5 ms·

From the linked article: > The company has yet to release a formal announcement of the acquisition. The communications department has gone silent. Rumors have

From the linked article: > The company has yet to release a formal announcement of the acquisition. The communications department has gone silent. Rumors have swirled about layoffs, with some notices going out quietly. Is it just me or is this headline totally misleading? No formal announcement yet folks.

anamexis 4y ago
Why is the headline misleading? You don't need a formal announcement for something to be news. Particularly since the formal announcement being referred to there is just the announcement that Twitter was acquired by Musk.
- herodoturtle 4y ago
  Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to the HN title of this post: "Twitter to lay off 25% of workforce in first round of job cuts" I opened the article thinking this was a formal announcement. But it's nothing of the sort. It's just speculation at this stage. Hope that clears things up.
  - anamexis 4y ago
    But it's not speculation: > ...according to four people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them, as well as tweets from some of the people involved.
    - wisnoskij 4y ago
      This comes from the news stations who said days ago that people were already laid off, and their sources turned out to be random people they found on the street with meme fake names. https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/10/28/2339204/pranksters-posing-as-laid-off-twitter-employees-trick-media-outlets https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/10/28/2339204/pranksters-...
      - anamexis 4y ago
        No, it doesn't, this comes from the Washington Post, speaking to people familiar with the layoff planning.
        dmix 4y ago
        Given everything over the last decade, people should not trust anything when it involves a) highly controversial/partisan/breathless news and b) dealing in anonymous sources and rumors.
        brookst 4y ago
        I think we can rely on peoples' own smarts to build in that skepticism. There's not a lot of benefit to qualifying every piece of information to say that it might be wrong.
    - laweijfmvo 4y ago
      It comes down to, do you trust that WaPo properly vetted the sources, and do you believe that the sources, whether they were in a position to be credible or not, were acting on solid information? E.g. according to Business Insider Facebook should have fired half the company, according to “sources”, but that hasn’t happened to my knowledge yet
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      I am sorry but i am over the "people familiar" .. " condition of anonymity" crap in news Either put a name to it, or dont report on it
      - snotrockets 4y ago
        Asking sources to publish their name is a very sure way to not have sources at all. Quote Orwell, Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. You need to get people to tell you about all those things, and as that someone who dislike them being printed has power (it ain't news otherwise,) you need to find a way to make people talk to you. "Help me to rekt your career and life" just don't cut it.
        dev_daftly 4y ago
        That would make sense if journalists had a better track record when it came to their anonymous sources, but they don't.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        I understand that, and maybe the activists pretending to be journalists should have thought about that before burning the public's trust by just taking any sensationalized "source" with no vetting and reporting on it as fact. The "media" did this to themselves, now at this point no one would trust any news story that is only validated with "anonymous sources" as the media has proven they are either incapable of vetting these sources for truthful info, or do not actually have any sources at all and are just making shit up for the clicks Either way they have given the public no reason to trust them at this point
      - dev_daftly 4y ago
        It's amazing how people still trust these "according to people familiar with x" articles after the past 5+ years. Like 99% of them have been wrong and just used to push a political agenda.
    - pseudo0 4y ago
      Are two of them named Ligma and Johnson?
  - mattficke 4y ago
    “Twitter plans to lay off…” would probably be a more precise headline, yes. It’s more than speculation, though, but you do have to trust the reporters on that.
    - dustedcodes 4y ago
      "It's believed that Twitter plans to lay off..."
  - dang 4y ago
    We've changed the title to what the article says now. I don't know whether WaPo changed their own title or the submitted title was editorializing (the latter is against the HN guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
    - herodoturtle 4y ago
      Thank you ^_^
tootie 4y ago
I saw this Tweet by a director-level person at Twitter: https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1585813324285239296 https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1585813324285239296 Seems Elon is keeping his machinations to himself.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  It seems he barged in, went through internal chats to look for evidence to scuttle the deal or change the terms. https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824?cxt=HHwWgMCi4dGT4IUsAAAA https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15868858873416458...
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    Would anything let him change the deal at this point? Even if Twitter was hiding their bot problem Elon's initial offer waived his ability to do due diligence on this, no?
    - georgeg23 4y ago
      The courts can make anything happen .
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        You'd think so, but so far it seems like they can't get him out of this deal no matter how hard he tries.
        lazyasciiart 4y ago
        It helps if you don’t make them hate you - because “can” doesn’t mean “must”.
      - treis 4y ago
        I wonder how that would work, practically. You'd have to track down every individual shareholder and... what undo the transaction? Seems impractical.
mattficke 4y ago
It’s reporting on information the authors received from sources who would not speak on the record. It’s entirely possible that the four anonymous sources are the four people in the meeting (Musk et al) and they’re speaking on background because they haven’t made a formal announcement yet.
cyborgx7 4y ago
>No formal announcement yet folks. This is how you get a press that only uncritically regurgitates press releases.
- xtian 4y ago
  Yeah it would be horrible if one day we had a press like that. In this case I expect they simply didn’t have enough moveable type to include “Rumor:” at the start of the headline
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    It's a rumour if you hear it from a friend of a friend. It sounds like they have several credible sources. Whether you trust their vetting of what constitutes a "credible source" is another matter.

anamexis 4y ago

Why is the headline misleading? You don't need a formal announcement for something to be news. Particularly since the formal announcement being referred to there is just the announcement that Twitter was acquired by Musk.

herodoturtle 4y ago
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I was referring to the HN title of this post: "Twitter to lay off 25% of workforce in first round of job cuts" I opened the article thinking this was a formal announcement. But it's nothing of the sort. It's just speculation at this stage. Hope that clears things up.
- anamexis 4y ago
  But it's not speculation: > ...according to four people familiar with the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them, as well as tweets from some of the people involved.
  - wisnoskij 4y ago
    This comes from the news stations who said days ago that people were already laid off, and their sources turned out to be random people they found on the street with meme fake names. https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/10/28/2339204/pranksters-posing-as-laid-off-twitter-employees-trick-media-outlets https://news.slashdot.org/story/22/10/28/2339204/pranksters-...
    - anamexis 4y ago
      No, it doesn't, this comes from the Washington Post, speaking to people familiar with the layoff planning.
      - dmix 4y ago
        Given everything over the last decade, people should not trust anything when it involves a) highly controversial/partisan/breathless news and b) dealing in anonymous sources and rumors.
        brookst 4y ago
        I think we can rely on peoples' own smarts to build in that skepticism. There's not a lot of benefit to qualifying every piece of information to say that it might be wrong.
  - laweijfmvo 4y ago
    It comes down to, do you trust that WaPo properly vetted the sources, and do you believe that the sources, whether they were in a position to be credible or not, were acting on solid information? E.g. according to Business Insider Facebook should have fired half the company, according to “sources”, but that hasn’t happened to my knowledge yet
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    I am sorry but i am over the "people familiar" .. " condition of anonymity" crap in news Either put a name to it, or dont report on it
    - snotrockets 4y ago
      Asking sources to publish their name is a very sure way to not have sources at all. Quote Orwell, Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. You need to get people to tell you about all those things, and as that someone who dislike them being printed has power (it ain't news otherwise,) you need to find a way to make people talk to you. "Help me to rekt your career and life" just don't cut it.
      - dev_daftly 4y ago
        That would make sense if journalists had a better track record when it came to their anonymous sources, but they don't.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        I understand that, and maybe the activists pretending to be journalists should have thought about that before burning the public's trust by just taking any sensationalized "source" with no vetting and reporting on it as fact. The "media" did this to themselves, now at this point no one would trust any news story that is only validated with "anonymous sources" as the media has proven they are either incapable of vetting these sources for truthful info, or do not actually have any sources at all and are just making shit up for the clicks Either way they have given the public no reason to trust them at this point
    - dev_daftly 4y ago
      It's amazing how people still trust these "according to people familiar with x" articles after the past 5+ years. Like 99% of them have been wrong and just used to push a political agenda.
  - pseudo0 4y ago
    Are two of them named Ligma and Johnson?
- mattficke 4y ago
  “Twitter plans to lay off…” would probably be a more precise headline, yes. It’s more than speculation, though, but you do have to trust the reporters on that.
  - dustedcodes 4y ago
    "It's believed that Twitter plans to lay off..."
- dang 4y ago
  We've changed the title to what the article says now. I don't know whether WaPo changed their own title or the submitted title was editorializing (the latter is against the HN guidelines - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
  - herodoturtle 4y ago
    Thank you ^_^

tootie 4y ago

I saw this Tweet by a director-level person at Twitter: https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1585813324285239296 https://twitter.com/iamharaldur/status/1585813324285239296 Seems Elon is keeping his machinations to himself.

georgeg23 4y ago
It seems he barged in, went through internal chats to look for evidence to scuttle the deal or change the terms. https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586885887341645824?cxt=HHwWgMCi4dGT4IUsAAAA https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/15868858873416458...
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  Would anything let him change the deal at this point? Even if Twitter was hiding their bot problem Elon's initial offer waived his ability to do due diligence on this, no?
  - georgeg23 4y ago
    The courts can make anything happen .
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      You'd think so, but so far it seems like they can't get him out of this deal no matter how hard he tries.
      - lazyasciiart 4y ago
        It helps if you don’t make them hate you - because “can” doesn’t mean “must”.
    - treis 4y ago
      I wonder how that would work, practically. You'd have to track down every individual shareholder and... what undo the transaction? Seems impractical.

mattficke 4y ago

It’s reporting on information the authors received from sources who would not speak on the record. It’s entirely possible that the four anonymous sources are the four people in the meeting (Musk et al) and they’re speaking on background because they haven’t made a formal announcement yet.

cyborgx7 4y ago

>No formal announcement yet folks. This is how you get a press that only uncritically regurgitates press releases.

xtian 4y ago
Yeah it would be horrible if one day we had a press like that. In this case I expect they simply didn’t have enough moveable type to include “Rumor:” at the start of the headline
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  It's a rumour if you hear it from a friend of a friend. It sounds like they have several credible sources. Whether you trust their vetting of what constitutes a "credible source" is another matter.