Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I resigned from Twitter

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#811

Post by mike_d »

mgfist wrote: post #753
mike_d wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.

A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.

The board can't unilaterally decide the color of the Twitter logo is now green. They can pressure the CEO and threaten to hold a vote to fire him if he doesn't change it, but up until that point the CEO is the ultimate decision maker for the company.

Jack saying he didn't like decisions Twitter made is like if I started complaining that I didn't like the restaurant I chose for dinner.

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#812

Post by solumos »

mgfist wrote: post #753
mike_d wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.

A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.

People forget that Jack was ousted in 2008!

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#813

Post by MaximumYComb »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #748

A few reflections on this announcement. 1) Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. The cost of doing it is being sued for damages, having to spend countless hours with lawyers, etc. Jack might think X, but he's only allowed to say Y, and he doesn't want to go beyond that because he doesn't want to fight that fight. Only people in a close circle really know what's…

I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#814

Post by jasonladuke0311 »

63 wrote: post #620
ChuckMcM wrote: post #259

It will be interesting to see how Twitter changes as a result. Twitter with selective following and setting your timeline to 'time order' creates a pretty good environment for me. It feels like the equivalent of living in only a few chosen 'subreddits' rather than getting the full frontal reddit experience.

The difference for me has always beem that Twitter is organized by person rather than by topic. In some ways that's good if I'm following someone because I care about them personally, but usually I follow people because I'm interested in a particular aspect of their work like art or announcements. In those cases, I don't want to hear about their political opinions or what their child did that week. I know you can fol…

Yup. There was this "follow the whole person!" bullshit on infosec Twitter a while back, and it was just such nonsense. I follow them because I'm interested in their thoughts on computer security, no other reason. I couldn't care less about a security nerd's political opinions; it's just as irrelevant to me as a politician's thoughts on computer security.

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#815

Post by ctdonath »

mjamil wrote: post #608

I'm in a post-Thanksgiving charitable mood, so thank you, Jack. The execution hasn't been perfect (as has been commented on ad nauseam), but Twitter is the closest to a worldwide-accessible [1] Speaker's Corner [2] I know of, and that - despite all the completely valid criticism - is a valuable public service: mediating access to information has been the defining tool of control for those in power pretty much since c…

Indeed, Twitter was great.

Until the Great Bluecheck Purge, which revoked the verified status of significant twitterati - not because of question about their identity, but because their politics were incorrect.

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#816

Post by thaumasiotes »

mgfist wrote: post #753
mike_d wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.

A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.

> A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support.

Dictators can't operate without support either.

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#817

Post by theduder99 »

the guy responsible for these gems is the new CEO?

    "If they are not gonna make a distinction between muslims and extremists, then why should I distinguish between white people and racists."

    — Parag Agrawal (@paraga) October 26, 2010
“Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation,” said Agrawal.

“The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.”

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#818

Post by passivate »

handrous wrote: post #594
maxsilver wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The average person doesn't like to inhabit the Hobbesian reality that CEOs do, where they're accountable for results and any bad things happening are automatically their fault Does this actually happen though? I'm not sure I've ever seen a President or CEO of a company be held accountable for bad behavior or bad decisions in any meaningful way. Best case scenario, you mess up and get "fired" (with a million-dollar-…

This is similar to why the argument that capitalists are due returns because they take on risk doesn't move me. Please, give me the "risk" of having somewhat-fewer millions in the bank. I'll take on all that risk. For free! Meanwhile workers will be in deep shit if their company goes under and they don't find something else ASAP. Risk, indeed. The absolute worst-case scenario is that they might have to work for a liv…

>Please, give me the "risk" of having somewhat-fewer millions in the bank. I'll take on all that risk. For free!

Okay, and somebody who was born in poverty in a low-income country might be happy with far less money than even the lowest wage earner in America. All you're saying is wealth is relative. But we already know that, and it's not really an argument for anything!

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#819

Post by serf »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #775
Kinrany wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They at least talk about decentralization. This definitely qualifies as more than any other comparably large social media.

I'm not so sure. The illusion of action could be worse than indifference. Who would build a service/standard that Twitter could make obsolete/outmoded in one day, with potentially billions of $ against it?

>I'm not so sure. The illusion of action could be worse than indifference.

absolutely right. the concept of 'squatting' on an idea so that it remains untouched in the market is an obvious strategy and likely used by many large groups.

Re: I resigned from Twitter

#820

Post by StevePerkins »

MaximumYComb wrote: post #813
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #748

A few reflections on this announcement. 1) Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. The cost of doing it is being sued for damages, having to spend countless hours with lawyers, etc. Jack might think X, but he's only allowed to say Y, and he doesn't want to go beyond that because he doesn't want to fight that fight. Only people in a close circle really know what's…

I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).

Realistically speaking, Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)" because:

1. Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter.

2. Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook.

3. Any conclusions are going to be subjective AF accordingly, and HN is a more young and left-leaning cohort.

All social media is a double-edged sword, under the most charitable view.

Post reply on HN