Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down • Hacker News Board

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#31

Post by malvosenior » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:08 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #27

I like listening to Scott Galloway but I think his perspectives on this issue are biased. He regularly advocates for progressive positions and is, for example, an outspoken fan of Elizabeth Warren. The bits about Twitter's financial performance are fair grounds for critique but the unfocused parts of this rant (for example asking Twitter to "protect journalists, especially women") seem nonsensical/alarmist in order t…

> And figuring out what is a "conspiracy" or "junk science" should ultimately be left to the reader, with algorithms otherwise ranking content as neutrally/objectively as possible.

I think the vast majority of the users would prefer this as well. Just give me a chronological timeline and gtfo.

There's a small extremely vocal minority of users that want to censor any and all thoughts they don't approve of. This group has tons of journalists in it and for one reason or another, Twitter has paid outsized attention to it and let it shape the product and company policy, to nearly everyone's loss, including Twitter.

In fact one of the very best things about Twitter is it gives regular people a way to refute journalists, bad journalism and media agenda. It gave the audience a voice and they use it. "Protect journalists" seems like code for "protect the narrative".

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#32

Post by sp332 » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:09 PM UTC

this_user wrote: post #28

bitxbit wrote: post #19

Twitter hiring Anthony Noto was one of the worst. They need to replace the board which essentially means someone needs to acquire them in order to unlock the potentials.

Problem is that nobody wants them. Two or three years ago there was regular talk about Twitter selling the company, but every potential buyer (e.g. Google) said no in the end. Twitter is just not a very good business, but it does attract a lot of scrutiny due to its size and impact. It has pretty much all the risks of Facebook with none of the cash flow.

Twitter wasn't profitable two years ago. Eight straight quarters of positive net income can do wonders for attracting a buyer.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#33

Post by larnmar » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:12 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

itronitron wrote: post #3

>> As of 12/6 I am the direct and beneficial owner of approximately 334,000 shares in Twitter. Well, that's your problem.

> Well, that's your problem It looks like an activist position. The shares were acquired with the view of making them more valuable through direct action. This is a validated hedge fund strategy.

It’s still a trivial fraction of the company.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#34

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

larnmar wrote: post #33

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, that's your problem It looks like an activist position. The shares were acquired with the view of making them more valuable through direct action. This is a validated hedge fund strategy.

It’s still a trivial fraction of the company.

> It’s still a trivial fraction of the company

It's an activist position, not a takeover. The shares are acquired for (a) shareholder rights, which can be accomplished with a single share and (b) economic upside.

When a hedge fund pursues this strategy, it typically purchases advertising to make its case. (The case isn't just made to current shareholders. Shares owned by a sympathizer who bought on your activism vote the same as shares held by longtime holders.) That puts a lower bound on the deal size.

Galloway has his own channels. That reduces his costs and thus minimum transaction size.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#35

Post by jersey » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:16 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #30

bitxbit wrote: post #19

Twitter hiring Anthony Noto was one of the worst. They need to replace the board which essentially means someone needs to acquire them in order to unlock the potentials.

Twitter is about to ban more kinds of content. https://gizmodo.com/twitters-nsfw-purge-looms-1840243559 I wonder if they're trying to make themselves more palatable for buyers.

That worked wonders for Tumblr whose value went from 1.1 billion to 3 million.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#36

Post by hintymad » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:17 PM UTC

What's curious to me is how Twitter made so few improvements so slowly during the past few years, when its Chinese counterpart, Weibo, could release waves of new features in fast pace. Not that all the new features are good in users' eyes, of course, but isn't fast iteration a motto in the Bay Area?

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#37

Post by patelh » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:18 PM UTC

Drivel. Nothing directly actionable. If a CEO has to be physically in his office to successfully run the company, he has done a poor job in building leadership under him/her. Jack is doing what he should be, finding new growth opportunities. Milking the users with more Ads will just piss off users for short term gains.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#38

Post by kristianc » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #31

throwawaysea wrote: post #27

I like listening to Scott Galloway but I think his perspectives on this issue are biased. He regularly advocates for progressive positions and is, for example, an outspoken fan of Elizabeth Warren. The bits about Twitter's financial performance are fair grounds for critique but the unfocused parts of this rant (for example asking Twitter to "protect journalists, especially women") seem nonsensical/alarmist in order t…

> And figuring out what is a "conspiracy" or "junk science" should ultimately be left to the reader, with algorithms otherwise ranking content as neutrally/objectively as possible. I think the vast majority of the users would prefer this as well. Just give me a chronological timeline and gtfo. There's a small extremely vocal minority of users that want to censor any and all thoughts they don't approve of. This group…

> In fact one of the very best things about Twitter is it gives regular people a way to refute journalists, bad journalism and media agenda.

It also gives those same journalists easy to use tools to dunk on people who criticize them, to a huge audience. So you know, swings and roundabouts.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#39

Post by Mathnerd314 » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:19 PM UTC

TurkishPoptart wrote: post #5

Man, why does a simple blog need so much JavaScript? (Sorry, I know this is not the most productive of comments, but I am genuinely curious to know. Also, if not me, someone else is inevitably going to say it, I suspect).

It's using some mixture of Wordpress, React "styled components", Core.js, and other libraries. WP is the backend and returns the post as JSON so the JS is needed to turn it into HTML.

It's poor website design, but JS is turning into the new Flash. People want glitzy websites and don't care about load times.

Re: Jack Dorsey Needs to Step Down

#40

Post by CamperBob2 » Fri, Dec 06, 2019, 8:20 PM UTC

malvosenior wrote: post #31

throwawaysea wrote: post #27

I like listening to Scott Galloway but I think his perspectives on this issue are biased. He regularly advocates for progressive positions and is, for example, an outspoken fan of Elizabeth Warren. The bits about Twitter's financial performance are fair grounds for critique but the unfocused parts of this rant (for example asking Twitter to "protect journalists, especially women") seem nonsensical/alarmist in order t…

> And figuring out what is a "conspiracy" or "junk science" should ultimately be left to the reader, with algorithms otherwise ranking content as neutrally/objectively as possible. I think the vast majority of the users would prefer this as well. Just give me a chronological timeline and gtfo. There's a small extremely vocal minority of users that want to censor any and all thoughts they don't approve of. This group…

This group has tons of journalists in it and for one reason or another, Twitter has paid outsized attention to it and let it shape the product and company policy, to nearly everyone's loss, including Twitter.

It's a simple competitive issue. Every click that goes to Twitter is one that doesn't go to newyorktimes.com, washingtonpost.com, or (yes) foxnews.com... and it's one that isn't likely to lead to any of those sites, for that matter.

Regardless of their political alignment, journalists have no reason to support disintermediation between news makers and news consumers. It threatens their livelihoods. Say what you will about Trump (just not here, please), but he does understand that much. Twitter is worth a lot to people like him, which I'd think would make it worth a lot to investors as well. Arguably it would have been a better investment for Jeff Bezos than WaPo was.

Heck, just the ability to front-run Tweets by five seconds might be worth a lot on Wall Street.