5 ms·

Yes, Musk should certainly stop making such chaotic decisions.

snvzz 4y ago
Which might turn out to be key decisions that save twitter. We will only be able to appreciate these long-term. Short term, the professional attitude to have is to either continue giving your best while observing the situation, or leave. It is never alright to, instead, work to sabotage harmony within the company, and it surprises me when people don't seem to understand something so basic.
- yintom 4y ago
  Interesting how employees are expected to be "professional" by just putting up with whatever bullshit, but Musk can openly bitch and moan and slate Twitter's employees and the work they've done, and that is somehow okay. Double standards.
  - snvzz 4y ago
    Employees don't own Twitter. Elon Musk does. He has every right, within the confines of the law, to choose how the company is run.
    - yintom 4y ago
      Twitter, and indeed any company except one-man shops, is nothing without employees. Musk would do well to put his fragile ego to one side and not antagonise the current set of employees, or he'll be owning a bunch of code and data that rapidly becomes unmanageable as institutional knowledge is lost.
      - snvzz 4y ago
        I do not have a hold of the big picture, and will thus abstain from making armchair commentary on how Twitter should be run. However, I do presume that most employees do not take issue with Musk's leadership, much unlike the drama we see in social media; Its nature does in fact tend to make everything into drama, even where there's none to be found.
        freejazz 4y ago
        > "However, I do presume that most employees do not take issue with Musk's leadership" Really? I can't imagine working in a shop where a new boss comes in, makes such a public ruckus about everything, practically destroys everything, fires the vast majority of my colleagues, and then acts like a jerk about the whole thing... What kind of workplaces have you experienced that lead you to believe such conduct is something that "most employees" would not take issue with?
    - mikkergp 4y ago
      > He has every right, within the confines of the law, to choose how the company is run. And because of that he shouldn’t be criticized?
      - kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Yes, Elon paid billions of dollars not to be criticized. How can I make this more clear?
        mikkergp 4y ago
        If Elon didn't want to be criticized, why would he buy Twitter? It seems to me the consequence of buying Twitter would be to make him the most criticized person on the planet! To me it would be like me drilling a hold into my boat so it would float better. > How can I make this more clear? Let me see if I hear you correctly, and then you can try to clarify. You're saying that Elon paid billions of dollars to buy Twitter so he wouldn't be criticized. Do I have that right? I think it might clarify things if you told me how you see that as an effective strategy. He may be able to prevent people from criticizing him on Twitter, but I think off of Twitter, people are going to continue to criticize him, so it seems pretty ineffective. Also, can you tell me where you are getting the impression this was his goal?
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      And we have every right within the confines of the law to criticize how he runs it.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      The post you are responding to didn't ask who has the "right" to do things. They asked if it is fair or reasonable that there is such a disparity.
    - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
      > Elon Musk does. Elon Musk doesn't own Twitter. Twitter owns him. That's a rather fundamental difference.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Employees don't own Twitter. Elon Musk does. > He has every right, within the confines of the law, to choose how the company is run. And the employees have every right, within the law, to question how the company is run, and the factual premises of decisions. And, sure, when he's broken internal comms he is free to shoot the messenger when disputes occur in public as a result, but that doesn't fix issues and it just makes it less likely the truth will reach him through the culture of fear he has created. He can and has the right to stick his fingers in his ears and crash Twitter into the ground, sure.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Are you equating disagreeing on technical decisions with sabotaging harmony? Not being able to disagree with management on a technical decision would be a deal breaker, I do understand disagree and commit but it doesn’t sound like there was any decision to commit to yet, and generally speaking the consequences aren’t losing your job. Can you tell me more about how you approach technical disagreements?
- metadat 4y ago
  Musk is "trying" to save Twitter after the $1B+ annual interest debt which he chose to saddle it with. It's an interesting strategy so far, treating people like dirt and spooking the advertisers with his chaotic decisions, the net effect adds up to damaging Twitter's biggest source of cash — advertisment deals. In another version of our timeline, Musk took the reigns and kept things running relatively smoothly while digging deep to actually understand the system and form a coherent strategy before enacting wide-scale platform changes. He's missed an enormous opportunity lead through an inspiring vision. In our timeline, we have an immature fool making a very public mess. It's undeniably entertaining and stranger than fiction. But I feel terrible for the employees, real living breathing human beings, suffering at The Hand of His Royal Majesty.
- cbtacy 4y ago
  You're not a Twitter exec or FOE (Friend of Elon) by any chance are you?
  - snvzz 4y ago
    I have never had any contact with Elon, to my knowledge. I also do not have a Twitter account, nor held TWTR shares at any point in time.
    - kevincrane 4y ago
      So you're licking his boots for free then?
      - gront 4y ago
        It's a surprisingly common hobby.
- philipov 4y ago
  The only reason Twitter suddenly needs to be saved is because Musk acquired it with a leveraged buyout. That was the first chaotic decision he made.

Which might turn out to be key decisions that save twitter. We will only be able to appreciate these long-term. Short term, the professional attitude to have is to either continue giving your best while observing the situation, or leave. It is never alright to, instead, work to sabotage harmony within the company, and it surprises me when people don't seem to understand something so basic.

yintom 4y ago
Interesting how employees are expected to be "professional" by just putting up with whatever bullshit, but Musk can openly bitch and moan and slate Twitter's employees and the work they've done, and that is somehow okay. Double standards.
- snvzz 4y ago
  Employees don't own Twitter. Elon Musk does. He has every right, within the confines of the law, to choose how the company is run.
  - yintom 4y ago
    Twitter, and indeed any company except one-man shops, is nothing without employees. Musk would do well to put his fragile ego to one side and not antagonise the current set of employees, or he'll be owning a bunch of code and data that rapidly becomes unmanageable as institutional knowledge is lost.
    - snvzz 4y ago
      I do not have a hold of the big picture, and will thus abstain from making armchair commentary on how Twitter should be run. However, I do presume that most employees do not take issue with Musk's leadership, much unlike the drama we see in social media; Its nature does in fact tend to make everything into drama, even where there's none to be found.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        > "However, I do presume that most employees do not take issue with Musk's leadership" Really? I can't imagine working in a shop where a new boss comes in, makes such a public ruckus about everything, practically destroys everything, fires the vast majority of my colleagues, and then acts like a jerk about the whole thing... What kind of workplaces have you experienced that lead you to believe such conduct is something that "most employees" would not take issue with?
  - mikkergp 4y ago
    > He has every right, within the confines of the law, to choose how the company is run. And because of that he shouldn’t be criticized?
    - kelseyfrog 4y ago
      Yes, Elon paid billions of dollars not to be criticized. How can I make this more clear?
      - mikkergp 4y ago
        If Elon didn't want to be criticized, why would he buy Twitter? It seems to me the consequence of buying Twitter would be to make him the most criticized person on the planet! To me it would be like me drilling a hold into my boat so it would float better. > How can I make this more clear? Let me see if I hear you correctly, and then you can try to clarify. You're saying that Elon paid billions of dollars to buy Twitter so he wouldn't be criticized. Do I have that right? I think it might clarify things if you told me how you see that as an effective strategy. He may be able to prevent people from criticizing him on Twitter, but I think off of Twitter, people are going to continue to criticize him, so it seems pretty ineffective. Also, can you tell me where you are getting the impression this was his goal?
  - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
    And we have every right within the confines of the law to criticize how he runs it.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    The post you are responding to didn't ask who has the "right" to do things. They asked if it is fair or reasonable that there is such a disparity.
  - Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
    > Elon Musk does. Elon Musk doesn't own Twitter. Twitter owns him. That's a rather fundamental difference.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Employees don't own Twitter. Elon Musk does. > He has every right, within the confines of the law, to choose how the company is run. And the employees have every right, within the law, to question how the company is run, and the factual premises of decisions. And, sure, when he's broken internal comms he is free to shoot the messenger when disputes occur in public as a result, but that doesn't fix issues and it just makes it less likely the truth will reach him through the culture of fear he has created. He can and has the right to stick his fingers in his ears and crash Twitter into the ground, sure.
mikkergp 4y ago
Are you equating disagreeing on technical decisions with sabotaging harmony? Not being able to disagree with management on a technical decision would be a deal breaker, I do understand disagree and commit but it doesn’t sound like there was any decision to commit to yet, and generally speaking the consequences aren’t losing your job. Can you tell me more about how you approach technical disagreements?
metadat 4y ago
Musk is "trying" to save Twitter after the $1B+ annual interest debt which he chose to saddle it with. It's an interesting strategy so far, treating people like dirt and spooking the advertisers with his chaotic decisions, the net effect adds up to damaging Twitter's biggest source of cash — advertisment deals. In another version of our timeline, Musk took the reigns and kept things running relatively smoothly while digging deep to actually understand the system and form a coherent strategy before enacting wide-scale platform changes. He's missed an enormous opportunity lead through an inspiring vision. In our timeline, we have an immature fool making a very public mess. It's undeniably entertaining and stranger than fiction. But I feel terrible for the employees, real living breathing human beings, suffering at The Hand of His Royal Majesty.
cbtacy 4y ago
You're not a Twitter exec or FOE (Friend of Elon) by any chance are you?
- snvzz 4y ago
  I have never had any contact with Elon, to my knowledge. I also do not have a Twitter account, nor held TWTR shares at any point in time.
  - kevincrane 4y ago
    So you're licking his boots for free then?
    - gront 4y ago
      It's a surprisingly common hobby.
philipov 4y ago
The only reason Twitter suddenly needs to be saved is because Musk acquired it with a leveraged buyout. That was the first chaotic decision he made.