Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors • Hacker News Board

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#701

Post by stjohnswarts » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #698

fleddr wrote: post #678

I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…

"stagnant company" Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be cancers. Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a failure of engineering and management, or some form of incompetence. So, I disagree, I guess.

Why do they need so many engineers though. It's not like twitter is facebook or gmail or apple tv where things are constantly shifting? I think the point was why does it take so many people? They should be raking in the cash after a 25% cull. Just saying this from the point of view if I was interested in buying their stock.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#702

Post by sllewe » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #698

fleddr wrote: post #678

I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…

"stagnant company" Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be cancers. Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a failure of engineering and management, or some form of incompetence. So, I disagree, I guess.

Because that growth is used as a substitute for profit (or net income or EBITDA - take your pick). For a public company having one or the other (or rarely, both) keeps the ticker price moving in the right direction.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#703

Post by lp0_on_fire » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

memish wrote: post #404

dmamills wrote: post #24

This is the biggest thing to happen to twitter since the trump presidency. Both big for twitter, and awful for society.

How so? A more transparent twitter would be better for society. That's what he and Jack are pushing for.

> Jack are pushing for.

Twitter went further down the ideological rabbit hole with Jack at the helm.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#704

Post by 0xffff2 » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:14 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #698

fleddr wrote: post #678

I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…

"stagnant company" Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be cancers. Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a failure of engineering and management, or some form of incompetence. So, I disagree, I guess.

While I agree with you, at the same time if Twitter as a company isn't really doing much, why do they have thousands of developers on staff? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a stable, profitable company, but logically it should also come with a whole lot of layoffs.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#705

Post by stjohnswarts » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:15 PM UTC

Closi wrote: post #696

KerrAvon wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping changes, and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets shit done where others can't. Case closed. Whatever merit or lack thereof Musk on the Twitter board has, I would bet money this particular scenario does not happen. Musk is not a turnaround expert or corporate savior (and for the record he's not claiming to be).

Musk has proven to be a 'get shit done' kind of guy though, so if he did want to push through changes he certainly has the capability to do it.

It's only useful if the shit that is "gotten done" is actually an asset to the company and its bottom line or service to the public. Change for change-sake is almost always a bad thing.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#706

Post by kyawzazaw » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:18 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #704

PostOnce wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"stagnant company" Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be cancers. Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a failure of engineering and management, or some form of incompetence. So, I disagree, I guess.

While I agree with you, at the same time if Twitter as a company isn't really doing much, why do they have thousands of developers on staff? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a stable, profitable company, but logically it should also come with a whole lot of layoffs.

Maybe maintenance of current user base itself requires lots of innovation although not ground breaking(thus jobs)?

Why the need for layoffs?

They did make Twitter Spaces and so far, that move alone has shadowed Clubhouse even though itself is not doing well. Also built discontinued Fleets.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#707

Post by MisterSandman » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

0xffff2 wrote: post #704

PostOnce wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"stagnant company" Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be cancers. Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a failure of engineering and management, or some form of incompetence. So, I disagree, I guess.

While I agree with you, at the same time if Twitter as a company isn't really doing much, why do they have thousands of developers on staff? I don't think there's anything wrong with being a stable, profitable company, but logically it should also come with a whole lot of layoffs.

> at the same time if Twitter as a company isn't really doing much, why do they have thousands of developers on staff?

...to keep the app running? New devices, new standards, a lot of things change that you need devs to keep up with.

Also, what's up with people saying twitter is stagnant? They've added Spaces, Twitter Blue and Crypto Profile Pictures - all 3 massive features added to their product. They're all trash, but that's besides the point.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#708

Post by onelovetwo » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

PostOnce wrote: post #698

fleddr wrote: post #678

I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…

"stagnant company" Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be cancers. Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a failure of engineering and management, or some form of incompetence. So, I disagree, I guess.

Well even their team disagrees with you, they have for the last years chosen to focus on things like stories (dead), clubhouse (soon dead)instead of working on removing spam/scams

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#709

Post by nicce » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:19 PM UTC

Closi wrote: post #696

KerrAvon wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping changes, and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets shit done where others can't. Case closed. Whatever merit or lack thereof Musk on the Twitter board has, I would bet money this particular scenario does not happen. Musk is not a turnaround expert or corporate savior (and for the record he's not claiming to be).

Musk has proven to be a 'get shit done' kind of guy though, so if he did want to push through changes he certainly has the capability to do it.

Well he has the money. Money talks, always.

Re: Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

#710

Post by mywittyname » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 9:21 PM UTC

bequanna wrote: post #394

jack_squat wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think that's how it works? I have no idea, what's your evidence? California's actions seems pretty consistent with this to me: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.31...

> Do you think that's how it works? I have no idea, what's your evidence? Do I think that people leverage their positions of power in the govt to strike blows when they are offended or threatened? Absolutely.

He lost in court, multiple times. And he'll probably continue to lose.

It's not that people in the government have a vendetta against him. He's just petulant and thinks himself above the law. So, while I'm sure it's enjoyable to to knock him down a peg, he's doing it to himself allowing blatantly illegal shit to happen in his companies.