Somewhere at Twitter HQ, there are two boxes full of notecards:
1. Things that need to be "fixed" in the code, immediately, before Elon gets here. 2. Things we'll need to publicly admit before Elon gets here.
1. Things that need to be "fixed" in the code, immediately, before Elon gets here. 2. Things we'll need to publicly admit before Elon gets here.
This does raise a question - what are all those twitter engineers are doing?
1. No user facing feature releases for the time being the deal being agreed and becoming effective (plenty of backend systems, performance optimisations, etc. still got released)
2. Don't touch anything on the day of the deal, in fact, take a free day off.
3. No major feature removals for 3 months after the deal.
If I had to guess, most of them have so much cashflow that mid and senior level managers are able to do engage in organizational silo-ing by hiring a large amount of expensive engineering talent without much pushback.
If this is the case, there's likely a large pool of talented and highly compensated employees doing work that doesn't touch on either a profit center or high-impact research & development. And what work is being done is likely influenced by Parkinson's Law.
What I'm learning from this how little anyone posting shit on the internet actually knows. Misinformation from incompetence or just trying to be a know it all everywhere.
Probably most news is misinformed if you think about.
You accidentally hit upon what "free speech" means when used by whales. If Musk berates and bullies an employee with endless racist and sexist slurs, he'd get in trouble. But if he points his mook armies at that same employee and subjects them to the same abuse, it's all good. Just freedom of speech.
Obviously Politico is just gathering their mooks to subject the poor gentle souls of Abbott and the FDA to abuse.
We can't disclose wrongdoing - think of the mean things people might say.
Elon Musk never even mentioned her - he simply referred to Twitter's actions as "obviously incredibly inappropriate" and linked to an article that happened to mention her.
> "bullying of individuals with no public presence"
You can't be serious. This person is literally responsible for burying the Hunter Biden laptop story and is personally responsible for banning Trump. That's a public position whether you like it or not. I don't think anyone would think we can stop criticizing Putin the moment he exits office.
Imagine if Jack Dorsey ran Twitter without a Twitter account. That would not negate your ability to criticize his leadership even if he never spoke.
What does "points his mock armies at the same employee" mean here? Any examples?
I think she can handle some criticism.
Furthermore, Elon did not berate her by name or handle, he just said that what Twitter did was "obviously incredibly inappropriate" with a link to a story mentioning her, even though he did not mention her by name.
She's calling it abusive, not because Elon called her names (he never mentioned her, just the story) even though she was behind the biggest bans and censorship. She's upset that her power has been exposed and she might have some accountability for her decisions.
For how powerful she is, imagine if we weren't allowed to criticize the President, or a member of Congress, or Jeff Bezos, or even Elon Musk himself because it might hurt their feelings. When you are in a position of that much power, criticism must come with it, and you don't get to complain about that.
Meanwhile, these same people have no problem with using their power to shape and weaponize discourse against other people! For example, the news media regularly unmasks regular Twitter users simply for having a huge following with non-media approved opinions and then shrugs when they face death threats. But...don't you dare talk about the journalist that did it!