511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thriving? Its valuation has tanked since his purchase and last I read they’re still actively losing users.
Yes I know. But the platform has lots and lots of engagement. Stagnation did not happen. Quite the opposite.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think she is entirely to blame, but I think there is some blame for not standing up to Musk and leading better.
> I think there is some blame for not standing up to Musk and leading better. That seems in the same category as saying there's some blame on her for not working harder on basketball in her youth and so never becoming a WNBA Finals MVP. (Narrator: Um, no, she's not nearly tall enough ....)
I would gladly pretend to be CEO for the kind of pay she got. Blame it all on me, I'll take the money and go retire in Hawaii.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The people I've seen who have talked about their engagement numbers Now do bluesky. X is doing fine. Turns out network effects are real.
I've seen people report they get better engagement on Mastodon and Blue Sky than they ever did with Twitter, based on percentages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both things can be true: Valuation did drop during her tenure, AND she was not to blame. Therefore the praise is weird, because she seemingly neither helped nor hurt the business.
> she was not to blame. Fall guys bear some of the blame in the fall. My long-held [0] personal theory - borne out by everything Musk has done, and by who bought Twitter - is that it was bought to curb the possibility of large positive social movements along the lines of OWS or BLM. Enabling that can entail being useless at your supposed job, while doing your actual job (which deserves some amount of blame, from a nu…
Zohran Mamdami's greatest attribute in media is that if you see him in video you see him listening to people. Even people who aren't inclined to agree with him talk to him and say "he was so nice, he listened to me." High-D [1] billionaires who support High-D candidates such as Clinton, Cuomo and Adams are driven crazy by this. [2]
Even though Twitter does provide a back channel and a Twitter user may really be a nice guy who listens and replies, the structure of the thing is such that you don't see that user listening and in fact the user interface on Twitter makes it really hard to see that conversation for outsiders in the way that the heavy Twitter user doesn't get. Not least because the heavy Twitter user might not realize that people who aren't logged in don't see anything at all (pro tip: just don't post links to Twitter on HN, you might see a great discussion with a lot of context, the rest of us just see a single sentence floating in space without any context)
On video though, the person who listens listens visibly, you see the microexpressions in real time as they react to what the other person is saying. It's a thing of beauty. (Coalition leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Peloci do a lot of listening as part of their job but constituents only see them talking!)
The above is a second order concern compared to the general compression of discourse in Twitter which is talked about in [2]. Twitter addicts spend 4-5 hours a day traversing graphs to follow discussions and understand (or think they understand?) context, the rest of us just see "white farmers" which means one thing if you're racist, another if you're "anti-racist", and just means "move along folks, nothing more to see here" for the great silent majority. When Twitter is at equilibrium every movement creates and equal and opposite amount of backlash, nothing actually changes except polarization increases, there is more and more talking and less and less listening, and the possibility of real social change diminishes.
Burn it down.
[2] for once good NYT content that isn't paywalled: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/28/opinion/ezra-klein-show-c...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's weird that you say both she had no material power and also seem to imply the valuation drop and lawsuits were due to her ineptitude? Anyway she volunteered to be a puppet for a man who is clearly off the rails and her legacy will forever be stained.
What legacy? She's not a well known public figure. She ran the ad department at NBC. Is now very rich and at age 61, close enough to retirement age.
"Legacy" doesn't mean "guy-on-the-street's perception of you."