6 ms·

A few reflections on this announcement. 1) Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. The cost of doing it i

A few reflections on this announcement. 1) Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. The cost of doing it is being sued for damages, having to spend countless hours with lawyers, etc. Jack might think X, but he's only allowed to say Y, and he doesn't want to go beyond that because he doesn't want to fight that fight. Only people in a close circle really know what's going on, and it's most certainly not random people on the Internet (or HN). 2) Also, consider that Twitter, and perhaps Facebook (sorry but I don't give a sh*t that its new name is Meta), are really difficult companies to run, especially if you'd like to do some public good, as opposed to just maximizing returns. There are so many things that can go wrong, so many other things that will set your company on fire without warnings, and that doesn't give people the time to think strategically on how to tackle certain difficult scenarios. Twitter and Facebook essentially control most of the public discourse these days; never seen such amount of power in the hands of a few companies. 3) Despite common opinion, I actually think that Twitter (unlike Facebook) has done more good than harm. Why? Because it has essentially enabled an incredible explosion of "voices" that can be heard (err, read) all over the world. 4) Yes, we can think of countless ways to make Twitter better, but remember that Twitter is not run by Jack Dorsey, nor that other companies are run by their CEOs. Companies are run by boards, which means, by large funds with controlling interest in these companies. Even a well-intentioned CEO has to fight against many things his/her board want. And unlike enlightened CEOs, enlightened boards are essentially a very rare creature, almost never seen on planet Earth (IMHO). 5) You might think I'm defending Jack, perhaps I am, but it might be because hatred is really easy to dispense, while trying to be balanced in your judgement is really hard, and perhaps the conversation about Twitter should benefit from cooler heads, as opposed to quick slogans.

GabeIsko 5y ago
I don't think it is valid to say that the difficulty of running large successful companies buys moral leeway for their CEOs. They get payed the big bucks for a reason, let's hold them responsible.
bad_username 5y ago
> it has essentially enabled an incredible explosion of "voices" that can be heard Very controlled, curated, and politically corrected explosion. "Very lively debate within allowed spectrum".
- Aeolun 5y ago
  What exactly would you like to discuss on Twitter? I’ve never felt censored there regardless of what my opinion was.
  - teetertater 5y ago
    This probably isn't what the parent meant, but also: I began using Twitter a week ago after avoiding it for years. Imo it incentivizes you to gain likes/followers, but in order to do so you have to tailor your content to appeal to bots/algo/quick-digestion. And it's not fun tweeting if nobody interacts, so you end up self-censoring to post clickbaity hype content
- gremloni 5y ago
  That sounds like the dream.
hartator 5y ago
> Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. Elon Musk seems pretty free. He just pays the fines time to time.
- ralfd 5y ago
  Yes. I guess Musk is the exception proving the rule.
  - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
    Of course, exceptions don’t prove rules, they disprove them. Maybe Musk is showing that CEOs could say a lot more than they choose to, at least if they have charisma. And run certain kinds of businesses, appealing to a certain kind of investors and customers.
    - gusgus01 5y ago
      It's a reference to a popular saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule The logic of which is, if something is an exception or so exceptional that it's called out as an exception, that implies the existence of a rule.
      - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
        I just think it’s sometimes used when it shouldn’t be.
        bluedays 5y ago
        Well i think in your case you’re the exception proving the rule
        kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
        I’m off to the island of misfit toys. :-(
MaximumYComb 5y ago
I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).
- StevePerkins 5y ago
  Realistically speaking, Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)" because: 1. Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter. 2. Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook. 3. Any conclusions are going to be subjective AF accordingly, and HN is a more young and left-leaning cohort. All social media is a double-edged sword, under the most charitable view.
  - __float 5y ago
    That's a weird conclusion to come to. There is a ton of alt-right, extremist content on Twitter. Not just in English, mind you.
    - ycombinete 5y ago
      And a lot of it is young
  - herdcall 5y ago
    OK, "Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter" ^ "Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook" => Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)?" That's ageism of first order right there.
    - khazhoux 5y ago
      I think his point was that because "good" is entirely subjective, and since HN aligns with Twitter, HN subjectively will consider Twitter good.
- madeofpalk 5y ago
randomsearch 5y ago
> There are so many things that can go wrong, so many other things that will set your company on fire without warnings, and that doesn't give people the time to think strategically on how to tackle certain difficult scenarios. > never seen such amount of power in the hands of a few companies. These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many things. Twitter has more than enough resource to prevent it from being the extremely harmful manipulation machine that it is. There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.”
- Talanes 5y ago
  >These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many things. Power isn't a single resource that can be accumulated and spent. The accumulation of soft power over public discourse isn't the sort of thing that inherently helps you put out fires, and in fact managing that growth can be one of the fires. >There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.” Which GP covered in their 4th point. Even a CEO who doesn't believe that answers to a board who does. And if the board has reservations, they answer to shareholders who do. It's a structure that continually passes the buck so no one has to consciously decide to put profits over people. Fiduciary duty is a pretty slick moral hack, making the act of chasing the dollar feel like a communal good.
  - simonebrunozzi 5y ago
    Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks.
- Aerroon 5y ago
  >Twitter has more than enough resource to prevent it from being the extremely harmful manipulation machine that it is. But would you actually want them to do that? What if their idea of "extremely harmful manipulation" is different from yours?
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  > There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.” Socrates's prosecutors called, they want their undisprovable accusation back! Serious any claims of "ruining" or "harming" society are specious and a classic symptom of a moral panic. You would think people would have learned from atonal music, Jazz, rock and roll, and rap alone having already ruined society. Let alone allowing women and minorities to vote and gay marriage and things getting better from a "ruined" society.
reubenswartz 5y ago
> Twitter is not run by Jack Dorsey, nor that other companies are run by their CEOs. Companies are run by boards. FB (Meta?) is run by its CEO. He controls the board. This is rare, of course (and perhaps unique for a company of this size and powe).
IA21 5y ago
> Facebook (sorry but I don't give a sh*t that its new name is Meta) clearly, you do

GabeIsko 5y ago

I don't think it is valid to say that the difficulty of running large successful companies buys moral leeway for their CEOs. They get payed the big bucks for a reason, let's hold them responsible.

bad_username 5y ago

> it has essentially enabled an incredible explosion of "voices" that can be heard Very controlled, curated, and politically corrected explosion. "Very lively debate within allowed spectrum".

Aeolun 5y ago
What exactly would you like to discuss on Twitter? I’ve never felt censored there regardless of what my opinion was.
- teetertater 5y ago
  This probably isn't what the parent meant, but also: I began using Twitter a week ago after avoiding it for years. Imo it incentivizes you to gain likes/followers, but in order to do so you have to tailor your content to appeal to bots/algo/quick-digestion. And it's not fun tweeting if nobody interacts, so you end up self-censoring to post clickbaity hype content
gremloni 5y ago
That sounds like the dream.

hartator 5y ago

> Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. Elon Musk seems pretty free. He just pays the fines time to time.

ralfd 5y ago
Yes. I guess Musk is the exception proving the rule.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Of course, exceptions don’t prove rules, they disprove them. Maybe Musk is showing that CEOs could say a lot more than they choose to, at least if they have charisma. And run certain kinds of businesses, appealing to a certain kind of investors and customers.
  - gusgus01 5y ago
    It's a reference to a popular saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule The logic of which is, if something is an exception or so exceptional that it's called out as an exception, that implies the existence of a rule.
    - kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
      I just think it’s sometimes used when it shouldn’t be.
      - bluedays 5y ago
        Well i think in your case you’re the exception proving the rule
        kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
        I’m off to the island of misfit toys. :-(

MaximumYComb 5y ago

I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).

StevePerkins 5y ago
Realistically speaking, Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)" because: 1. Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter. 2. Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook. 3. Any conclusions are going to be subjective AF accordingly, and HN is a more young and left-leaning cohort. All social media is a double-edged sword, under the most charitable view.
- __float 5y ago
  That's a weird conclusion to come to. There is a ton of alt-right, extremist content on Twitter. Not just in English, mind you.
  - ycombinete 5y ago
    And a lot of it is young
- herdcall 5y ago
  OK, "Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter" ^ "Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook" => Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)?" That's ageism of first order right there.
  - khazhoux 5y ago
    I think his point was that because "good" is entirely subjective, and since HN aligns with Twitter, HN subjectively will consider Twitter good.
madeofpalk 5y ago

randomsearch 5y ago

> There are so many things that can go wrong, so many other things that will set your company on fire without warnings, and that doesn't give people the time to think strategically on how to tackle certain difficult scenarios. > never seen such amount of power in the hands of a few companies. These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many things. Twitter has more than enough resource to prevent it from being the extremely harmful manipulation machine that it is. There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.”

Talanes 5y ago
>These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many things. Power isn't a single resource that can be accumulated and spent. The accumulation of soft power over public discourse isn't the sort of thing that inherently helps you put out fires, and in fact managing that growth can be one of the fires. >There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.” Which GP covered in their 4th point. Even a CEO who doesn't believe that answers to a board who does. And if the board has reservations, they answer to shareholders who do. It's a structure that continually passes the buck so no one has to consciously decide to put profits over people. Fiduciary duty is a pretty slick moral hack, making the act of chasing the dollar feel like a communal good.
- simonebrunozzi 5y ago
  Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks.
Aerroon 5y ago
>Twitter has more than enough resource to prevent it from being the extremely harmful manipulation machine that it is. But would you actually want them to do that? What if their idea of "extremely harmful manipulation" is different from yours?
Nasrudith 5y ago
> There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.” Socrates's prosecutors called, they want their undisprovable accusation back! Serious any claims of "ruining" or "harming" society are specious and a classic symptom of a moral panic. You would think people would have learned from atonal music, Jazz, rock and roll, and rap alone having already ruined society. Let alone allowing women and minorities to vote and gay marriage and things getting better from a "ruined" society.

reubenswartz 5y ago

> Twitter is not run by Jack Dorsey, nor that other companies are run by their CEOs. Companies are run by boards. FB (Meta?) is run by its CEO. He controls the board. This is rare, of course (and perhaps unique for a company of this size and powe).

IA21 5y ago

> Facebook (sorry but I don't give a sh*t that its new name is Meta) clearly, you do