39 ms·

I hope this gets more attention only because I think that most people (in the world, maybe not posting on HN) would agree that internal groups like this at best

I hope this gets more attention only because I think that most people (in the world, maybe not posting on HN) would agree that internal groups like this at best are a luxury and more probably should never have existed. The narrative of "all jobs are essential and how could they run twitter if they are cut" gets shut down pretty quickly when you see the kind of jobs being cut

superchroma 4y ago
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. "Twitter’s now former head of accessibility confirmed that the company cut the accessibility experience team, which improved the product for people with disabilities. The team appears to have had a lot still in the works before it was disbanded." I hope you never have the misfortune of losing one or more of your senses. It's already a pretty shitty world for such people due to attitudes considering them as irrelevant, an unprofitable minority, etc. Accessibility is the unprofitable thing we do as a basic human courtesy to other people as an affirmation that life doesn't have to be that bad.
- warning26 4y ago
  > Accessibility is the unprofitable thing we do as a basic human courtesy Sure, until you start ruining your UX in the name of "accessibility". Toasts? No we can't have that, it might not work with some terrible screenreader program that looks like it was written 20 years ago and never updated.
  - superchroma 4y ago
    Blind people didn't ask to be blind, and they didn't ask for shitty screen-readers. Maybe if more people prioritized accessibility over profits, it wouldn't be this way. Anyway, I have also worn a UI designer's hat and if toasts are the price we have to pay to support the blind, it's a price I'm personally willing to pay.
hackerlight 4y ago
This is a very company-centric Randian view, and ignores that the company is situated in a society and can have unintended negative impacts on that society that don't amount to technical law-breaking. Of course these teams were bad for the bottom line, which is why Musk cut them. But the entire purpose was ESG goals. For example, preventing the platform from being used to incite genocide in non-English speaking countries. Preventing that has no impact on profitability, and costs money. But, I hope we'd agree that it's the right thing to do anyways?
- mamonster 4y ago
  I mean Musk has to cut something, makes sense that he would cut the stuff that doesn't affect the revenue first. There is absolutely nothing preventing him from hiring a new human rights team later on when he feels that it is needed. It sucks for employees but to be completely honest I find it so puzzling that people were caught unaware. Did they think that Twitter would avoid a restructuring at some point down the line, given how badly the stock performed? If not Elon it would be an actual P.E outfit doing the exact same thing.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    > I mean Musk has to cut something, makes sense that he would cut the stuff that doesn't affect the revenue first. It makes sense from the Randian perspective where external costs don't exist. It may not make sense if you're thinking more holistically and taking into account external costs.

superchroma 4y ago

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. "Twitter’s now former head of accessibility confirmed that the company cut the accessibility experience team, which improved the product for people with disabilities. The team appears to have had a lot still in the works before it was disbanded." I hope you never have the misfortune of losing one or more of your senses. It's already a pretty shitty world for such people due to attitudes considering them as irrelevant, an unprofitable minority, etc. Accessibility is the unprofitable thing we do as a basic human courtesy to other people as an affirmation that life doesn't have to be that bad.

warning26 4y ago
> Accessibility is the unprofitable thing we do as a basic human courtesy Sure, until you start ruining your UX in the name of "accessibility". Toasts? No we can't have that, it might not work with some terrible screenreader program that looks like it was written 20 years ago and never updated.
- superchroma 4y ago
  Blind people didn't ask to be blind, and they didn't ask for shitty screen-readers. Maybe if more people prioritized accessibility over profits, it wouldn't be this way. Anyway, I have also worn a UI designer's hat and if toasts are the price we have to pay to support the blind, it's a price I'm personally willing to pay.

hackerlight 4y ago

This is a very company-centric Randian view, and ignores that the company is situated in a society and can have unintended negative impacts on that society that don't amount to technical law-breaking. Of course these teams were bad for the bottom line, which is why Musk cut them. But the entire purpose was ESG goals. For example, preventing the platform from being used to incite genocide in non-English speaking countries. Preventing that has no impact on profitability, and costs money. But, I hope we'd agree that it's the right thing to do anyways?

mamonster 4y ago
I mean Musk has to cut something, makes sense that he would cut the stuff that doesn't affect the revenue first. There is absolutely nothing preventing him from hiring a new human rights team later on when he feels that it is needed. It sucks for employees but to be completely honest I find it so puzzling that people were caught unaware. Did they think that Twitter would avoid a restructuring at some point down the line, given how badly the stock performed? If not Elon it would be an actual P.E outfit doing the exact same thing.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  > I mean Musk has to cut something, makes sense that he would cut the stuff that doesn't affect the revenue first. It makes sense from the Randian perspective where external costs don't exist. It may not make sense if you're thinking more holistically and taking into account external costs.