My takeaway (if the stuff printed is true) is that Dorsey is the Don Draper of Silicon Valley. That's not a knock on him. He figured out early on that reputatio

My takeaway (if the stuff printed is true) is that Dorsey is the Don Draper of Silicon Valley. That's not a knock on him. He figured out early on that reputation and image matter more than playing by the rules of some no-longer-meritocracy, and he focused primarily on his personal image at the expense of all else. So he prioritized his reputation over that of Twitter, if the OP is accurate. Good for him! It worked out, didn't it? From my read, he never-- not once-- tried to lash our or hurt Twitter. What he did do is use it to maximize its benefit to his reputation. People need to do that sort of thing if they want to be relevant in the Valley; it is, at this point, a reputation economy. Dorsey's "going rogue", if that is a correct story, was his having the sense to play it as one. If it sounds like I'm being facetious, that's not my intent. Twitter's making a lot of people rich in a way that hurts no one. Even the "pushed out" people are going to have a nice windfall and stirling careers in the Valley. I can't say the same of the two startups (one failed, one still-unknown) where I worked, both of which ended up malignantly hurting people who worked at them.