5 ms·

Absolutely zero reason to say "who was terminated for ineffective leadership and poor performance". That context is not at all relevant to this matter and comes

Absolutely zero reason to say "who was terminated for ineffective leadership and poor performance". That context is not at all relevant to this matter and comes off as an attempt to distract from the subject in matter. And it doesn't bode well for employees to see their CEO mud slinging at former employees like that. You could be next! Besides, surely they know such messages eventually reach the public eye and give people a view into the culture in the company?

bombcar 4y ago
From what I'm hearing, those who can leave Twitter are leaving twitter.
- capableweb 4y ago
  What do you mean "those who can"? Everyone works there because they want to, no other reasons. If you work at Twitter and don't want to anymore, it's trivial to leave, and you won't struggle to find a new position elsewhere. It's not like Facebook where your work history is already a bit tarnished by not having left it already.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Not everyone is in a position to avail themselves of a job search immediately. But those who can, seem to be doing so.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    There are a lot of absolutes here that I don't think jive with everyone's reality.
mc32 4y ago
Doesn't HR usually filter messages so as to leave no meat for any possible wrongful termination litigation or libelous tort?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Yeah, but Mudge already sent a "whistleblower" complaint to congress / FTC so this isn't your standard publicly-amicable executive departure.
- twelve40 4y ago
  Not if they did the PIP and everything, collected evidence to cover their ass, and now have the ability to use this in what's already a very public lawsuit.
remus 4y ago
> Absolutely zero reason to say "who was terminated for ineffective leadership and poor performance". That context is not at all relevant to this matter and comes off as an attempt to distract from the subject in matter. While it is distasteful I think it is also relevant. If twitter have an actual reason for firing him they'll want to make it clear, so that it doesn't look like they got rid of him to try and sweep his concerns under the carpet. In practice it's hard to say whether it works. They can't go into detail about why he was dismissed which means no one on the outside is really any the wiser about whether he was dismissed because twitter had legitimate concerns about his performance or whether they don't like what he had to say.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  Yeah, so you say "fired for cause" and don't go into the details.
croes 4y ago
To provide a motive for the false claims? Doesn't mean they are false, just a reason why to mention the reason of the termination.

bombcar 4y ago

From what I'm hearing, those who can leave Twitter are leaving twitter.

capableweb 4y ago
What do you mean "those who can"? Everyone works there because they want to, no other reasons. If you work at Twitter and don't want to anymore, it's trivial to leave, and you won't struggle to find a new position elsewhere. It's not like Facebook where your work history is already a bit tarnished by not having left it already.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Not everyone is in a position to avail themselves of a job search immediately. But those who can, seem to be doing so.
- jjulius 4y ago
  There are a lot of absolutes here that I don't think jive with everyone's reality.

mc32 4y ago

Doesn't HR usually filter messages so as to leave no meat for any possible wrongful termination litigation or libelous tort?

mikeyouse 4y ago
Yeah, but Mudge already sent a "whistleblower" complaint to congress / FTC so this isn't your standard publicly-amicable executive departure.
twelve40 4y ago
Not if they did the PIP and everything, collected evidence to cover their ass, and now have the ability to use this in what's already a very public lawsuit.

remus 4y ago

> Absolutely zero reason to say "who was terminated for ineffective leadership and poor performance". That context is not at all relevant to this matter and comes off as an attempt to distract from the subject in matter. While it is distasteful I think it is also relevant. If twitter have an actual reason for firing him they'll want to make it clear, so that it doesn't look like they got rid of him to try and sweep his concerns under the carpet. In practice it's hard to say whether it works. They can't go into detail about why he was dismissed which means no one on the outside is really any the wiser about whether he was dismissed because twitter had legitimate concerns about his performance or whether they don't like what he had to say.

cryptonector 4y ago
Yeah, so you say "fired for cause" and don't go into the details.

croes 4y ago

To provide a motive for the false claims? Doesn't mean they are false, just a reason why to mention the reason of the termination.