There's zero explanation in the email for why he resigned. He's re-iterating the point that the company is fine moving forward with the rest of the board, the new CEO and the existing team, but no actual reason as to why he left.
Square, ~$100B Market Cap, profitable, still mainly US based and growing. Crypto and Payment. Lots of potentials.
It is not too hard to pick which one to run.
The addiction is earning money. Accumulating wealth. Donating it, if anything, adds to that addiction, since it lets you play god for a bit.
Not saying Jack is all of those things, and donating money is objectively a good thing, but the greedy race for money can't be solved by promoting charity.It’s not a matter of getting some amount of money…it’s choosing when you step back from the game and cede the future to your rivals.
What a headache. I'm not trying to dismiss these issues, but I can certainly see why it's a lot easier to spend your time worrying about how to make everyone happy at the company when it's Square than Twitter.
I don't think it's the best approach to manage a company but it's sure been lucrative for Mark.
I don't hear many FB shareholders complaining either, I wouldn't claim equal voting rights on my few shares even if I could (please don't crucify me HN, I'm just a tiny fish that dislikes the company but likes the stock). On paper, supershare structures are not a great thing for the common shareholder as it makes their shares basically free of voting rights when the CEO (or united group) holds such a supermajority. In practice, a strong operator like Mark gets more leeway to steer the ship with fewer barriers and inside power struggles. Imagine if the board stopped him from buying IG or WA, these purchases were very controversial at the time and many thought he was a lunatic for paying such a steep price, it only looks genius in hindsight. When/while it works, it is an effective governance structure.
Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.
Could you maybe elaborate on that? I have never heard about this before, what exactly isn't possible these days?
Jack saying he didn't like decisions Twitter made is like if I started complaining that I didn't like the restaurant I chose for dinner.
Do you have kids?
Dictators can't operate without support either.
EDIT: here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5zlw13FU
If you attempt to do things that the employees do not want to do then your company will turn to shit. People will leave, and those that remain will have terrible productivity.
Yes, you get some "Just do as I say" points, but you have to choose where to spend them very wisely.
This is par for the course, ask a politician a question get a non-answer, ask an NFL coach about the next game “They are a good team, we have to practice hard.” It’s all just talking without really saying anything.
here's hoping jack actually believes in sacrificing money and power to defect out of this information oligopoly, though i'm skeptical as those forces are irresistable to most humans.
A billionaire Republican megadonor has purchased a "sizable" stake in Twitter and "plans to push" to oust CEO Jack Dorsey among other changes, according to new reports, raising the prospect of a shocking election-year shakeup of the social media platform that conservatives have long accused of overt left-wing political bias.
Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. has already nominated four directors to Twitter's board, a development first reported by Bloomberg News, citing several sources familiar with the arrangement. The outlet noted that unlike other prominent tech CEOs, Dorsey didn't have voting control over Twitter because the company had just one class of stock; and he has long been a target for removal given Twitter's struggling user growth numbers and stock performance.
Aside from these two paragraphs the rest of the article is a lot of speculation and some quotes from people who've been against Twitter for some time:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-paul-singer-republi...
Like a trial that is touching a lot of big players in tech?
something.. something.... L*** express?
Thus resigning is better for the shareholders and him.
When you have both parties in agreement that FB, Twitter and Google are a threat to free speech and democracy, you best watch out.
This was my thought. The heat was getting too much for him. Law makers repeatedly asking him to come testify on this and that. The pressure to get rid of 230, and have better controls on banning people may have just worn on him enough where he just decided to toss in the towel and move onto something else and quietly disappear.