The whistleblowing case is a new dimension. To me as an outsider it implies Agrawal may have also been the manager in his previous technical role for a lot of t

The whistleblowing case is a new dimension. To me as an outsider it implies Agrawal may have also been the manager in his previous technical role for a lot of the tech problems Zatko identified, and what made Agrawal CEO was his ability to leverage these problems to play ball with all the interests in that company and board, while sustaining through neglect some of those concerning practices within the organization. Twitter's product isn't technology, it's an uncertified slot machine that pays out in political influence, and there are a lot of big interests depending on their cut of it. They needed a steady hand who wouldn't be vulnerable to being swayed by principle, and that's the one thing you don't keep hackers around for, imo. If I were betting, nothing is ever really systemically broken in large orgs, it just works for someone you can't see. This is a factor everywhere and not necessarily at Twitter. Shitty process? Cui bono. Unverifiable systems? Cui bono. Deniable and unaccounted-for access to God-mode data? Cui bono. Repudiable numbers reporting? Cui bono. Bizarre political posturing? Cui bono, etc.