That's a twist on the kind of quarter-by-quarter thinking that leads companies like Twitter to optimize for the short term (protect the MAUs!) and neglect the w

That's a twist on the kind of quarter-by-quarter thinking that leads companies like Twitter to optimize for the short term (protect the MAUs!) and neglect the work that has to be done for long term growth and value. Not disagreeing with the point that being employed in a cost center of a struggling company has risk. You always would prefer to be at the competitive edge if you can, and in a role that aligns with the company's main mission. I just suspect that in this case, the recent abandonment of Twitter buyout offers due to the abuse problem has now made curtailing abuse a top priority, and a much more important part of the company's ability to deliver value. Another example would be a company whistling past the graveyard with respect to security, seeing security as a non-revenue-generating cost center. All it takes to wake up the board to its importance is a major breach that affects the market cap. (Or take quality control in companies that deal with life-and-death systems.)