Bart might disagree:
Whenever you have a large layoff, it is fairly standard to lock accounts immediately.
But the opposite should also be true. Don't scream 'disloyalty' when a employee wants to leave on a short notice.
And FWIW, I tend to agree with your comment regarding loyalty -- that ship sailed long ago, 1980s, possibly 1970s.
In many places (in the world) you are expected to for months after you are laid off. In many european contries, layoffs must be announced a long time before they happen (a maximum number but not specific jobs).
In any event, you are expected to be loyal to the employer.
Pulling your repo access without notification isn't exactly what most people would view as, "parting ways with 'the utmost respect for each and every person'".
Why does this seem so foreign? Why would repo access still be needed?
Why would repo access be terminated without prior notification?
The only topic here is how this behavior deviates from how Twitter claimed it would handle itself.
It's true that layoffs are (even more) difficult and complex in the case of a remote employee, but this doesn't mean that we should see something appalling and simply throw up our hands and say "what were they supposed to do". We solve complex, difficult problems every day -- when the solutions are valuable to us. This is a demonstration that treating their employees with respect is not valuable to Twitter.
Also, I could imagine it being frustrating trying to figure out why your access has been revoked for two hours until some company rep calls you to tell you that you are no longer wanted.
"Up to 336". The fact that phrase made it into the email is unbelievable. Who, being at the head of a company so large, writes with that kind of language?