181–190 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is extremely toxic and divisive, and Dorsey is... the same. People are hoping his removal will allow the platform to mature.
>allow the platform to mature What does that mean? The medium is the message and Twitter is curt, prone to exaggeration / outrageous / mean spirited content.... and the people on there EAT IT UP. What is going to mature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you critique Musk in a similar way? Honest question, because it's eerie how you could swap Dorsey for Musk and the statements would still apply but seem much less true.
Yeah, musk is the perfect counter example. In the brief time he left Tesla in someone else’s hands the other CEO almost killed it. I'm also skeptical of Jack's claim about founder led companies. When you're the exec handing things over you'd have to make some comment like that to show your trust is entirely behind the new person. I don't really buy it though. Also I thought Evan Williams and Biz Stone were the Twitte…
He was a founder...ish.
From reading his Wikipedia, it seems like it was an x.com / PayPal situation. He joined their company to help them with the idea then when they spun Twitter out, he became CEO.
From digging in a bit deeper, the lineage of Twitter seems fascinating. It seems like it was the result of the companies of the co-founders putting together that created something even better than their own parts.
It's too late, damage has been done. Twitter is a mess.
Twitter has always been a mess. Anyone sensible who wasn’t speculating had dismissed Twitter as a platform for serious usage about 5 minutes after it launched.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, you're dangerously close to realizing that Executives at companies provide vanishingly little day to day value to companies. I'd bet in most companies the CEO is basically just a buffer between the board and the rest of the company, and essentially a fall guy position so the board can avoid accountability.
Well yeah, but it's not like any company values its CEO for the good office-desk job they do - as opposed to most other positions. And companies certainly do recognize that not everyone has to sit at a desk - all the expensive consultants...
I have no particular beef with Dorsey but I think this would make sense. He's been CEO of both Square and Twitter for years now and no matter what time you wake up in the morning or however many specials diets you undertake you're not going to be able to give the focus a solo CEO is. I think the bigger issue is who gets to replace him: will it be someone with smart ideas or someone to serve as a puppet of activist in…
> Parag started here as an engineer who cared deeply about our work and now he's our CEO... Parag will be able to channel this energy best because he's lived it and knows what it takes.
People love to bash Dorsey but he had more of a backbone than Zuckerberg in every possible way. And while the game is always about money, Dorsey did try to improve the eco-system in a principled way even if arguably he failed in many ways - this courage was probably there because he was a founder of the company. The new CEO will be more like Pichai at Google or Cook at Apple - only there to make money.
people on the opposite side of the privileged class are barely allowed to exist on those platforms - only if they police their speech very carefully to avoid breaking a myriad of vague and unwritten rules, and even then they're still subject to being unpersoned for some perceived offense committed off-platform.
Is there a way to hit link to Twitter images? It’s really difficult to read when you can’t properly zoom and stuff
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily, but the character limit necessarily limits the amount of seriousness and quality within content on Twitter. It's very format necessitates that Twitter is full of vapid and inane content, and driven by pithy outrage inducement.
Or you could say that the limit forces you to be concise, precise, and vivid. Many of the world's most admired poems would fit in one Tweet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed that lots of C-suite and owner/CEO startup people have like three to five active business roles on their Linkedins. A fun case of "rules for thee, but not for me" when it comes to anti-moonlighting clauses and such. I can't "give it my all" if I take some weekend gigs, but you can hold two C-suite positions, be on two boards, plus have an "advisory" role with some startup? It's a lot like drug testing fo…
Careful, you're dangerously close to realizing that Executives at companies provide vanishingly little day to day value to companies. I'd bet in most companies the CEO is basically just a buffer between the board and the rest of the company, and essentially a fall guy position so the board can avoid accountability.
Are you thinking of companies in general, or of reasonably prominent/stable publicly traded companies? The CEOs at the startups I've worked at did a heck of a lot more than that -- fundraising, strategy, resolving personnel issues, talking to clients, etc.; I'm thinking of a small company (10-20 employees) and a mid-sized one (400-500).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Was it plan or execution? I understand he had some very aggressive performance targets to hit too.
I think parent comment is making a joke in reference to HBO’s Succession: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5xBrFbNHhYk The line is a bullshit TV talking point to rationalize (to the markets) an abrupt 180 by one of the characters.