> > > The initial argument was that twitter would not be able to function without much of the staff that were fired,> > You are missing out some important nuance there: no one said it would fall off the earth immediately,
> This is very disingenuous,
Fair, I matched hyperbole (the implication that a majority were saying something) with hyperbole (staying no one was).
Let's go with no one with a clue who is unbiased by direct connection.
> there were hordes of people claiming it would be down in 24 hours, 48 hours, after the weekend etc
If this pot may comment on the a kettle's underside for a moment: "hordes" may be as disingenuous "no one". It was said by some angrily¹ on their way out and repeated and amplified by the mob that is Twitter² users.
And that outgoing team didn't say it would fall down in any time frame IIRC: just that things could not run without them. I would read this as a medium/long term view, the social media amplifier read it as "it dies in 3, 2, ...".
----
[1] rightly so, but the emotion does reduce the ability to maintain objective reasoning
[2] one of the selection of reasons I have for not using Twitter aside from occasionally looking at a message linked elsewhere: it is too full of certain types who think Twitter is a good idea!