6 ms·

There's zero explanation in the email for why he resigned. He's re-iterating the point that the company is fine moving forward with the rest of the board, the n

There's zero explanation in the email for why he resigned. He's re-iterating the point that the company is fine moving forward with the rest of the board, the new CEO and the existing team, but no actual reason as to why he left.

GabeIsko 5y ago
Honestly, does he really owe the public a reason? I am no Jack Dorsey fan, but it would be unusual for any CEO of even a moderately successful company to expose any internal business with the public.
- checkyoursudo 5y ago
  He probably realistically owed the public (or shareholders) an explanation of how he could justify being CEO of two companies more than he owes an explanation of why he left one of them.
tinyhouse 5y ago
When a CEO leaving the same day the news come out, it means it wasn't his decision.
- at-fates-hands 5y ago
  I was digging around this morning and found this from 2020. You think he was just feeling the heat lately and wanted out? Or has this been in the works from opposing forces for a while now? A billionaire Republican megadonor has purchased a "sizable" stake in Twitter and "plans to push" to oust CEO Jack Dorsey among other changes, according to new reports, raising the prospect of a shocking election-year shakeup of the social media platform that conservatives have long accused of overt left-wing political bias. Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. has already nominated four directors to Twitter's board, a development first reported by Bloomberg News, citing several sources familiar with the arrangement. The outlet noted that unlike other prominent tech CEOs, Dorsey didn't have voting control over Twitter because the company had just one class of stock; and he has long been a target for removal given Twitter's struggling user growth numbers and stock performance. Aside from these two paragraphs the rest of the article is a lot of speculation and some quotes from people who've been against Twitter for some time: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-paul-singer-republican-jack-dorsey https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-paul-singer-republi...
- sedatk 5y ago
  Not really. When you don't want the discussion to linger for the whole transition period, announcing the news the last minute can make sense. Not saying it's the case here though, just saying it's a possibility.
- bin_bash 5y ago
  They've fired him before and last year he nearly got fired by the board when an activist investor came on board. I think if that was the case it would be public knowledge.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
Uncharitable explanation: he's being forced out over his pro-free-speech views. He's been pretty vocal about disagreeing with Twitter's recent actions.
- mike_d 5y ago
  That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Perhaps he did reverse or prevent some actions the board in general felt he shouldn't, and this is the "please leave".
  - mgfist 5y ago
    A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.
    - delaaxe 5y ago
      From what I hear that's not the case the with Zuckerberg, in that most decisions go through him. I would guess the same with Elon
      - r00fus 5y ago
        That's because Zuckerberg stacked the decks that way because he pressed his advantage early. He owns controlling interest of his operation and it can't be wrested from him. I don't think it's the best approach to manage a company but it's sure been lucrative for Mark.
        BbzzbB 5y ago
        >it's sure been lucrative for Mark I don't hear many FB shareholders complaining either, I wouldn't claim equal voting rights on my few shares even if I could (please don't crucify me HN, I'm just a tiny fish that dislikes the company but likes the stock). On paper, supershare structures are not a great thing for the common shareholder as it makes their shares basically free of voting rights when the CEO (or united group) holds such a supermajority. In practice, a strong operator like Mark gets more leeway to steer the ship with fewer barriers and inside power struggles. Imagine if the board stopped him from buying IG or WA, these purchases were very controversial at the time and many thought he was a lunatic for paying such a steep price, it only looks genius in hindsight. When/while it works, it is an effective governance structure. Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.
superflit2 5y ago
Maybe there is a current trial or lawsuit that could damage his reputation and then the company? Like a trial that is touching a lot of big players in tech? something.. something.... L*** express? Thus resigning is better for the shareholders and him.
- at-fates-hands 5y ago
  You're seeing a lot of political consolidation around getting rid of, or revamping considerably section 230 which most social media platforms have been protected from lawsuits for a while now. When you have both parties in agreement that FB, Twitter and Google are a threat to free speech and democracy, you best watch out. This was my thought. The heat was getting too much for him. Law makers repeatedly asking him to come testify on this and that. The pressure to get rid of 230, and have better controls on banning people may have just worn on him enough where he just decided to toss in the towel and move onto something else and quietly disappear.
hitpointdrew 5y ago
Welcome to public relations. This is par for the course, ask a politician a question get a non-answer, ask an NFL coach about the next game “They are a good team, we have to practice hard.” It’s all just talking without really saying anything.
- clairity 5y ago
  yes, that's the downside of the 'iterated game' dynamic: the desire to minimize leaks of future strategy. the upside, of course, is fewer defections/betrayals. it's one of the reasons we need independent journalism in society not beholden to moneyed/political interests. unfortunately, just about every news outlet, including npr, has been subverted at this point. here's hoping jack actually believes in sacrificing money and power to defect out of this information oligopoly, though i'm skeptical as those forces are irresistable to most humans.
- sjg007 5y ago
  This is a great skill to learn BTW... along with answering only the questions you want and saying only what you want when asked questions. Rumsfeld was a master of it. It's more than public relations but also negotiation and diplomacy even in the non-political sense. I mean try to get a school board to do something or your local govt.
trentnix 5y ago
All while telling us how amazingly transparent the company is.
jms703 5y ago
He is/was CEO of two companies, but seems more interested in what's going on at one more than the other. Makes sense. Get out of the way of the people focused on the mission.
snarkypixel 5y ago
Replying to my own comment, but if I had to guess (on absolutely zero context and evidence :p), I would say he wants to focus on crypto/Square, and Twitter is more of a time sink. Twitter is in a good enough state at the moment that the team can move without him so it's a good moment to leave.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  The 10% appreciation of the shares as a result of him leaving is reason enough. He's still a big shareholder.
  - hartator 5y ago
    Except now the stock is DOWN 2.7%.
  - busymom0 5y ago
    Other than Musk for Tesla and SpaceX, I can't think of any of the major companies who would really be impacted much by their CEO leaving. Maybe Zuck leaving FB might make a small difference but IG seems decently independent of him anyway.
    - annadane 5y ago
      Zuckerberg by all accounts bullied Kevin Systrom out of the company and now it prompts you to sign in when trying to browse photos; doesn't seem independant
      - busymom0 5y ago
        Jack Dorsey did something similar too to Noah Glass which doesn't get talked about much: https://youtu.be/p8N0xN0ihMA https://youtu.be/p8N0xN0ihMA
justapassenger 5y ago
Running social media company is a job, where in the best case, half of the world hates you. No matter how good you’re, you’re always walking thin line between hate, free speech, conspiracy theories, political polarization, media and countless other issues. It’s a game you cannot win, and I’m pretty sure that’s why he’s resigning.
- GabeIsko 5y ago
  Maybe he just wants to do something else.
ksec 5y ago
Twitter, ~$35B Market Cap, no profits, operating expenses keeps growing with Gross Profits. Future projection of profitability is still slim. Along with trillions of social / political issues that you have to due with because you are running social media. Square, ~$100B Market Cap, profitable, still mainly US based and growing. Crypto and Payment. Lots of potentials. It is not too hard to pick which one to run.
- ransom1538 5y ago
  Yeah from people that work there: it's hard to keep ad companies happy. Ad services want more personal info, tracking systems, they want geo, they want the user signed in, etc. Ad companies can get ALL that on facebook. This is completely against what twitter users (the vocal ones anyway) want.
- mrpopo 5y ago
  If your goal is personal monetary profit, maybe. Is it the case of Jack? Why want more when you already have too much
  - nvr219 5y ago
    Because at a certain point money becomes an addiction.
    - PStamatiou 5y ago
      https://twitter.com/jack/status/1247616214769086465 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1247616214769086465
      - MisterSandman 5y ago
        Not sure what your point is. Even gambling addicts like to donate or give away money to the hostesses and waitresses at the bar. The addiction is earning money. Accumulating wealth. Donating it, if anything, adds to that addiction, since it lets you play god for a bit. Not saying Jack is all of those things, and donating money is objectively a good thing, but the greedy race for money can't be solved by promoting charity.

GabeIsko 5y ago

Honestly, does he really owe the public a reason? I am no Jack Dorsey fan, but it would be unusual for any CEO of even a moderately successful company to expose any internal business with the public.

checkyoursudo 5y ago
He probably realistically owed the public (or shareholders) an explanation of how he could justify being CEO of two companies more than he owes an explanation of why he left one of them.

tinyhouse 5y ago

When a CEO leaving the same day the news come out, it means it wasn't his decision.

at-fates-hands 5y ago
I was digging around this morning and found this from 2020. You think he was just feeling the heat lately and wanted out? Or has this been in the works from opposing forces for a while now? A billionaire Republican megadonor has purchased a "sizable" stake in Twitter and "plans to push" to oust CEO Jack Dorsey among other changes, according to new reports, raising the prospect of a shocking election-year shakeup of the social media platform that conservatives have long accused of overt left-wing political bias. Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. has already nominated four directors to Twitter's board, a development first reported by Bloomberg News, citing several sources familiar with the arrangement. The outlet noted that unlike other prominent tech CEOs, Dorsey didn't have voting control over Twitter because the company had just one class of stock; and he has long been a target for removal given Twitter's struggling user growth numbers and stock performance. Aside from these two paragraphs the rest of the article is a lot of speculation and some quotes from people who've been against Twitter for some time: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-paul-singer-republican-jack-dorsey https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-paul-singer-republi...
sedatk 5y ago
Not really. When you don't want the discussion to linger for the whole transition period, announcing the news the last minute can make sense. Not saying it's the case here though, just saying it's a possibility.
bin_bash 5y ago
They've fired him before and last year he nearly got fired by the board when an activist investor came on board. I think if that was the case it would be public knowledge.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

Uncharitable explanation: he's being forced out over his pro-free-speech views. He's been pretty vocal about disagreeing with Twitter's recent actions.

mike_d 5y ago
That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Perhaps he did reverse or prevent some actions the board in general felt he shouldn't, and this is the "please leave".
- mgfist 5y ago
  A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.
  - delaaxe 5y ago
    From what I hear that's not the case the with Zuckerberg, in that most decisions go through him. I would guess the same with Elon
    - r00fus 5y ago
      That's because Zuckerberg stacked the decks that way because he pressed his advantage early. He owns controlling interest of his operation and it can't be wrested from him. I don't think it's the best approach to manage a company but it's sure been lucrative for Mark.
      - BbzzbB 5y ago
        >it's sure been lucrative for Mark I don't hear many FB shareholders complaining either, I wouldn't claim equal voting rights on my few shares even if I could (please don't crucify me HN, I'm just a tiny fish that dislikes the company but likes the stock). On paper, supershare structures are not a great thing for the common shareholder as it makes their shares basically free of voting rights when the CEO (or united group) holds such a supermajority. In practice, a strong operator like Mark gets more leeway to steer the ship with fewer barriers and inside power struggles. Imagine if the board stopped him from buying IG or WA, these purchases were very controversial at the time and many thought he was a lunatic for paying such a steep price, it only looks genius in hindsight. When/while it works, it is an effective governance structure. Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.

superflit2 5y ago

Maybe there is a current trial or lawsuit that could damage his reputation and then the company? Like a trial that is touching a lot of big players in tech? something.. something.... L*** express? Thus resigning is better for the shareholders and him.

at-fates-hands 5y ago
You're seeing a lot of political consolidation around getting rid of, or revamping considerably section 230 which most social media platforms have been protected from lawsuits for a while now. When you have both parties in agreement that FB, Twitter and Google are a threat to free speech and democracy, you best watch out. This was my thought. The heat was getting too much for him. Law makers repeatedly asking him to come testify on this and that. The pressure to get rid of 230, and have better controls on banning people may have just worn on him enough where he just decided to toss in the towel and move onto something else and quietly disappear.

hitpointdrew 5y ago

Welcome to public relations. This is par for the course, ask a politician a question get a non-answer, ask an NFL coach about the next game “They are a good team, we have to practice hard.” It’s all just talking without really saying anything.

clairity 5y ago
yes, that's the downside of the 'iterated game' dynamic: the desire to minimize leaks of future strategy. the upside, of course, is fewer defections/betrayals. it's one of the reasons we need independent journalism in society not beholden to moneyed/political interests. unfortunately, just about every news outlet, including npr, has been subverted at this point. here's hoping jack actually believes in sacrificing money and power to defect out of this information oligopoly, though i'm skeptical as those forces are irresistable to most humans.
sjg007 5y ago
This is a great skill to learn BTW... along with answering only the questions you want and saying only what you want when asked questions. Rumsfeld was a master of it. It's more than public relations but also negotiation and diplomacy even in the non-political sense. I mean try to get a school board to do something or your local govt.

trentnix 5y ago

All while telling us how amazingly transparent the company is.

jms703 5y ago

He is/was CEO of two companies, but seems more interested in what's going on at one more than the other. Makes sense. Get out of the way of the people focused on the mission.

snarkypixel 5y ago

Replying to my own comment, but if I had to guess (on absolutely zero context and evidence :p), I would say he wants to focus on crypto/Square, and Twitter is more of a time sink. Twitter is in a good enough state at the moment that the team can move without him so it's a good moment to leave.

koheripbal 5y ago
The 10% appreciation of the shares as a result of him leaving is reason enough. He's still a big shareholder.
- hartator 5y ago
  Except now the stock is DOWN 2.7%.
- busymom0 5y ago
  Other than Musk for Tesla and SpaceX, I can't think of any of the major companies who would really be impacted much by their CEO leaving. Maybe Zuck leaving FB might make a small difference but IG seems decently independent of him anyway.
  - annadane 5y ago
    Zuckerberg by all accounts bullied Kevin Systrom out of the company and now it prompts you to sign in when trying to browse photos; doesn't seem independant
    - busymom0 5y ago
      Jack Dorsey did something similar too to Noah Glass which doesn't get talked about much: https://youtu.be/p8N0xN0ihMA https://youtu.be/p8N0xN0ihMA

justapassenger 5y ago

Running social media company is a job, where in the best case, half of the world hates you. No matter how good you’re, you’re always walking thin line between hate, free speech, conspiracy theories, political polarization, media and countless other issues. It’s a game you cannot win, and I’m pretty sure that’s why he’s resigning.

GabeIsko 5y ago
Maybe he just wants to do something else.

ksec 5y ago

Twitter, ~$35B Market Cap, no profits, operating expenses keeps growing with Gross Profits. Future projection of profitability is still slim. Along with trillions of social / political issues that you have to due with because you are running social media. Square, ~$100B Market Cap, profitable, still mainly US based and growing. Crypto and Payment. Lots of potentials. It is not too hard to pick which one to run.

ransom1538 5y ago
Yeah from people that work there: it's hard to keep ad companies happy. Ad services want more personal info, tracking systems, they want geo, they want the user signed in, etc. Ad companies can get ALL that on facebook. This is completely against what twitter users (the vocal ones anyway) want.
mrpopo 5y ago
If your goal is personal monetary profit, maybe. Is it the case of Jack? Why want more when you already have too much
- nvr219 5y ago
  Because at a certain point money becomes an addiction.
  - PStamatiou 5y ago
    https://twitter.com/jack/status/1247616214769086465 https://twitter.com/jack/status/1247616214769086465
    - MisterSandman 5y ago
      Not sure what your point is. Even gambling addicts like to donate or give away money to the hostesses and waitresses at the bar. The addiction is earning money. Accumulating wealth. Donating it, if anything, adds to that addiction, since it lets you play god for a bit. Not saying Jack is all of those things, and donating money is objectively a good thing, but the greedy race for money can't be solved by promoting charity.