[HN Gopher] Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring ___________________________________________________________________ Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring Author : danso Score : 638 points Date : 2022-05-12 16:40 UTC (6 hours 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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] | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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! | 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_. | 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 | 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. | 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. | 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 | 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? | DantesKite wrote: | Fleets was actually relatively good amongst certain content | creators, especially as a monetization funnel. | 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. | 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. | 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! | Pxtl wrote: | Spaces are warty and ugly right now but I'm enjoying them. | 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? | [deleted] | [deleted] | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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 | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: | 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? | lupire wrote: | Far more people can afford iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air than | can afford any Tesla car. | 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. | 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. | 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 | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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: | 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? | disgruntledphd2 wrote: | I think Mr Musk will no longer be the world's richest man | by end of 2023. | 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. | 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. | adventured wrote: | Musk has hit a lot of home runs. It's pretty comical to | watch his detractors squirm about it; watching them have | to switch to hilarious flailing attempts at moral | condemnation (as if they were all saints and priests) | about calling people names on Twitter or saying | rude/dumb/ignorant things - who fucking cares, only a | psycho envious pedant would be so obsessed about such | things. | | I'm not particularly a Musk fan, however his record of | business success so far is exceptional. | | Tesla has plainly kicked the ass of the European and | Asian auto giants, something that was entirely dismissed | as impossible prior to the mass production of the Model S | (right up to its roll out, people here on HN were widely | proclaiming it was impossible; then that crowd started | with the false predictions again right up to the roll out | of the Model 3, that it could never be mass produced; | then when those predictions all failed, they moved on to | proclaiming that Tesla was going to go bankrupt, whoops). | | Tesla's $62 billion in sales has come almost entirely at | the expense of the existing auto juggernauts. They've | eaten a BMW-size company in under a decade. The | automobile industry isn't expanding net very much, and | particularly the affluent segment that Tesla is selling | in to, those populations are not buying a lot more | vehicles (very little population growth in the affluent | world), so Tesla's gain is mostly coming at the cost of | the existing industry. Not only did Tesla not go | bankrupt, they're now very profitable (ie they now have a | large self-funding capacity to continue pushing their | expansion faster: R&D, plants, chargers, etc). | 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. | 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. | 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. | cyberlurker wrote: | Expensive cars in the emerging EV market. 1.4% is great. | 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???? | 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). | 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. | 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?) | swalsh wrote: | Twitters P/E ratio is 186.12! | 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. | throwaway_1928 wrote: | Job offer or not, $42 million for doing almost nothing is a | great deal. | 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. | 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? | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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] | 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. | 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: | Kayvon is one of the functional employees at Twitter that was | actually capable of building a product or feature out. This is | most likely further sabotaging the platform in service of the | ideological agenda that Parag and his ilk have relentlessly | pursued. He's got a very good relationship with Jack and many | others that actually built Twitter, but not a good one with the | new figures who don't know how to build or run businesses but | think they know what should be done with them. | | This is just the soldiers of the revolution marching through | the institution and filling the chairs as much as possible in | anticipation of internally warring against Musk and crashing | the whole thing with no survivors in the event that the deal | actually goes through. | 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. | donohoe wrote: | He is on paternity leave so unclear how much any of these | options hold-up. | 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. | 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? | 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. | 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. | 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. | websap wrote: | Can you say more? Why did you find it cringey? | [deleted] | Ombudsman wrote: | This comment is insanely cringey | 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)? | 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. | 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. | numpad0 wrote: | It will partially solve locality/language dependency problems | of following UGC laws though. There were enough of it for | Mastodon devs. | 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. | 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! | 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). | walleeee wrote: | imo a big mark in favor of this place that politics is | less likely to devolve into red team blue team | 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. | 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. | 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 | 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. | 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? | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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". | 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. | nickstinemates wrote: | >50% would be my guess | 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. | 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: | 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. | 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". | 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? | 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. | [deleted] | RektBoy wrote: | Firing somebody while on paternity/mat. leave is illegal AF and | you can sue the company for lost money.......wait the moment | this is America. Ok, nvm. | 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. | 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. | 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? | [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. | 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. | 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. | ben174 wrote: | This is good information, but the original point is still | valid. Kayvon is not struggling in the least bit. | 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. | 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. | VectorLock wrote: | Maybe the dude just wanted to feel what it was like to fire | someone while he still had the chance. | newaccount2021 wrote: | 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? :) | 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. | 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. | 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. | 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? | 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 | 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. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-05-12 23:00 UTC)