4 ms·

I found it odd that both the New York Times and The Washington Post had top stories about how terrible things were at Twitter now that Musk took over. A few day

by bnralt 4y ago

I found it odd that both the New York Times and The Washington Post had top stories about how terrible things were at Twitter now that Musk took over. A few days is hardly enough time to decide that a new leader has destroyed a company.

cokeandpepsi 4y ago
why? it's a major media takeover with a lot of big names/drama invovled same scale as the at&t/warner media deal it's one of the top stories in the WSJ too
woodruffw 4y ago
I mean, if you lay off half of a company and make the rest work double time, "terrible" is not the most inappropriate adjective for an external observer to use.
idlewords 4y ago
The Guardian had a live feed of Twitter drama. It's beyond ridiculous and reflects the unhealthy relationship between journalists and Twitter. Compare it to the situation at Meta, where Mark Zuckerberg is calmly destroying his vastly larger and more influential company with almost no media attention.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > with almost no media attention. Wow, that's not my experience of reading the tech media.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I agree about the unhealthy relationship, but I think you're understating the media lens on Meta: there's been a running column on their (slow) implosion in the NYT for at least a year now. The recent "legs" affair was the tech news story for a day or two. Twitter gets disproportionate attention because of the relationship you mentioned, but also because what's happening to it is pretty unprecedented. It stands to reason that it'll be the main topic in tech journalism for the next few weeks, particularly as Musk continues his attention seeking behavior (and journalists continue to feed on it).
- gonzo41 4y ago
  I think that's because the media like twitter, and everyone hates facebook and hopes Zuck succeeds in destroying it.
yongjik 4y ago
If a few days is enough time for a new leader to decide half of the workforce is redundant, then it's enough time for others to decide the leader is an idiot. You can't have it both ways.
- bnralt 4y ago
  Disagreeing with someone's approach or saying you think it will have a terrible outcome is fine. What's weird is seeing major media publications looking at the first few days of a transition period and pronouncing that this is the way Twitter will now be. For instance, this is was the top Washington Post story a day ago[1]: "Advertisers fleeing, workers in fear: Welcome to Elon Musk’s Twitter" with the byline "The company was hailed for its welcoming and relaxed work environment. Elon Musk made that a relic of the past." I mean, a month ago Musk wasn't even go to buy Twitter. You'd think we'd want to wait at least a few weeks (if not much longer) before deciding that what Musk is attempting to do during the first few days is definitely going to be the way Twitter will be handled going forward. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221104220914/https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221104220914/https://www.washi...
- cocoricamo 4y ago
  From an article published last month seems that with or without Elon a lot of people were still getting fired. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/20/musk-twitter-acquisition-staff-cuts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/20/musk-tw... Twitter as a public company was a money pit. Now is Elon's money pit.
  - raydev 4y ago
    Twitter's interest burden wasn't this ridiculous as a public company, and they make $1bil/quarter on average (well, they were before Musk ran away advertisers). When you say "money pit" I imagine investors dumping in cash to make up for low revenue, and this hasn't been the case for years. Musk's purchase, as you may know, increased Twitter's interest burden, so now Twitter is losing $4mil/day. In the absence of Musk holding the company hostage from April to November, yes, of course Twitter would have to make some cuts like so many others who've had a drop in revenue. But there's no reason to believe they would have cut the estimated 50-55% that Elon has. edit: And now there's impact of this decision: of those who didn't get cut, how many will decide this isn't a healthy environment to work in?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ulfw 4y ago
Oh you think things are great at a company that just did a 50% layoff haphazardly?
- simondotau 4y ago
  What is your evidence that it was haphazard?
  - ulfw 4y ago
    The fact that they're starting to realize their fuckup (among many other reasons such as not giving advanced warning as so legally required etc). https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1589075543420325888 https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1589075543420325888
    - simondotau 4y ago
      So by your definition, a fuckup is when something isn't done absolutely perfectly? Let's be realistic for a moment here; surely it would be WAY more remarkable if a company laid off 3,700 employees and exactly zero mistakes were made. What level of error would be sufficient to warrant the haphazard descriptor? Two percent? One percent? A company like Twitter is complex, and it's very likely that some number of people are important in a way which cannot be seen from a top-down view. Hence error correction. It's a good thing. I see it as a healthy sign that Twitter management are identifying and rectifying their mistakes so quickly.
ronnier 4y ago
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  This is a description of virtually all behavior visible online today. While it is true that the same poison infects the media, they are actually less affected on average than the general population. Of course, in a well-functioning world, this kind of infection would be near-zero among journalists.
buzzert 4y ago
The war must not be going well in Ukraine.
- wavefunction 4y ago
  For Russia? It isn't.

by bnralt 4y ago

cokeandpepsi 4y ago

why? it's a major media takeover with a lot of big names/drama invovled same scale as the at&t/warner media deal it's one of the top stories in the WSJ too

woodruffw 4y ago

I mean, if you lay off half of a company and make the rest work double time, "terrible" is not the most inappropriate adjective for an external observer to use.

idlewords 4y ago

The Guardian had a live feed of Twitter drama. It's beyond ridiculous and reflects the unhealthy relationship between journalists and Twitter. Compare it to the situation at Meta, where Mark Zuckerberg is calmly destroying his vastly larger and more influential company with almost no media attention.

lapcat 4y ago
> with almost no media attention. Wow, that's not my experience of reading the tech media.
woodruffw 4y ago
I agree about the unhealthy relationship, but I think you're understating the media lens on Meta: there's been a running column on their (slow) implosion in the NYT for at least a year now. The recent "legs" affair was the tech news story for a day or two. Twitter gets disproportionate attention because of the relationship you mentioned, but also because what's happening to it is pretty unprecedented. It stands to reason that it'll be the main topic in tech journalism for the next few weeks, particularly as Musk continues his attention seeking behavior (and journalists continue to feed on it).
gonzo41 4y ago
I think that's because the media like twitter, and everyone hates facebook and hopes Zuck succeeds in destroying it.

yongjik 4y ago

If a few days is enough time for a new leader to decide half of the workforce is redundant, then it's enough time for others to decide the leader is an idiot. You can't have it both ways.

bnralt 4y ago
Disagreeing with someone's approach or saying you think it will have a terrible outcome is fine. What's weird is seeing major media publications looking at the first few days of a transition period and pronouncing that this is the way Twitter will now be. For instance, this is was the top Washington Post story a day ago[1]: "Advertisers fleeing, workers in fear: Welcome to Elon Musk’s Twitter" with the byline "The company was hailed for its welcoming and relaxed work environment. Elon Musk made that a relic of the past." I mean, a month ago Musk wasn't even go to buy Twitter. You'd think we'd want to wait at least a few weeks (if not much longer) before deciding that what Musk is attempting to do during the first few days is definitely going to be the way Twitter will be handled going forward. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20221104220914/https://www.washingtonpost.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20221104220914/https://www.washi...
cocoricamo 4y ago
From an article published last month seems that with or without Elon a lot of people were still getting fired. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/20/musk-twitter-acquisition-staff-cuts/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/10/20/musk-tw... Twitter as a public company was a money pit. Now is Elon's money pit.
- raydev 4y ago
  Twitter's interest burden wasn't this ridiculous as a public company, and they make $1bil/quarter on average (well, they were before Musk ran away advertisers). When you say "money pit" I imagine investors dumping in cash to make up for low revenue, and this hasn't been the case for years. Musk's purchase, as you may know, increased Twitter's interest burden, so now Twitter is losing $4mil/day. In the absence of Musk holding the company hostage from April to November, yes, of course Twitter would have to make some cuts like so many others who've had a drop in revenue. But there's no reason to believe they would have cut the estimated 50-55% that Elon has. edit: And now there's impact of this decision: of those who didn't get cut, how many will decide this isn't a healthy environment to work in?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ulfw 4y ago

Oh you think things are great at a company that just did a 50% layoff haphazardly?

simondotau 4y ago
What is your evidence that it was haphazard?
- ulfw 4y ago
  The fact that they're starting to realize their fuckup (among many other reasons such as not giving advanced warning as so legally required etc). https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1589075543420325888 https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1589075543420325888
  - simondotau 4y ago
    So by your definition, a fuckup is when something isn't done absolutely perfectly? Let's be realistic for a moment here; surely it would be WAY more remarkable if a company laid off 3,700 employees and exactly zero mistakes were made. What level of error would be sufficient to warrant the haphazard descriptor? Two percent? One percent? A company like Twitter is complex, and it's very likely that some number of people are important in a way which cannot be seen from a top-down view. Hence error correction. It's a good thing. I see it as a healthy sign that Twitter management are identifying and rectifying their mistakes so quickly.

ronnier 4y ago

happytoexplain 4y ago
This is a description of virtually all behavior visible online today. While it is true that the same poison infects the media, they are actually less affected on average than the general population. Of course, in a well-functioning world, this kind of infection would be near-zero among journalists.

buzzert 4y ago

The war must not be going well in Ukraine.

wavefunction 4y ago
For Russia? It isn't.