3 ms·

What is your thinking behind "must be"?

• moralestapia 4y ago
  Those exits were not planned, one guy was even on parental leave, so it was definitely a rushed thing. That always stinks when an acquisition is taking place.
• soumyadeb 4y ago
  One person (their VP Product) was on paternity. You don't fire people like that unless they did something very very wrong. Misrepresenting spam/bot accounts would fall under that bucket. If the number of spam accounts is like 20% (instead of 5%), not only would the deal fall through, other shareholders would sue twitter. Not sure this misrepresentation would count as financial misrepresentation (which results in jail etc under Sarbanes-Oxley)
  • muglug 4y ago
    > You don't fire people like that unless they did something very very wrong. If he's on paternity leave he won't have been responsible for a number that came out last week.
    • soumyadeb 4y ago
      Well, he is still responsible for the process through which the number was derived (assuming the process was put in place by him).
    • raizer88 4y ago
      Pretty sure twitter have a dashboard with these numbers, and don't do it manually. So if this dashboard makes data up, I'm pretty sure VP of Product's head is on the table, since it's a really sensitive data to report wrong. And twitter firing him can be a way to protect the top exec from the SEC, blaming him for everything.
  • danaris 4y ago
    > You don't fire people like that unless they did something very very wrong. That's assuming the firings are fully rational, and no self-interest was involved. I can easily imagine a number of scenarios where Parag fired the guy knowing he had done nothing wrong in order to attempt to protect himself in some way.