter is
| healthier is the time to get set up for that inevitable
| correction. The current market is driving fairly drastic
| action in the Tech Sector, just ignoring it because you're,
| potentially, a lame-duck CEO would be irresponsible.
|
| 2. These firings and changes may have been in the works
| since Parag took over so this is a course of action that
| predates the Elon offer.
| runnerup wrote:
| So...if the deal goes through the stock cannot "correct"
| because there will be no open market for twitter shares.
|
| Elon is proposing to buy all the shares, not just a
| controlling majority. Twitter would no longer be on the
| NYSE.
|
| So twitter can be saved from general market trends
| indefinitely, as long as whoever is bankrolling it can
| continue feeding it cash whenever twitter operates at a
| loss.
| paxys wrote:
| Elon isn't going to hold 100% of the shares. He already
| has a ton of VCs and other outside investors (including
| some funds) lined up to finance the deal. So Twitter will
| still be active on private markets.
| barkingcat wrote:
| if you need an example of "hands on the wheel" look to
| nvidia's attempted purchase of ARM. all board says ok, all
| shareholders ok, passed through a lot of paperwork but no
| deal in the end.
|
| Both Nvidia and ARM definitely needed "hands on wheel"
| regardless of what happened.
|
| any company at this size needs "hands on wheel"
| ckastner wrote:
| That is indeed an excellent example!
| three_seagrass wrote:
| There is a non-zero probability that Twitter's board is
| simply calling Musk's bluff.
|
| Musk loves attention, but dumping his Tesla holdings to
| keep getting it may be too much for him.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| I wonder if he'll try to renegotiate the deal at a lower
| price. Given the entire tech sector has fallen
| precipitously since the first announcement, it wouldn't
| surprise me if Twitter's board accepts a haircut and does
| the deal anyway.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| It was already a low ball deal.
|
| Knowing Musks shenaningans, it's likely he wanted to sell
| his Twitter stock but wanted to pump it first with a
| semi-formal offer. Same he did with Crypto/Tesla.
|
| Not surprising that Twitter board would call the bluff.
| Even if Musk tries to renegotiate to save face, the
| Twitter board will look better to shareholders by saying
| no to even lower offers.
| arcticbull wrote:
| There's a real risk the deal doesn't close. The lower TSLA
| goes the further away that deal gets. I think keeping the
| hands on the wheel to me means staying the course -
| executing on roadmap and vision - until the money is in the
| bank.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| Could just be that Kayvon Beykpour got replaced by someone
| better at the job?
|
| Baseball fans know of Wally Pipp, who was a solid first
| baseman for the Yankees for a decade or so. One day Pipp
| had a headache and was replaced in the lineup by a young
| Lou Gehrig, who turned out to be one of the greatest
| hitters in baseball history.
|
| I have no idea if Jay Sullivan is a Lou Gehrig talent, but
| he's been doing the job while Beykpour is on paternity
| leave. If you're the CEO of Twitter and you believe the
| temp guy is doing a better job, why not make the change?
| gammarator wrote:
| All I know is that Jay Sullivan has tweeted less than 700
| times in his life, which does not suggest fantastic
| engagement with the product he's supposed to be leading.
|
| https://mobile.twitter.com/jaysullivan/status/15138653219
| 411...
| jerf wrote:
| "If you're the CEO of Twitter and you believe the temp
| guy is doing a better job, why not make the change?"
|
| Well, it's a big lawsuit, for one thing. Firing someone
| on paternity leave is not a great plan in the US.
|
| At this level, a company may just accept that as a cost
| of doing business. But this is at least _an_ answer to
| your question.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Elon Musk's networth is a big mystery. Not because its
| private information (we all know Musk's holdings for the
| most part), but because in 2 or 3 months, the Fed will meet
| a few more times and may raise interest rates again.
|
| TSLA's stock price may be $1000 by then, or it might be
| $500. If its $500, Musk may not have the physical money to
| finish this buyout offer, even if he wanted to.
|
| This entire deal was made when Tesla was near $900 or
| thereabouts. But then the stock market started to change
| severely, the bond market changed severely, and now there's
| a lot of uncertainty if anyone really has enough money for
| everything to go through fine.
|
| ---------
|
| Twitter's board has to keep both possibilities in mind. If
| Elon Musk's buyout offer fails (either due to Musk
| personally, or because of changing prices which rekt Musk's
| networth), Twitter will still need a plan for a Musk-free
| Twitter future.
| wpietri wrote:
| Why's that? There's a significant chance this deal won't
| close. There's also a chance that the deal will close and
| Parag will be kept on. And even if it happens and Parag
| goes, I don't think there's a great business case for just
| putting everything in amber. Twitter's competitors are
| moving ahead, so just freezing things will give them extra
| months of lead that Twitter can ill afford no matter who's
| owning it.
|
| I think it's somewhere between possible and likely that
| Parag ran this change by Musk. Who is already on record as
| wanting high-level changes. So this could be just as easily
| read as the CEO honoring the board's acceptance and getting
| started early on the changes. Or it could be both:
| Something that both the current and future CEO saw as in
| the bests interest of Twitter.
| SatvikBeri wrote:
| The fact that the stock price is roughly halfway between
| the pre-Musk price and Musk's bid suggests the market
| expects roughly a 50% chance the deal will actually go
| through.
| [deleted]
| tw8345 wrote:
| its probably higher than that. Imagine what it would be
| if it had crashed along with everything else in the
| market. If the deal breaks the stock is probably worth
| 25-30$
| SatvikBeri wrote:
| That's a good point. Metaculus estimates 85%. If Parag
| thinks there's a non-trivial chance the deal falls
| through his actions make sense.
| boringg wrote:
| Board may have accepted the terms but the valuation of
| twitter has since tanked as have the equity markets as a
| whole. As have musks fortunes from an equity perspective so
| unless all the numbers recalibrate to everyones liking deal
| is dead imho. The world outlook has changed since this was
| getting hashed out.
| samstave wrote:
| So they can re-negotiate with NewTwittah at higher salary?
| goodoldneon wrote:
| I'd be shocked if these changes weren't Musk's
| jjeaff wrote:
| I would think taking orders from someone who is not yet in
| charge could open up Parag and the board to shareholder
| lawsuits.
| mlindner wrote:
| It's got nothing to do with Musk as he has no control of the
| company what so ever. He doesn't even know who the employees
| are.
| afavour wrote:
| I would because it would be a pretty egregious violation of
| how takeovers like this are supposed to work.
| samstave wrote:
| Keeping the "hostile" in "hostile takeover"?
| curuinor wrote:
| i mean, when's that ever stopped this guy?
| [deleted]
| r00fus wrote:
| Why do you think this isn't what is required as part of the
| acquisition plan?
| paxys wrote:
| That's not how acquisitions work. Elon made the offer, it was
| accepted. Now the company has to continue to operate without
| his influence until the deal actually closes.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| Musk's financing is secured in part by his Tesla stock.
| Rumor had it that $740 was the share price where the
| lenders had the contractual right to withdraw their
| financing. As I write this, TSLA is $716. (Don't remember
| where I read that; but whether or not it's the actual
| price, I'm sure such a clause exists.)
| KennyBlanken wrote:
| The margin loan required less than 40% drop in price
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/business/elon-musk-
| tesla-...
|
| He's currently trying to ditch the margin loan:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-12/musk-
| seek...
| qgin wrote:
| I've been on the receiving end of an acquisition boot more
| than once.
| enraged_camel wrote:
| There isn't any guarantee that the deal will actually
| close, especially with tech stocks (and much of Elon's own
| wealth along with them) taking a dive.
| sophacles wrote:
| If those changes were planned before Musk's offer, wouldn't
| changing the plans to that "keeping the lights on and
| making sure everything stays stable until the deal closes"
| be opposite of operating without his influence?
| paxys wrote:
| Operating without his influence means not inviting him
| into the boardroom and not taking directions from him.
| They can still make their own decisions on how best to
| prepare for the acquisition. That's something every
| company in that situation does.
| robonerd wrote:
| > _Now the company has to continue to operate without his
| influence until the deal actually closes._
|
| What do you mean by "have to"? Do you mean there is a legal
| obligation?
| wpietri wrote:
| What's your citation for the notion that post-acquisition
| changes never happen before the deal fully closes? I grant
| that irreversible structural changes are rare, and cross-
| company integrations of course can't happen. But here this
| isn't one company acquiring another, and it's just changing
| one exec. Maybe you're right, but I've never seen anything
| showing that.
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| Are you certain Elon would torpedo anything? What if it the
| move he would make as well? Would he still torpedo it? I am not
| sure how anyone can say with certainty what Elon will or won't
| do.
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| qbasic_forever wrote:
| Is the twitter deal actually happening? Elon had to get a loan
| using Tesla stock and if the price of Tesla drops a lot then
| the whole loan and deal falls apart. I don't know if we know
| the exact stock price number where it happens, but it's seeming
| pretty dicey with Tesla continuing to drop in value IMHO.
| ksherlock wrote:
| As of last week, there is $7 billion in outside funding --
| new money and existing shareholders that will retain their
| stake. That cuts the amount borrowed on the back of $TSLA in
| half.
| cloudwalking wrote:
| A lot of assumptions here that Parag is out after Elon takes
| over. Is that backed up by evidence?
| glerk wrote:
| I may be wrong, but I assume that once Twitter becomes a
| private company there will be no more board and Elon will be
| the CEO. Parag may stay at the company in a different role.
| pie_flavor wrote:
| I don't think Elon particularly wants to be in the actual
| driver's seat of Twitter. That's a job and a half, especially
| when he already has SpaceX and Tesla to manage. I rather
| assume he will have someone competent at the helm to which he
| can give incredibly broad orders like 'figure out how to make
| free speech work'. Though that doesn't mean Parag _won 't_ be
| out - the competent person is likely to be someone who is not
| soft on free speech like Parag is, and there's a good chance
| it'll even be Jack.
| corndoge wrote:
| I can't read this thread, a black screen pops up that asks me to
| log in.
| pessimizer wrote:
| https://nitter.net/kayvz/status/1524787801757126656
| tonguez wrote:
| not sure why you're being downvoted.
| bobro wrote:
| i wonder if the guy who got fired was in charge of the decision
| to add that pop up...
| jeffrallen wrote:
| Heh hey. Popping me some popcorn.
| donohoe wrote:
| Some insights and kind words by Tony Haile, founder of Chartbeat
| and Scroll:
|
| https://twitter.com/arctictony/status/1524813920514482179?s=...
| lvl102 wrote:
| Not sure what he is proud of? Twitter did NOTHING for a decade.
| That's why they're being acquired. Zuckerberg was right about his
| "clown car" comment.
| bogomipz wrote:
| >'Zuckerberg was right about his "clown car" comment.'
|
| I was curious what this was because I don't think I've ever
| heard Zuckerberg say anything that was either remotely or
| intentionally funny:
|
| Mark Zuckerberg: "Twitter is such as mess -- it's as if they
| drove a clown car into a gold mine and fell in."[1]
|
| It's seems to be largely anecdotal but a funny comment none the
| less.
|
| [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zuckerberg-twitter_n_4256014
| kwertyoowiyop wrote:
| It's appropriate for Facebook too.
| Sebb767 wrote:
| Examples like Digg and MySpace should sufficiently show that
| iterating on a perfectly fine product is not necessarily a good
| idea. In fact, being able to stay cool and not steer into a
| ditch is definitely a rare skill.
| ibejoeb wrote:
| > Twitter is one of the most important, unique and impactful
| products in the world.
|
| As long as there are no follow-up questions...
|
| SV hubris is its own thing.
| dustinmoris wrote:
| Musk taking over Twitter can not happen soon enough.
|
| I am sick of woke fascism and Twitter was up until now the prime
| breeding ground for new age radical left fascists. If the deal
| goes through the world will be a better place for it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-13 23:02 UTC)