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

Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1000 posts

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#781

Post by bern4444 »

bobro wrote: post #240
johnboiles wrote: post #217

This is mind boggling to me. Kayvon is one of the best product leaders / visionaries I know. It was confusing to me in Dec that he wasn't Jack's successor. Kayvon was a huge driving force behind all the interesting product efforts of the last few years: Spaces, Fleets, topics, etc. Twitter went from not iterating on product (remember when Twitter's only change in several years was to change the star to a heart?) to s…

Are Spaces, Fleets, or Topics considered successes?

Fleets certainly not, Twitter internally removed it because it did so poorly.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#782

Post by throwawaylinux »

Traster wrote: post #84

So there's two options right - the first is that Parag is for some reason making big strategic decisions about the direction of the company despite the fact that we all know he'll be gone if the deal closes. Or he's making big strategic changes at the behest of the acquirers before the deal closes. Neither of these things seem particularly kosher moves to make. The question is how to figure out which one it is. It wo…

In what way has Musk behaved that makes it weird for Parag to be following his orders?

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#783

Post by ChadNauseam »

vmception wrote: post #461
corrral wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. HN: "Firing a millionaire on paternity leave—and by "firing" I mean continuing to pay for the rest of their leave, plus probably a bunch of severance—is horrible!" 99% of the rest of the US: "WTF is paternity leave? Is that when your boss generously lets you use some of your annual leave for part of the week in which your kid is born?"

Lack of empathy between wage workers, pitted against other wage workers, perpetuates this. These are people that get taxed at 55% (top california income + top federal income + additional taxes). Not the ones with multiple orders of magnitude more money that get taxed at 4%. Their boat is so similar that its embarrassing for you to fall for the division.

Dude has 19 million dollars worth of twitter stock alone. His interests are more similar to Bezos' than a struggling wage worker's.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#784

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #734
patrickdavey wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tens of millions is only "pretty close to financial security". Wow.

I think there's a part of the HN population that has delusions of becoming billionaires one day, so they talk about tens of millions like it's not much. They'll likely never have either.

Financial security in the Bay Area requires a house there ($2-3M, nowadays) plus $COST_OF_LIVING/4%. This is easily $5M net worth. It's in "two Googlers and a successful exit at some point earlier" territory.

Granted, this threshold is less than $10M, but it isn't orders of magnitude less

All of which is to say that it is basically impossible to stay in the Bay long-term unless you make an absolute fuckton of money.

Well, you do have two other options.

One is to commute in 2hr or more every day. Which a lot of service workers have to do.

The other is to share a house or apartment with roommates (if you're single) or with another family (surprisingly common, because what else can you do?).

These are both lifestyle decisions that differ substantially from what most people think of as "normal", past your 20s.

What I'm saying is, merely living a "normal middle class" lifestyle in the Bay requires absurd money. So I can understand why people act like absurd money is normal.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#785

Post by Pxtl »

mdoms wrote: post #612
Pxtl wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do spaces have to do with NFTs?

NFT dudes are the only people I have EVER seen using that feature, and I use Twitter daily. I also follow exactly zero NFT dudes so I don't know why I always see their spaces.

I've been in a bunch of local political spaces run by journos and activists and experts, but my province is in the middle of an election right now.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#786

Post by drewcon »

ilamont wrote: post #262
kyledrake wrote: post #189

I've been using Twitter since it's main novelty was that it was a successful Ruby on Rails app, and honestly I've been trying to figure out where the exit is for my personal use of Twitter lately. If the acquisition goes through, Twitter won't make enough money to service it's debt, and the things they will do to fix that are pretty much guaranteed to lower the quality of the platform, which frankly has never worked…

> I also think the proposal to have Twitter allow all content that is "legal under US law" is a dangerous idea for the platform being a healthy community that most people actually want to participate in. This is key. If @dang suddenly threw up his hands and said "anything goes on HN within U.S. law" this wonderful virtual discussion forum would die and most of us would sign off forever. I say that as someone whose be…

I also have a reasonable expectation that HK is FOCUSED and CIVIL. I do not have that expectation on Twitter.

Twitter is just a raw society fire hose and I'm fine with that. I think the future is to give SUPER clear power to individuals to manage their own experience. Freedom of speech is both the right to speak, but also the right of the listener to hear (or not hear) as an individual.

I would also love to see twitter evolve to become more substack-ish where communities are more "owned" and moderation is delegated to communities to determine rules based on trust and shared goals vs. just blanket twitter safetytism.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#787

Post by kamaal »

Pxtl wrote: post #520
slotrans wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% of those features are terrible. Topics, in particular, are actively and significantly harmful to the quality of my experience on Twitter. If there was a way to hide them permanently, now THAT would be a feature!

Spaces are warty and ugly right now but I'm enjoying them.

Spaces are really good.

But I would liked an anonymous 'join to listen' feature. Random people stalking your account after they see you in the space is something I find creepy.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#788

Post by dillondoyle »

kyledrake wrote: post #189

I've been using Twitter since it's main novelty was that it was a successful Ruby on Rails app, and honestly I've been trying to figure out where the exit is for my personal use of Twitter lately. If the acquisition goes through, Twitter won't make enough money to service it's debt, and the things they will do to fix that are pretty much guaranteed to lower the quality of the platform, which frankly has never worked…

If twitter becomes 4chan they will NEVER gain traction with brand advertisers. They already struggle, from the little I buy it's crap.

But FB is forced to be worse too so maybe they'll gain some.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#789

Post by rayiner »

strken wrote: post #766
broodbucket wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No human being needs $42 million for anything, let alone more. I'm sure he'll be fine.

You need more than that if you want to set up a steelworks or a silicon fab. I understand that you probably mean no human being needs $42 million in pocket money to spend on gigantic houses and medium-sized yachts, but c'mon.

Yeah but he’s no Musk.

Re: Twitter CEO fires two top executives, freezes hiring

#790

Post by ryan_lane »

misiti3780 wrote: post #776
iudqnolq wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although banned in most states, sexual abuse of animals isn't prohibited by federal law. Animated depictions of humans having sex with animals is (probably) legal. Saying "I hope someone kills misiti3780" is legal. Saying "Next year I will drive to misiti3780's house at and kill them and their family " is (probably) legal.

the animal shit is horrible, i love my pets. i weirdly dont care about hypothetical death threats as much.

You don't care about death threats until they're directed at you, your family, or the pets you love. If you're being dogpiled by extremists, there's a very real possibility that it'll escalate to doxing, swatting, and/or actual attempts. This happens frequently on twitter, even with its attempts at moderation, but it would be considerably worse with no moderation.

People making life-sized dolls of you, then filming themselves shooting it in the head and posting the video is legal. Them doing sexual acts to the doll, saying they're practicing for when they break into your house, filming it and posting the video is legal.

A lot of things that are absolutely terrifying are fully legal. Sites don't allow them because having subsets of users scare away other subsets of users is bad for business. If you have to pick between one set of users and another, usually the one posting hateful, threatening content are the ones to (rightfully) go.

Post reply on HN