3 ms·

It's about the context, Dorsey has basically been an absent CEO for the last 5 years. All the reporting is basically that he wasn't engaged, didn't make decisio

It's about the context, Dorsey has basically been an absent CEO for the last 5 years. All the reporting is basically that he wasn't engaged, didn't make decisions, and in the end he didn't really step down from Twitter, he was forced out by activist investor buying up shares and pushing him out. It's not like he didn't have an opportunity to address the issues at Twitter, it's that he went off and worked at a different company whilst still being CEO of Twitter and as a result completely squandered the opportunity.

tptacek 4y ago
There's also the fact that he's on the board of directors of Twitter while he's sending these text messages conspiring against the shareholders he represents!
- bushbaba 4y ago
  Wonder if he could be sued.
- goldenManatee 4y ago
  That’s going to be a battle of cash poured into PR teams. While competitive, I am layman and do not see that it rises to the level of conspiracy. You can’t exactly call a non-monetizing protocol the competitive beast that a publicly traded, global behemoth like Twitter is.
- floor2 4y ago
  I don't see anything here that seems at all like "conspiring against the shareholders". He wanted to change the company in ways that he thought were better, but he couldn't get the support of the other stakeholders so he's leaving the board. He's discussing with a friend a combination of A) lessons learned and what he'd do differently if he could go back with his current knowledge and B) an abstract hypothetical that after he leaves the board maybe he'll work on a new project that does things better. There is a huge difference between "I'm going to use my position at company X to harm company X" and "After I leave company X, I'd like to do a new project using the lessons I've learned".
rossdavidh 4y ago
Not all (or even most) CEOs have the same amount of power as, say, Mark Zuckerberg at Meta. Most CEOs cannot take the company in the direction of an entirely different business model without the Board of Directors agreeing. Dorsey was booted out as Twitter CEO once before, in 2008, and then brought back in an attempt to fix things, after he had already started Square. It appears, not only from this text but many other comments he's made, that he found the board to be just as difficult to work with. I think he's spot on here, identifying the root cause of the problem, and a realistic appraisal of the chances of changing the existing company.

tptacek 4y ago

There's also the fact that he's on the board of directors of Twitter while he's sending these text messages conspiring against the shareholders he represents!

bushbaba 4y ago
Wonder if he could be sued.
goldenManatee 4y ago
That’s going to be a battle of cash poured into PR teams. While competitive, I am layman and do not see that it rises to the level of conspiracy. You can’t exactly call a non-monetizing protocol the competitive beast that a publicly traded, global behemoth like Twitter is.
floor2 4y ago
I don't see anything here that seems at all like "conspiring against the shareholders". He wanted to change the company in ways that he thought were better, but he couldn't get the support of the other stakeholders so he's leaving the board. He's discussing with a friend a combination of A) lessons learned and what he'd do differently if he could go back with his current knowledge and B) an abstract hypothetical that after he leaves the board maybe he'll work on a new project that does things better. There is a huge difference between "I'm going to use my position at company X to harm company X" and "After I leave company X, I'd like to do a new project using the lessons I've learned".

rossdavidh 4y ago

Not all (or even most) CEOs have the same amount of power as, say, Mark Zuckerberg at Meta. Most CEOs cannot take the company in the direction of an entirely different business model without the Board of Directors agreeing. Dorsey was booted out as Twitter CEO once before, in 2008, and then brought back in an attempt to fix things, after he had already started Square. It appears, not only from this text but many other comments he's made, that he found the board to be just as difficult to work with. I think he's spot on here, identifying the root cause of the problem, and a realistic appraisal of the chances of changing the existing company.