correct, and I think it telling that Jack Dorsey specifically sold to Elon to ‘save’ his (Twitter) baby.
1 Like
He is clearly doing a fine job of it. 
That being said, my sympathies to those employees who were RIF’ed. When companies do stuff this drastic and rushed, they make a LOT of mistakes. Terminating employees needs to be very carefully done. In every situation where I worked on involving “reductions in force” or RIFs, particularly after a merger, it takes MONTHS to plan it out, and people and issues are carefully screened. Some of these companies were significantly larger than Twitter.
Given that Musk was more concerned about things like his REALLY dumb joke when he entered Twitter HQs about the sink (meaning "let it SINK in), the Harvard professor was right. This was done in the most haphazard way possible. There is usually a heavy consequence for that.
Not quite. As noted above, Saudi and Chinese backing makes this transaction particularly attractive to CFIUS on national security grounds. That would be a disaster for Twitter.
And let’s get real. This guy made his “fortune” (on paper) by coming up with Tesla, which is a grandiose scheme to obtain and then re-sell carbon credits. He took advantage of a loophole that affects every one of us and the climate. If this is what you think is brilliance, well, um, OK…
And for good measure, here are some of the whoppers Musk has foisted on people over the years:
3 Likes
It’s easy to criticize people, why didn’t you or I think of this before.
1 Like
No further comment if that’s the extent of the substantive response, except for this: it’s important to look at the sources of where/how Musk got his capital to fund the Twitter acquisition.
4 Likes
My response to the brilliance part. But frankly, I don’t really care enough.
Sure, bring on an investigation.
"He took advantage of a loophole… "
I’ve always been against loopholes, including this one*, but if Congress passes the law, they must want peeps to avail themselves of it.
*Carbon tax is much easier and more efficient, IMO.
2 Likes
That would be interesting to see how Twitter will be functioning with such drastically reduced workforce. If it will just fine, it’s telling that it was such an waste of money to pay 3000 people $200k-$500k each.
1 Like
Trump brought on tons of CFIUS investigations and remedies/measures, particularly against Chinese investors in US companies. I would absolutely not be surprised if a CFIUS investigation is opened up in relation to the Twitter acquisition. Saudi Arabia’s literal butchering of a Washington Post reporter, as the most obvious example, and investment by a Chinese company in the Twitter takerover makes this a strong candidate for CFIUS review. It obviously goes much deeper than that in relation to the US national security.
If Musk had funded the Twitter takeover with non-problematic sources (from a national security perspective), then CFIUS would effectively be inapplicable. However, Musk chose to get these problematic funding sources on board. Given the complete recklessness of the Twitter RIFs, it strikes me that Musk has access to deep pockets beyond his own (remember that much of his wealth is purely on paper). He simply doesn’t care. That sends my alarm bells ringing.
IMO, that heightens the reason to investigate why the Saudis and Chinese are so willing to fund the Twitter takeover, which is precisely a national security (and not political) issue that CFIUS was designed to cover.
1 Like
Twitter can probably easily get by with a staff of < 2,000.
Employee bloat in many tech companies is common place. Most of these companies started out as very lean start-ups with a few people work long hours for little or no pay. But with success comes money and many don’t handle it well. Anyone who has listened in on recent earning calls from the likes of Google, Facebook, and Amazon have heard their CEOs allude to that fact that employees have grown complacent, and have lost the work ethic that has made them successful.
Quietly, in the background, many tech companies are using layoffs (some in very target ways), many others have either stopped or severely cutback on hiring. This is just the beginning…
3 Likes
From CNBC, Twitter is losing $4million a day, that’s why there’s a layoff.
Twitter cut more than 950 California employees after Elon Musk took over, WARN notice shows
Apparently the free speech absolutist is ready to try to force advertisers to support speech they don’t like, and which they believe their customers don’t like either. This is the exact opposite of free speech.
Musk is free to “name & shame” of course but this is the exact same “cancel culture” he said he wanted to stop in the name of free speech.
“Name and shame the advertisers who are succumbing to the advertiser boycott. So we can counter-boycott them,” wrote Mike Davis, a Republican former.
Musk replied: “A thermonuclear name & shame is exactly what will happen if this continues.”
3 Likes
Kind of funny how many things cut both ways………
2 Likes
Twitter users who have issues with the direction of the platform should consider leaving the application. Just don’t use it anymore.
3 Likes
Equalizer?
Indeed, that’s precisely what the advertisers are doing: leaving Twitter in droves.
But our Prince of Free Speech is throwing a hissy fit about it. Of course, NOT speaking is also free speech, but the self-proclaimed “absolutist” doesn’t like it when it’s aimed at him.
Funny how it cuts both ways.
5 Likes
A lot of people claim a lot of things, not just Elon Musk.
Just take a look around your local political ads.
Disagree. This is what free speech is all about. Elon is free to run his company as he sees fit. (as long as it’s not illegal, of course) Advertisers are free to participate in his company, or not. (Ditto users.)
7 Likes
For Elon, it will either work or it won’t. Worst case he liquidates and takes the loss.
Personally, I’d rather have him focus on space, robots, and being outrageous.
It’s still a bit early and then after a time change, so pardon me if I misunderstood: aren’t you both saying the same thing?
I don’t like it when someone threatens me, so let the tyrant “name and shame” away. DO you think advertisers want their names in that cesspool?
2 Likes