The real story about ads is buried in the subhead -- likely because Verge thought they could get more clicks about "constant layoffs," which is sort of disingen

The real story about ads is buried in the subhead -- likely because Verge thought they could get more clicks about "constant layoffs," which is sort of disingenuous -- Musk said "no more layoffs are PLANNED" back in Nov, which is typical corporate-speak CEOs use to cover their butts when more small layoffs occur in the future. The layoffs since the massive one in Nov have been smaller and targeted -- 40 in data science, 15 in sales, etc. The data in the first paragraph is also misleading: > On November 21st, Elon Musk gathered Twitter’s remaining employees at its San Francisco headquarters to tell them that, after forcing out roughly two-thirds of the workforce in a matter of weeks, layoffs were over. He keeps laying people off anyway. Musk "forced out" half of the workforce, not two-thirds. The other swath of employees that brought the final number of departed employees to two-thirds CHOSE to leave. It's little liberties with language that journalists use like this that erode trust in readers. This doesn't detract from the main story that Musk has made Twitter an inhospitable place to work, laid off thousands, destroyed the ad business, etc., but why have sloppy reporting on the details when the facts speak for themselves?