I think the unnecessary slam on Mudge will have the opposite impact of improving Twitters security situation, from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
81–90 of 91 posts
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe he didn't say they weren't evil like Facebook, just that they weren't as evil as Facebook. That "as" is important nuance. Personally I think that's fair when looking at Facebook's history[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook
That sort of hairsplitting doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying one gangster isn't as bad as another because one has a shorter wrap sheet. It's a difference that doesn't make a difference. They are evil in the same way, as media institutions of a accelerating surveillance and propaganda regime. Facebook is older and has been at it longer, but Twitter is no slouch when it comes to being a front organization…
N.B., it’s “rap sheet”.
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s going to trial this fall. Twitter is going to ask courts to enforce the agreement, making Musk buy them. My guess is he’s blustering to shore up his negotiating position, and will have to make Twitter whole in the range of $10b. Or he believes his own tweets, will go to trial, and be forced to make the purchase. Like everyone, I’m bad at predicting the future.
He won't be forced to make the purchase because the court will determine that will cause more harm to Tesla shareholders than benefit to Twitter shareholders. The litigation will probably take about 10 years though. That's according to Andrew Torez from the Opening Arguments podcast.
Why should the court care about Tesla share holders? I’m genuinely curious. Seems asinine that you can’t enforce contracts because a CEO signed a very poor one.
Businesses are allowed to fail after all…
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#84Is a CEO publicly accusing someone publicly of "ineffective leadership and poor performance" a libelous statement?
Probably not, because it's an opinion.
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought the Musk / Twitter deal was DOA a long time ago.
It’s going to trial this fall. Twitter is going to ask courts to enforce the agreement, making Musk buy them. My guess is he’s blustering to shore up his negotiating position, and will have to make Twitter whole in the range of $10b. Or he believes his own tweets, will go to trial, and be forced to make the purchase. Like everyone, I’m bad at predicting the future.
I don’t understand why you think this would happen. Whatever Twitter would agree to, Musk would rather overpay by $10B with other investors and own Twitter, than to pay a $10B settlement and own nothing. And if it were a small enough settlement without an acquisition, Twitter investors would miss out, and Twitter’s management would be embroiled in shareholder lawsuits.
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s going to trial this fall. Twitter is going to ask courts to enforce the agreement, making Musk buy them. My guess is he’s blustering to shore up his negotiating position, and will have to make Twitter whole in the range of $10b. Or he believes his own tweets, will go to trial, and be forced to make the purchase. Like everyone, I’m bad at predicting the future.
He’s going to end up buying Twitter but it will be at a discount due to the bot numbers. My prediction is he ends up leading a group of investors to purchase it for roughly $35 billion.
bot numbers - you are quite gullible but arguing in good faith huzzah
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#87Quoted post unavailable.
(The points on this are bouncing around, so I'm guessing some people are missing the joke. It's directed at the email, not HN commentors.)
Until you explaied it there was no joke at all just a cut/paste of HN rules with a face at the end.
Now- with your added context, I get you.
Having said that, there were already quite a few comments about the ad hominem and how bad the email is in general.
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#88Nice way to lead with a direct attack on a former executive, and one who is very highly regarded in the broader computer/network/hacker sphere. The whole second paragraph is just useless fluff. The "important work" they are doing, with no references at all to any specifics, it's just a feel-good word jumble. He also does not make any claims that Mudge's accusations are patently wrong, it's couched in "what we've seen…
Yeah, as soon as I read the attack "poor performance" I instantly had distrust come up. It felt like a Trump-style attack. And then I thought of all the pressure that would put on employees reading the message too, let go for "poor performance". What if someone previously performed well and then was having some mental health issues and their performance was poor. Are they all of the sudden going to be let go now too? That doesn't make people feel secure in order to do high-level brain work, it does the opposite. It didn't feel like a message a good leader would send.
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sort of hairsplitting doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying one gangster isn't as bad as another because one has a shorter wrap sheet. It's a difference that doesn't make a difference. They are evil in the same way, as media institutions of a accelerating surveillance and propaganda regime. Facebook is older and has been at it longer, but Twitter is no slouch when it comes to being a front organization…
N.B., it’s “rap sheet”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rap%20sheet
Ha, yeah, sure it is
Re: Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
#90Is a CEO publicly accusing someone publicly of "ineffective leadership and poor performance" a libelous statement?
It’s 100% true though: He was ineffective at keeping quiet about security problems to governance parties, and performed poorly at persuading peers not reporting to him to fix things they weren’t incentivized on.
[deleted]