6 ms·

I'm still shocked, and amazed, that Jack is the CEO of two public tech companies.

chk_ur_autism 9y ago
He's doing an admittedly awful job at Twitter. See: - Russian troll accounts/factories (he even retweeted one) - Inability to clean up harassment/abuse/threats - Stagnant product feature set - Awful (truly awful) ad product
- chk_ur_autism 9y ago
  Saying "whats up" to the down voters who work at Twitter or Square. Sorry about your RSUs!
  - dang 9y ago
    We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Comments here need to be civil and substantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  All a CEO does is set and push forward a certain culture and a handful of goals, but that is a full time job. Square isn't anything revolutionary or particularly special, the only trick they have is picking up customers who don't understand merchant processing and are willing to pay an extra 1% or so to avoid ever thinking about it. Edit: I'm not referring to what a CEO is accountable for, just what they actually have control over. A CEO is not god, despite what some may believe!
  - chk_ur_autism 9y ago
    Actually, a CEO is accountable for everything. Absolutely everything. The buck stops at the CEO, and anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided. Therefore, the issues at Twitter are Jack's fault, full stop.
    - StudentStuff 9y ago
      Definitely, a CEO is accountable for everything, but a CEO's influence is quite limited overall, their biggest power is to shut down whole divisions of a company, but actually changing said division? That is a much more difficult task that a CEO cannot achieve on their own, no matter the effort put into said task.
      - jdmichal 9y ago
        The biggest power of a CEO is culture. Look at Uber and all the negativity their culture is getting, fed by the specific instances where that culture allowed terrible things to happen. And yes, a CEO does not change the culture on their own. That's impossible by definition -- the culture is the sum result of all the actors within the company. But a CEO is expected to lead the culture of the entire company, typically by stating values and setting goals and incentives that actually match those values. If they cannot do this, then they are unable to do their primary internal-facing job. This is one of the reasons that Steve Jobs was so well regarded. For whatever flaws he had, there was no mistaking the culture he was leading, and the results matched. A great example, from a development perspective, is unit tests. Everyone loves to talk about how much we need unit tests. How great unit tests are. How they will make our software better. This is stating values, but you also have to back that up, and that's where things fall apart. The moment any kind of crunch happens, unit tests are the first things thrown out the window. Despite the fact that when you're working quickly, you probably need those tests even more. And all this is because, even though everyone states the value of tests, it's not actually part of the culture. The goals and incentives aren't there; there's no penalty to not following the line.
        speedplane 9y ago
        > The biggest power of a CEO is culture. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it seems a bit simplistic. CEO's are also in the position to be thought leaders, public advocates, build hype, and internally, guide the company to specific results. Workplace culture is extremely important, but not everything. Also, I'm not sure that enforcing unit tests is exactly a "cultural" issue. How many unit tests you write is a decision that weighs current development speed against future development speed and reliability. That is of course influenced by culture, but not exactly culture itself.
  - danpalmer 9y ago
    > picking up customers who don't understand merchant processing and are willing to pay an extra 1% or so to avoid ever thinking about it I don't think that's particularly fair to Square, for three reasons: - For much smaller merchants, it can be cheaper overall than traditional payment processing, as you don't have to buy expensive hardware. - Not having to "think about it" is probably underrated, the cost structure of traditional payment processing is very complex and can make it more difficult to know how you need to mark up your products to maintain a target margin, whereas with Square you're guaranteed a flat rate which will make a lot of other decisions easier. - They provide a lot of other services for small businesses, like point-of-sale (I think the software is free for that? Big saving for small merchants) and payroll software (again a time/cost saving). I think it's entirely reasonable that a thinking person might decide to pay 1% for these things, rather than because they don't know any better.
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  He realizes the hysteria around policing online speech and content will be short-lived. He is trying to keep it neutral and not warp it to consist of only the things some people would like to see. Its a strong strategy in the long run.
  - diogenescynic 9y ago
    Allowing Russian bots to spread propaganda to meddle in our elections is hardly being neutral. That’s being an enabler.
    - chronicy292 9y ago
      And what about Twitter allowing the US intelligence agencies access to account information about potential overseas national security interests? But of course, Trump is president so we need to get him out of office. Right? News flash: Trump is your president and will continue to be for years to come.
    - craftyguy 9y ago
      If only people (twitter users) were smart enough to question sources of information rather than taking them at face value..
  - untog 9y ago
    Are there any statements anywhere suggesting he thinks this, or are we save to assume you are projecting your own opinions onto him?
    - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
      You are free to assume as you wish. I draw my assumptions from his actions.
  - pron 9y ago
    Only someone who hasn't been harassed could think this is hysteria. Interaction in communities of strangers (and even in face-to-face societies, like pre-industrial ones) has always required policing.
- philwelch 9y ago
  > Inability to clean up harassment/abuse/threats That's a feature, not a bug: > Twitter was designed, from Day 1, to enable any random person to send messages directly to any public figure. In other words, from Day 1, it was designed to be an abuse and harassment engine. It's not a bug. It's a feature. All that abuse and controversy is how it gets clicks and money. http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-i-deal-with-harassment-abuse-and.html http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-i-deal-with-haras...
  - parthdesai 9y ago
    >In other words, from Day 1, it was designed to be an abuse and harassment engine. Yeah, you are stretching those words a bit too much. It was designed for normal people to be able to get in touch with famous people or vice versa. Some people misuse it and harass famous people. There's plenty of good that has come because of it as well.
    - philwelch 9y ago
      I'm not stretching those words; the entire thing (including the "abuse and harassment engine" bit) is a direct quote from Jeff Vogel. I recommend considering the idea within the context of the entire blog post, which is the other reason I shared the link.
    - intoverflow2 9y ago
      > It was designed for normal people to be able to get in touch with famous people or vice versa Not so sure about this. Wasn't it just designed to broadcast messages among people who knew each other. The celeb focus came later. I'd also say it doesn't help that your onboarding focuses greatly on what celebs you're going to engage with on the service.
- protomyth 9y ago
  I’d say it’s even going backwards. Whoever made the decision to put other people’s likes in my timeline really increased the noise and showed a real lack of understanding between a like and retweet.
krashidov 9y ago
Yeah I don't understand how the board of Twitter continues to allow this.
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Probably Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Will they do better with a full time CEO? What if some talent leaves due to perceived instability? T-Mobile and HP both had this happen, and it took years to recover, as anyone who could jump ship did.
  - chk_ur_autism 9y ago
    It's almost like the inability for twitter to make any meaningful decisions around product, moderation etc comes from the board?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- rco8786 9y ago
  It was their idea.
- rtpg 9y ago
  My understanding is that Twitter's board got a couple new members right before the transition that were Jack-friendly. Easy to win elections when you get to pick the electors

He's doing an admittedly awful job at Twitter. See: - Russian troll accounts/factories (he even retweeted one) - Inability to clean up harassment/abuse/threats - Stagnant product feature set - Awful (truly awful) ad product

chk_ur_autism 9y ago
Saying "whats up" to the down voters who work at Twitter or Square. Sorry about your RSUs!
- dang 9y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines. Comments here need to be civil and substantive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
StudentStuff 9y ago
All a CEO does is set and push forward a certain culture and a handful of goals, but that is a full time job. Square isn't anything revolutionary or particularly special, the only trick they have is picking up customers who don't understand merchant processing and are willing to pay an extra 1% or so to avoid ever thinking about it. Edit: I'm not referring to what a CEO is accountable for, just what they actually have control over. A CEO is not god, despite what some may believe!
- chk_ur_autism 9y ago
  Actually, a CEO is accountable for everything. Absolutely everything. The buck stops at the CEO, and anyone who thinks otherwise is misguided. Therefore, the issues at Twitter are Jack's fault, full stop.
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Definitely, a CEO is accountable for everything, but a CEO's influence is quite limited overall, their biggest power is to shut down whole divisions of a company, but actually changing said division? That is a much more difficult task that a CEO cannot achieve on their own, no matter the effort put into said task.
    - jdmichal 9y ago
      The biggest power of a CEO is culture. Look at Uber and all the negativity their culture is getting, fed by the specific instances where that culture allowed terrible things to happen. And yes, a CEO does not change the culture on their own. That's impossible by definition -- the culture is the sum result of all the actors within the company. But a CEO is expected to lead the culture of the entire company, typically by stating values and setting goals and incentives that actually match those values. If they cannot do this, then they are unable to do their primary internal-facing job. This is one of the reasons that Steve Jobs was so well regarded. For whatever flaws he had, there was no mistaking the culture he was leading, and the results matched. A great example, from a development perspective, is unit tests. Everyone loves to talk about how much we need unit tests. How great unit tests are. How they will make our software better. This is stating values, but you also have to back that up, and that's where things fall apart. The moment any kind of crunch happens, unit tests are the first things thrown out the window. Despite the fact that when you're working quickly, you probably need those tests even more. And all this is because, even though everyone states the value of tests, it's not actually part of the culture. The goals and incentives aren't there; there's no penalty to not following the line.
      - speedplane 9y ago
        > The biggest power of a CEO is culture. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, but it seems a bit simplistic. CEO's are also in the position to be thought leaders, public advocates, build hype, and internally, guide the company to specific results. Workplace culture is extremely important, but not everything. Also, I'm not sure that enforcing unit tests is exactly a "cultural" issue. How many unit tests you write is a decision that weighs current development speed against future development speed and reliability. That is of course influenced by culture, but not exactly culture itself.
- danpalmer 9y ago
  > picking up customers who don't understand merchant processing and are willing to pay an extra 1% or so to avoid ever thinking about it I don't think that's particularly fair to Square, for three reasons: - For much smaller merchants, it can be cheaper overall than traditional payment processing, as you don't have to buy expensive hardware. - Not having to "think about it" is probably underrated, the cost structure of traditional payment processing is very complex and can make it more difficult to know how you need to mark up your products to maintain a target margin, whereas with Square you're guaranteed a flat rate which will make a lot of other decisions easier. - They provide a lot of other services for small businesses, like point-of-sale (I think the software is free for that? Big saving for small merchants) and payroll software (again a time/cost saving). I think it's entirely reasonable that a thinking person might decide to pay 1% for these things, rather than because they don't know any better.
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
He realizes the hysteria around policing online speech and content will be short-lived. He is trying to keep it neutral and not warp it to consist of only the things some people would like to see. Its a strong strategy in the long run.
- diogenescynic 9y ago
  Allowing Russian bots to spread propaganda to meddle in our elections is hardly being neutral. That’s being an enabler.
  - chronicy292 9y ago
    And what about Twitter allowing the US intelligence agencies access to account information about potential overseas national security interests? But of course, Trump is president so we need to get him out of office. Right? News flash: Trump is your president and will continue to be for years to come.
  - craftyguy 9y ago
    If only people (twitter users) were smart enough to question sources of information rather than taking them at face value..
- untog 9y ago
  Are there any statements anywhere suggesting he thinks this, or are we save to assume you are projecting your own opinions onto him?
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    You are free to assume as you wish. I draw my assumptions from his actions.
- pron 9y ago
  Only someone who hasn't been harassed could think this is hysteria. Interaction in communities of strangers (and even in face-to-face societies, like pre-industrial ones) has always required policing.
philwelch 9y ago
> Inability to clean up harassment/abuse/threats That's a feature, not a bug: > Twitter was designed, from Day 1, to enable any random person to send messages directly to any public figure. In other words, from Day 1, it was designed to be an abuse and harassment engine. It's not a bug. It's a feature. All that abuse and controversy is how it gets clicks and money. http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-i-deal-with-harassment-abuse-and.html http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2016/04/how-i-deal-with-haras...
- parthdesai 9y ago
  >In other words, from Day 1, it was designed to be an abuse and harassment engine. Yeah, you are stretching those words a bit too much. It was designed for normal people to be able to get in touch with famous people or vice versa. Some people misuse it and harass famous people. There's plenty of good that has come because of it as well.
  - philwelch 9y ago
    I'm not stretching those words; the entire thing (including the "abuse and harassment engine" bit) is a direct quote from Jeff Vogel. I recommend considering the idea within the context of the entire blog post, which is the other reason I shared the link.
  - intoverflow2 9y ago
    > It was designed for normal people to be able to get in touch with famous people or vice versa Not so sure about this. Wasn't it just designed to broadcast messages among people who knew each other. The celeb focus came later. I'd also say it doesn't help that your onboarding focuses greatly on what celebs you're going to engage with on the service.
protomyth 9y ago
I’d say it’s even going backwards. Whoever made the decision to put other people’s likes in my timeline really increased the noise and showed a real lack of understanding between a like and retweet.

krashidov 9y ago

Yeah I don't understand how the board of Twitter continues to allow this.

StudentStuff 9y ago
Probably Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Will they do better with a full time CEO? What if some talent leaves due to perceived instability? T-Mobile and HP both had this happen, and it took years to recover, as anyone who could jump ship did.
- chk_ur_autism 9y ago
  It's almost like the inability for twitter to make any meaningful decisions around product, moderation etc comes from the board?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rco8786 9y ago
It was their idea.
rtpg 9y ago
My understanding is that Twitter's board got a couple new members right before the transition that were Jack-friendly. Easy to win elections when you get to pick the electors