There can be many different perspectives on it.
A possible perspective is someone who uses twitter. If Elon cut jobs too hastily that might risk the stability, safety, or moderation of the platform. That is a valid concern for users.
If you are an advertiser for a big brand you are concerned about what content your advertisement appears next to. Brands don’t want to see their names plastered next to things which are too controversial, or frowned uppon. This is called “brand safety”. They might worry that a deep cut in twitter’s headcount will mean that twitter can’t quarantee that they can maintain the required level of moderation for this.
There is then the perspective of a regular everyday person who is not a twitter user in any way. They are interested in a safe society. If the changes at twitter lead to an under moderated free-for-all that can give power to all kind of dangerous individuals. Radicalisation is a real thing. Free rethoric against groups of people can lead to more radical rethoric. And more radical speech can lead to violence.
> It’s his right to restructure it and try to make it generate profit as he’d wish.
Of course! That is without dispute. One can be concerned about how something is managed even if the owners of said something has every right to manage the think the way they want it.
Nowadays billionaires remind me of those barons, some even buy out land (see Bill Gates and his buying spree [1]). So people mentioning someone’s net worth states their class and this is important for the context. As for Musk being entitled to fire anyone, sure he can do that, although some of it may not be legal, plus we as society may decide that this is not the norm we want to accept. Same as the peasants didn’t earlier.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-g...
I'm pretty sure you missed the important point of that history you've been reading. The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership.
> On the surface that made a lot of sense
To whom?
> So people mentioning someone’s net worth states their class and this is important for the context. As for Musk being entitled to fire anyone, sure he can do that, although some of it may not be legal, plus we as society may decide that this is not the norm we want to accept. Same as the peasants didn’t earlier.
There are a plethora of companies that behave in this exact way that millions of people continue to patronize in a much more substantial manner than they do Twitter (Food, vehicles, electronics, etc.).
Musk's behavior is not new, unique or shocking. These people are overplaying their outrage over his behavior because they don't like the man and Twitter is their safe space. It has absolutely nothing to do with his actual business practices.
I guess you're not familiar with the Inclosure Acts? (To name but one of the grossly amoral uses of land ownership in the past few centuries.)
OP was not claiming all land ownership was bad. Just that rich people have commonly used land ownership to harm others. There is a long and rich history of this.
That's not a use of land ownership, that's an amoral redistribution (theft) of land.
They took ownership from one party to another. The amorality was the transfer, not the ownership. Unless you think both parties are equally amoral for owning the land in the beginning and the end of the process.
The argument you're making would be like saying it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves. The problem is the slaves (and all the evils that came with it), not the plantation.
Yes it was. That's why many confederates had their land and property seized, and their slaves freed by the confiscation acts.
Absent a few questions about whether the layoffs have been done in a way that violates employment laws (which I've seen enough debate about that I imagine we'll have to see how lawsuits turn out), I don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have the right to do this. Rather, criticism focuses on whether it was (a) a good idea, and (b) well-executed.
There's a few major strands of criticism of the layoffs that appeal to me:
1. It was less than a week. You can't possibly have reviewed who you were firing well enough to be confident that you were firing the right people.
2. The departments that were laid off are concerning. Apparently the trust and safety teams were hardest hit, and making the already-bad moderation worse on Twitter doesn't sound great.
"He bought the man, it is his property now. He can do with him as he wishes" - legal ownership can still be wrong.
Jesus do you even read the words you just typed? Someone bought a company that was hemorrhaging money, he let go of the fluff and you're equating it to slave ownership?!
Consider not eating up the soundbites of politicians without understanding the context.
Twitter was a $4 million a day money pit at the time of its acquisition. It has had 2 profitable years in its entire life. Corporations are not charities and it absolutely beggars belief that people seem to think radical changes were not both necessary and inevitable.
Do you have a source for that? They lost $221M in 2021[1] which is ~$600k/day (and that was after a $800M lawsuit settlement which would have put them at ~$580M profit for 2021.)
[1] https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-posts-loss-2021-stock-1301280...
Straight from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588671155766194176
Or do you think it is even slightly plausible for a company to go from a profit of ~$570M to a loss of ~$1.4B in under a year?
And regardless of the rate of loss, the fact remains that twitter, throughout its entire history, has been a money-losing operation. Even taking the literally 2 years they were in the black, that doesn't wipe out the other unprofitable years. This seems like one hell of a nit to pick.
The new debts apparently add over $1 billion / year in interest payments alone. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/technology/elon-musk-twit...
(Being able to do this as part of a buyout sounds ridiculous, I know. And yet.)
There was no imminent need for Twitter do anything. It still had a healthy enough cash pile and leeway and time to layoff 10% of the workforce or so to return to pre-COVID staffing levels.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/299119/twitter-net-incom...
And the $4 million/day is from the debt incurred by Elon's purchase.
A lot of Twitter employees have spent years being about as obnoxious as they possibly can be to anyone with even slightly different views. I've seen a Twitter employee practically in tears calling someone a fascist because they insisted on putting semi-colons after statements in JavaScript.
> Because there is something distasteful about a man that rich firing loads of people.
I don't think it's distasteful at all. Twitter isn't a charity and it needs to fix its finances. Even the previous CEOs recognized that there's a ton of Twitter employees that do basically no relevant work.
I don't think this is empathy related to be honest ( as your statement is "a man that rich firing loads of people." )
It is either wrong to fire those people, or not. If it is not wrong to fire those people, it shouldn't matter who did it.
In what way? I mean, besides him being very powerful. Other than that, his behavior here seems perfectly capitalistic to me.
Because some people think that wealth somehow equates to evil. It's a very juvenile way to think, and I suspect most people don't even know why they dislike Elon (or any other billionare - Elon is just an example). After people read so many sensationalized articles online, they adopt the author's sanctimonious opinions/views as their own.
It's shocking how people can hold so much contempt for a man they've never met. Even if Elon posts snarky shit online, who doesn't? If everyone's life was put under a microscope, they would likely be under the same media firestorm as Elon, or even worse.
EDIT: Instead of replying to me and engaging in discussion (maybe I could learn something), I get downvoted. Stay classy, HN.
I could ask the same about your comment please.
> Because some people think that wealth somehow equates to evil. It's a very juvenile way to think
You set up a strawman and knock it down. There are many legitimate reason why someone might object to Musk or his wealth. Thinking that “wealth somehow equates evil” is indeed juvenile, yet somehow you assume people hold that thought and work from that assumption.
> I suspect most people don't even know why they dislike Elon
Oh great. The sheepish masses. They don’t even have a coherent thought!
Except this is your fantasy again. There are many legitimate reasons to dislike him. Why don’t you ask people, instead of labeling them empty headed media-driven zombies? This is hardly a way to “engage in discussion”.
> It's shocking how people can hold so much contempt for a man they've never met.
He kinda put himself in front of others. That is his brand. It has benefits and drawbacks. I don’t know why you think one has to meet someone to judge their character. If he does contemptible things through online discussion why can’t someone hold him in contempt?
> If everyone's life was put under a microscope, they would likely be under the same media firestorm as Elon, or even worse.
I doubt it is truly everyone. Many many individuals live a public life without kicking of a firestorm with the same regularity he does.