10 ms·
I meant to say this: - Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. - Now Musk goes out and says he would revert. - Even in the wild case (I personally thin
by lalos 4y ago
I meant to say this:
- Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban.
- Now Musk goes out and says he would revert.
- Even in the wild case (I personally think it is not the case) which Jack fervently would still believe that the ban should go on, why do it? why add drama to a business deal and say "no, Musk is wrong"? that would just sour the whole business deal that he would benefit from. Or why would anyone be antagonistic to someone on the other side of the table, this applies to any other business deal not just this.
- Reporters or anybody would naturally question Jack, hey the new owner is saying this do you want to go on the record about why the new owner is against something that happened on your command? Paraphrasing: "Yes, I agree with him now, lets move on". Very diplomatic and 'correct' answer from his part.
- dmatech 4y agoIt's not improbable that he was privately opposed to it, but he had to be publicly in favor of it in order to not undercut people like Vijaya Gadde and Del Harvey. Remember that Dorsey was also CEO of Square at the time and doing a bunch of crypto stuff. Dealing with Twitter drama was probably not the hill he wanted to die on.
- tomlin 4y ago– Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. No. He's even commented on this. He was CEO at the time, with a board of directors. He didn't "enact" it any more than any CEO "enacts" every single decision at any company.