Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
I resigned from Twitter (twitter.com/jack)
1692 points by ryzvonusef 56 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 1061 comments



I'm in a post-Thanksgiving charitable mood, so thank you, Jack. The execution hasn't been perfect (as has been commented on ad nauseam), but Twitter is the closest to a worldwide-accessible [1] Speaker's Corner [2] I know of, and that - despite all the completely valid criticism - is a valuable public service: mediating access to information has been the defining tool of control for those in power pretty much since civilization began, and I, for one, will always pick an imperfectly moderated cesspool over the prior status quo where a church or a government told me what's true and what to think. FWIW, you've also championed transparency and decentralization for your platform more than any other SV social media titan [3].

[1] If you have access to the Internet, that is. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakers%27_Corner [3] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1204766078468911106


> FWIW, you've also championed transparency and decentralization for your platform more than any other SV social media titan

Twitter don't even have an RSS feed let alone championing decentralisation.


http://cdevroe.com/2021/10/26/bluesky-status/

love this bit:

"The truth is that Twitter could become decentralized almost overnight by simply adding some JSON-LD serializers, an inbox endpoint and maybe tweaking their storage schema slightly to become part of the fediverse – anyone who wouldn’t want to use twitter.com could follow twitter.com users from their own server and so on. That does not require 2 years of making people who don’t work for you talk to each other."


The truth is that someone's gotta pay the bills. Pleasing the crowd by giving the content away is easy; finding a way to pay the bills while upsetting the least amount of people who are strategically important for the next month's bills is the hard part.

We can speculate why Jack left, but the lagging stock price certainly didn't help him. So if anything, rather than criticizing him for not giving away the content for free, it seems the guy should have done more of the opposite (to prevent someone else taking his job who will do all that and then some).


The truth is that someone's gotta pay the bills. Pleasing the crowd by giving the content away is easy; finding a way to pay the bills while upsetting the least amount of people who are strategically important for the next month's bills is the hard part.

Twitter never "paid the bills" under his leadership. That's what added insult to the injury of removing previous open functionality: they pissed everybody off and didn't even make money as a result. A better idea has been obvious for more than a decade.

Twitter is most valuable to the "influencers" who have lots of monetizable followers, e.g. the various Kardashians with their beauty tips. Therefore, those influencers should be charged for the value that Twitter represents to them. They would gladly pay a percentage of the fees they receive for marketing the various products they recommend, for a Twitter experience that made that marketing more effective. It's hard to imagine why Twitter executives have missed this.


holy crap, yes, this is exactly how Twitter can monetize decentralization.

Charge the kardashian clan x amount of dollars to run a managed version of Twitter's software on kardashian.com and allow for full interoperability with other services that speak a common protocol (the w3c has a protocol. use it!)

you can also have governments and other institutional actors running the hosted software (then you can have @AOC@HOUSE.gov and @Biden@Whitehouse.gov and @x@doj.gov and @professor@mit.edu and @talkinghead@nbc.com) these all can operate as white-labeled instances of the managed Twitter service (basically, how Google Apps worked but with Twitter's software).


Yeah, this won't work.


Parent post reads as very sarcastic to me


unfortunately, I'm making a serious pitch.


That would probably only be used by donald@trump.com, and also make them substantially less able to target ads if adopted


Are you just reinventing email?


Email is not public


You could just have a rule that any commercial content requires a pro account. Casual users can use the product for free, but those who wish to use the platform for business purposes need to pay a monthly account fee.


I think you have it backwards, or at least you're missing half of the equation. The influencers are also valuable to Twitter, not just the other way around.


Exactly this. Also, AFAIK most large content sponsorship deals take place off the platform between independent business entities. Most sponsored content on YouTube works like this, and YouTube doesn't get a single cent from most of those deals, only a share of video ads revenue. How Twitter can do any better here remains to be seen, and ceding control of the client certainly won't make it any easier.


This is basic network effect. All sorts of social media platforms have monetized their users. Twitter hasn't really tried.


Would the influencers actually pay, or just move to TikTok and Instagram?


it's less about where the influencers move to and more about where the audience moves to (they're the ones that view ads).

Everyone knows that audiences can go anywhere (every time there's been a huge technological shift they've made the jump - Radio -> Television. Newspapers -> Twitter et cetera). Influencers go where the engagement is. What I'm trying to say is pay attention to where the audience is at.


Indeed. If Dorsey wanted Twitter to be "open", he'd open it. Instead he's closed it & started a sideshow to further distract those who could create credible challenges to Twitter.


Did anyone tell them? Maybe they just didn't know how


They are actively making even access to individual tweets very cumbersome to people without logins. I guess maybe compared to something like facebook where you are completely blocked without login it's ok, but "almost inaccessible" is only a small step ahead of "completely inaccessible" - that's hardly championing anything, let alone "decentralization" which Twitter is actively hostile to.


This is one thing that has bothered me with recent twitter.


I just stopped clicking on Twitter links


I just installed https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/privacy-redir... to automatically fix them, and I manually s/twitter.com/nitter.*/ on non-FF browsers.


nitter.net to the rescue


But for how long ?


It's easy enough to self-host. You could always route it through a VPN/Tor/I2P if you care about anonymity.


That’s not what i meant, I meant nitter is only going to work for as long as twitter doesnt start actively putting resources to prevent nitter from scraping



I assume you havent seen https://twitter.com/bluesky ?


Software ships.


bah - bluesky is not going anywhere. this "project" deserves scorn, derision, and cynicism until the board of directors shut it down for being a waste of time.


They at least talk about decentralization. This definitely qualifies as more than any other comparably large social media.


I'm not so sure. The illusion of action could be worse than indifference. Who would build a service/standard that Twitter could make obsolete/outmoded in one day, with potentially billions of $ against it?


>I'm not so sure. The illusion of action could be worse than indifference.

absolutely right. the concept of 'squatting' on an idea so that it remains untouched in the market is an obvious strategy and likely used by many large groups.


We have the technology but most people don't care about decentralization. Even paying lip service helps as an admission that decentralization is good for users.


Has mediating access to information been the defining tool of control for civilizations? Maybe in tyrannical, despotic societies that is true, but those don't allow Twitter today via firewalls, so that's mostly a moot point in this thread.

I'd say the sword and the coin have both been far more controlling than limited information spread.

What of free society? Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history relying upon censorship and denial of information? I think they're moreso allowing moneyed interests and plutocracy to have lobbying and backdoor dealings, they can easily ignore the public square most of the time. I just don't see Twitter piercing the armor of entrenched interests that well.

In contrast, I do see it degrading and toxifying democratic discourse, making us less resilient and more divided. That's anti-thetical to a free society in my view.


> What of free society? Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history relying upon censorship and denial of information? I think they're moreso allowing moneyed interests and plutocracy to have lobbying and backdoor dealings, they can easily ignore the public square most of the time.

This is definitely part of the picture. To add to this, I'll refer to Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. "Propaganda" does still exist in modern "free societies," but it isn't overt like a 20th-century dictatorship would have been. Subtle manipulation of corporate media by monied interests to sway public opinion, combined with lobbying and corporate capture of government institutions, is more than enough to maintain the hegemony of certain narratives and power structures. I find it fascinating, and unsettling, to learn about.

So in a nutshell, controlling information and mainstream media narratives is important for the modern ruling class, but it's much more subtle than overt censorship like a dictatorship would have. Which, in my view, makes it much more advanced and insidious.


I disagree that "enlightened" societies don't rely on mediating access to information as the defining tool of control; our difference of opinion is perhaps that you think of this purely as limiting information spread, where I think of it also as shaping the information for their own ends. The governments of the UK and the USA, to state two examples you mentioned, have used these tools effectively as propaganda channels repeatedly to sell their vision of armed conflict. The second Iraq war wasn't that long ago.

I'll make a tangentially related argument: Starting with the printing press, and through the advent of telephone, radio, television, and now the Internet (mainly via the Web), controlling messaging via these media (or controlling these media directly at times) has been as much a tool of control for those in power in democratic societies as in autocratic ones.


USA is literally founded on this principle:

Congress shall make no law /.../ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

And while it talks about the Congress, it is clear why the founders considered it to be necessary - the principal value of the free and unabridged speech to forming a free society is tremendous.

True, in an armed conflict, speech has been used as a weapon, and it is also true that the reality of US government has often fallen short of the noble ideals laying at its foundation. But until recently, it has been a widely recognized principle that unmediated and un-gated access to speech and expression - be it audio, printed, electronic or any other means of speech - is a vital cornerstone of a modern free society. Unfortunately, recently certain part of political and cultural establishment decided they want to "move past" these antiquated ideas of equality and appoint themselves as gatekeepers of speech - "for our common benefit and the benefit of the society", of which they are but selfless servants, to be sure.

The new Twitter CEO is, unfortunately, one of these people, and has unashamedly promoted this approach personally. Thus, we can expect only redoubling of effort from his side to suppress and remove speech that he considers "harmful" and discussion of topics he considers not up for discussion. Fortunately, there's an easy way to deal with it. As David Chappelle noted recently, "twitter is not a real place" - and doesn't need to be elevated to the position of society's gatekeeper, but rather demoted to society's cesspool. They proved themselves not up to the task to maintain robust free discourse platform - let them rot in their own bubble.


>As David Chappelle noted recently, "twitter is not a real place" - and doesn't need to be elevated to the position of society's gatekeeper, but rather demoted to society's cesspool. They proved themselves not up to the task to maintain robust free discourse platform - let them rot in their own bubble.

Agreed. Part of that is the 'hot take' represented by the limited characters of a tweet are inimical to nuance. So much of it is just people taking turns 'dunking' on each other, and it gets increasingly heated and rage inducing. Add to that an inflammatory algorithm, where outrage drives interaction, and of course you have a cesspit.

Part of the good thing about the old internet is when you have to construct a blog to share your thoughts, you have to be driven to actually, y'know, build something. It also has the added benefit of being relatively closed off. Now everyone has easy access to an empty field with which to yell into the void... and it turns out with that low bar and high inter-connectedness comes a lot of yelling.


USA is literally founded on this principle:

Congress shall make no law /.../ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

IIRC the founders explicitly did not include that in their constitution. Hence it being called "First Amendment" rights.


Over George Mason's (among others) protest the convention decided not to include a bill of rights in the constitution. There are a few reasons for this, one of the two more traditionally held is that it was seen as unnecessary given that many states already had their own bills of rights. The other reason supported by the historical record is that many of the delegates were concerned about giving the appearance of those being the only rights guaranteed to the people.

There is a third popular opinion, which is that the convention had been a hot, contentious affair that dragged on for months and everyone wanted to go home so they tabled the bill of rights for a later date.

You will note that none of these reasons is that anyone objected to the principles in the bill of rights. More importantly, many of the rights guaranteed in the first 10 amendments are directly targeted at the causes of the revolution. This lends significant credence to the "it's important but let's not do it now" argument, and undercuts rather dramatically the idea that the country was not founded on those ideals.


They didn't indeed. And you know why? There was a big discussion, between the fraction that said you have to spell out the most important rights so that nobody would think that it's ok to violate them, and the one that said "we already said the government has this set of very restricted functions, if we start spelling out the specific rights, people would think these are the only rights that should be protected, and others are not important and the government is OK to expand their function and violate those rights, just because we didn't include them in the list! We can't have that!" After a while, it ended up looking like it does now.

Of course, both of them turned out to be wrong. Not only people think that rights that are not explicitly enumerated do not deserve protection, not only the idea of limited government bound by constitutional limits is completely dead and buried, now people think that explicitly named rights too can be violated at will. Maybe because they have been spelled out a bit later, so they can't be that important. After all, First Amendment isn't something that's very important, that's why they made it the first one. Like the trial one, we'll do some silly stuff first, to warm up, and then we'll get to really important things.


The "founders" were not a monolithic entity with a single opinion. The history of the Bill of Rights makes it quite clear that there were many founders in favor of those amendments.

The Constitution was ratified in June of 1788. The 1st Congress convened in March of 1789, and the Bill of Rights was introduced in June of 1789. I think it is quite reasonable to consider the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights as part of the foundational principles of the nation.


Your founders were a bunch of tossers. The American fascination with elevating them to god like status is laughable.


And that's what you usually get on twitter. Great example. That's one of the reasons why it's a cesspool - people like this.


Yes, one possible explanation is that in a country where so many people take christian scripture seriously you can kind of see that they might not see the intellectual absurdity of treating the constitution as if it were some sort of sacred text. The problem, as ever, is that it's hard to have conversations about modern western humans being rational if we are obliged to be polite about their childish religious superstitions.


Citation? :)


1) “Those in power” does not mean only the government.

2) Mediating access to information in Western societies is now in a much more advanced state than brute censorship.


>Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history

That sentence piques my interest, do people see the USA and UK that way? I think of Switzerland and Canada that way, for example, but my knowledge is all based on stereotypes. Maybe it depends where you're from, as the stereotypes must differ among regions.


The USA and UK, while not perfect, are absolutely more enlightened than, say, South Sudan or Saudi Arabia.


But almost all countries are more liberal than those two. My question isn't if the US and UK are the least enlightened countries in the world, but rather, if people see them as particularly enlightened among countries. Ie compared to any other random liberal country like Mexico or Czech Republic.

I understand OP's point, just curious whether the examples used reflect a common perception. To me when thinking of stereotypically enlightened societies, I think of Iceland or Canada or something. The US I think of more as a business+war society, and UK seems somewhere in the middle, but much lower than the rest of Europe.

This is based on nothing objective, just wondering what other people's perceptions of these places are


I understood "enlightened" to mean "espousing modern values of enlightenment" - basically fostering a belief in science and reason and trying to push mankind further in terms of technological and moral progress.

In this regard, both of those countries would be considered B-tier at worst.


This is my perception as well. Not knocking either of those countries, just curious if they were thought to be bastions of enlightenment values.


> Beneath the rule of men entirely great

> The pen is mightier than the sword.


That's easy to write when you're not on the wrong end of a Mongolian bow or a T-34 gun barrel.


The point of the original quote was about people with too much control over others already. In which case, a few strokes of a pen could condemn thousands to misery or death. In that sense, there was no need to be aiming a bow at a single individual.

The original quote wasn't about speech, it was about excessive control.


Wikipedia, at least, doesn't favor your interpretation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s...

The original quote is about persuasion being better than violence.


Use the pen to design a better sword(missiles, f-35s etc), that's the point, not writing novels and reddit threads with a pen.


Your interpretation doesn't line up with the original quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_pen_is_mightier_than_the_s...

The original quote is about persuasion being better than violence.


Yeah, you need to be powerful enough to persuade, thats the point.


> FWIW, you've also championed transparency and decentralization for your platform more than any other SV social media titan

You’re taking the same company that repeatedly used their api to kill all the third party competitors to their horrible client(s)? I avoid Twitter like the plague And even I followed them enough to know they are anything but open.


And yet, just lately, they have been trying to win back and refresh the third party dev ecosystem by introducing a new API 2.0 and even newer relaxed terms for it's use. These provoked a debate two weeks ago on HN between those who watched the rug getting pulled out from under them when Twitter locked the old API, and those who just wanted to make something [1].

I wonder where Jack was behind this re-evaluation and if it might not get re-re-evaluated in his wake.

API 2.0 just got even riskier for developers !

[1] Updates to the Twitter developer platform https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29231262


If Jack Dorsey wanted to encourage decentralization, he could have trivially supported the open-source ActivityPub standard instead of introducing his own competing standard. It's nice to see him stand up for it, but I kinda roll my eyes when I hear people say that he's a champion of decentralization. He's had years to make it work, but we've seen nothing come from it. All we got was a more locked down Twitter site that won't even let me browse a profile without getting a pop-up reminding me to sign in and download their app.


Activitypub is a pretty dated standard thats really not super easy to work with or adapt to a more open network. Its an XML based protocol that bakes in really difficult to use notions of identity and doesn't address the problem of data ownership in a meaningful way. From what I've been seeing, the bluesky team has been working closely with the activitypub developers on figuring out 'what comes next'.


It (well its predecessor) was an XML based protocol a long time ago, but hasn't been in practice in years. Mastodon, which really popularized ActivityPub, uses JSON-LD. But yes, the ideas of data ownership and identity are just not well specified in ActivityPub. There's work in trying to incorporate capability-based security into ActivityPub but it is a large pain point right now. The protocol also has very varying amounts of uptake. Mastodon and Pleroma mostly implement the ActivityPub server-to-server API and only a handful of ActivityPub implementations support the client-to-server API. I would love to see further work between the Bluesky and AP teams on coming up with a new standard which addresses the flaws in the current protocol.


Can’t help but remark that Twitter isn’t a great platform for expressing non trivial ideas. To make this post, he had to basically screenshot another write up in order to make it fit the character limit


Yeah it's one of its problems. It creates a ton of shitty posts, not citing sources, not explaining standpoints ("threads" are horrible). It encourages low quality sensational posts. Or funny jokes. That's been my experience at least.


It also encourages you to be more concise, clear and mindful of what you want to say. The problem you outlined stems from the posters and not the platform.


That’s only useful if you have really simple thoughts with no nuance to express.


Yeah. I mean sure, you can have really deep thoughts, elegantly condensed into a couple of short sentences, but when you're eventually required to clarify something for one reason or another things are gonna get messy.


Then you should write a blog post, not a tweet.


> but Twitter is the closest to a worldwide-accessible [1] Speaker's Corner [2]

More like the closest to a worldwide-accessible bar fight. It's been nothing but a truly destructive force.


Perhaps a valuable public service should be owned and governed by...the public? In a corporation like Twitter, only people who can afford a financial stake have a say, and having more financial stake means having more say. Not a great structure if your concern is power. Perhaps everyone in the public (with a social rather than financial stake in a platform like Twitter) should have a voice in its governance.


> In a corporation like Twitter, only people who can afford a financial stake have a say

So just like real life, where a rich corporation can use its money to spend on Ads to attack politicians who dont support the corporation.


The government mismanages almost everything it takes over. If it owned Twitter, the employees would take over, unionize, and demand and get a collective bargaining agreement that guarantees annual pay raises while making them almost totally immune to dismissal.

There's a reason why the government was not able to effectively execute on developing a cost-effective space launch system, while SpaceX was. The efficacy of using the profit motive and competition to engender innovation and efficiency is not corporate propaganda. It's the lesson of the last 400 years.

The sanctification of the government, as some kind of healthy antidote to corporate greed, and representative of the collective will, is a deeply misguided and extraordinarily dangerous notion. Thomas Sowell's account of his experience at the Department of Labor in 1960 is a poignant example of how untrue it is: https://youtu.be/v6PDpCnMvvw?t=38


I didn't mention "the government." There are other models for democratic governance of businesses, such as co-ops. Credit unions and REI are examples consumer-owned co-ops that have been very successful and provide great service. REI shows that it is possible to govern a business in the US on the principle of "one member, one vote" instead of "more money, more votes" and still make billions in revenue.


I would agree that Twitter transitioning to a DAO owned by its users might turn out great.

Going a bit on this tangent: one problem with a DAO for Twitter is that the tools for DAO management are still in their infancy, and in practice it means that a centralized administration holds the keys to power in existing DAOs. E.g. the administrators of the main Discord channels, the mods of the main Reddit channels, etc, have the ability to control the narrative by deciding what messages are made prominent, and which ones are censored, in community discussions.


We should definitely have public owned non profits, maybe even government sponsored ones.

They're utilities and should be treated as such.

I don't expect this to happen in the US unless there's a a Great Digital Depression.


Would be interesting to see something like this governed by a community. Interesting in the light of DAO ownership. Any notable projects like this?


Member-owned co-ops like credit unions and REI come to mind. They follow a "one member, one vote" rule. Credit unions are not-for-profit, while REI makes billions in revenue, and both provide great service. They're an existence proof that it's possible to still be a good business while governed democratically.

In some countries like Finland, the democratic government holds some large non-majority stake in companies that affect the public interest. However, I don't think that model would work in the US, particularly in light of some unique jurisprudence (Buckley v. Valeo, Citizens United v. FEC, and Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta) that make all three branches of government captive institutions to a small number of wealthy donors.


> Credit unions are not-for-profit, while REI makes billions in revenue,

Periodic reminder: revenue is not profit. A not-for-profit can bring in billions in revenue. (I don’t know of any non-profit organizations that fit this description)


The US Supreme Court is within spitting distance of wading into these waters. See Justice Thomas' concurrence in the grant of cert for Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute[1]. "The similarities between some digital platforms and common carriers or places of public accommodation may give legislators strong arguments for similarly regulating digital platforms."

See also https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/984440891/justice-clarence-th....

[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_32...


It sounds like Justice Thomas is suggesting that this might be a reasonable thing for legislators to write laws about. It is not Justice Thomas saying, the US Supreme Court is likely to issue opinions on Twitter as a common carrier.

Maybe that’s what you intended to suggest, by the phrase “wading in.”


> I, for one, will always pick an imperfectly moderated cesspool

I once thought like that. And now, after seeing the cesspool of hate and ignorance on social media, and the turmoil it has created, I miss the days of quality journalism. Today, I fear getting trapped into echo chambers on the net, and not knowing anything beyond the narrow view they create. Having to figure out what content to trust is also not only tiring, but dangerous too.


Seems you are a liberal according to your twitter profile. This is not a dig, just saying, your experience on that platform is not the same as everybody else's, which is why I found your whole message a bit surprising.


vehemently disagree, Twitter has been at the forefront for human misery. Alongside facebook and instagram.


Twitter is the closest to a worldwide-accessible [1] Speaker's Corner [2] I know of

Far, far, far from it! They actively suppress information they do not like, while giving reasons for it that are transparently double standards.


Indeed, Twitter was great.

Until the Great Bluecheck Purge, which revoked the verified status of significant twitterati - not because of question about their identity, but because their politics were incorrect.


> Great Bluecheck Purge

Why is this something that adults invest their energy into? It feels very much like being back in grade school and getting upset over who got a sticker. Shouldn't both sides of that conflict have better things to be pissed over?


Because it was the moment Twitter decisively shifted from an open fair neutral public forum, where contributor accounts could be neutrally & objectively confirmed to be who they claimed to be, to a biased forum which refused legitimate identification of anyone not in line with certain sociopolitical views.

Anonymity is important, and Twitter gave that to anyone who wanted it. Identification is important too, and Twitter denied that to dissenting views (not weirdos, but about half the population - normal mainline opinions).

Twitter isn’t grade school. It succeeded as the new global online public town square, widely quoted as an authoritative forum. If @Talanes posts something important, good to know it’s the real Talanes people assume it is - but if he’s denied a blue check because he promotes wrongthink (even if shared by hundreds of millions), the validity of the post is questioned.

I’ve seen enough “not really who you think it is” accounts obfuscate truth to know it’s a real problem. Online identity verification, when wanted, is important.


I guess it's hard to care because @Talanaes has been denied a Blue Check since they were introduced.

It was never a real or fair identification system, it was a promo tool for early Twitter to boost celebrity engagement that they should have revamped or retired six or seven years ago.

Edit: What a wonderful time to realize my HN handle is mistyped, lol.


> What a wonderful time to realize my HN handle is mistyped, lol.

About a year and 8 months time lol


Twitter Blue apparently was another not so great idea I guess...

Look folks, Twitter was never really profitable and it showed. Innovation has been lagging for years, and they had to rely on sensationalism from Trump that simply can't be allowed to persist any more.

The profit model has changed, and therefore the CEO music change.

The big question is where it all will go next. I can think of several ideas that will improve the platform, but nobody asked me to write them, and I'm not getting paid CEO money by them to spit it out.

The biggest question now is what will happen next... I guarantee you though, any more plots to start billing users and turn Twitter into more of a "pay-for-play-ware" or "freemium" service will lead to a giant user base exodus. ;/


From the first comment in Twitter feed re: abandoning twitter for Pinterest, we got to start a new meme:

I knew <software_name_here> when it used to rock-n-roll. I knew <software_name_here> when it used to do the pony.

to tally software that started great but alas died on the vine.


Play on words from Nick Lowe song,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn1CXbf2xF8


Speakers corner is crackpots and insanity. So your comparison stands, but I doubt for the reason you intended


A few reflections on this announcement.

1) Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. The cost of doing it is being sued for damages, having to spend countless hours with lawyers, etc. Jack might think X, but he's only allowed to say Y, and he doesn't want to go beyond that because he doesn't want to fight that fight.

Only people in a close circle really know what's going on, and it's most certainly not random people on the Internet (or HN).

2) Also, consider that Twitter, and perhaps Facebook (sorry but I don't give a sh*t that its new name is Meta), are really difficult companies to run, especially if you'd like to do some public good, as opposed to just maximizing returns.

There are so many things that can go wrong, so many other things that will set your company on fire without warnings, and that doesn't give people the time to think strategically on how to tackle certain difficult scenarios.

Twitter and Facebook essentially control most of the public discourse these days; never seen such amount of power in the hands of a few companies.

3) Despite common opinion, I actually think that Twitter (unlike Facebook) has done more good than harm. Why? Because it has essentially enabled an incredible explosion of "voices" that can be heard (err, read) all over the world.

4) Yes, we can think of countless ways to make Twitter better, but remember that Twitter is not run by Jack Dorsey, nor that other companies are run by their CEOs. Companies are run by boards, which means, by large funds with controlling interest in these companies. Even a well-intentioned CEO has to fight against many things his/her board want. And unlike enlightened CEOs, enlightened boards are essentially a very rare creature, almost never seen on planet Earth (IMHO).

5) You might think I'm defending Jack, perhaps I am, but it might be because hatred is really easy to dispense, while trying to be balanced in your judgement is really hard, and perhaps the conversation about Twitter should benefit from cooler heads, as opposed to quick slogans.


I lean moderately left and I really disagree with #3. The explosion of voices is only ones that are "allowed". Twitter is one of the biggest offenders of cancel culture (i.e. silencing people).


Realistically speaking, Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)" because:

1. Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter.

2. Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook.

3. Any conclusions are going to be subjective AF accordingly, and HN is a more young and left-leaning cohort.

All social media is a double-edged sword, under the most charitable view.


OK, "Younger and left-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Twitter" ^ "Older and right-leaning outrage tends to dominate on Facebook" => Twitter has "done more good than harm (unlike Facebook)?" That's ageism of first order right there.


I think his point was that because "good" is entirely subjective, and since HN aligns with Twitter, HN subjectively will consider Twitter good.


That's a weird conclusion to come to. There is a ton of alt-right, extremist content on Twitter. Not just in English, mind you.


And a lot of it is young


Meanwhile, I'm over here wishing that they actually applied their terms of service uniformly. Instead of making exceptions for famous people.


This is nonsense. I talk with my favorite furry purveyors of printable guns on twitter nearly daily. I have criticisms of how Twitter bends to the establishment left, but there's a lot of stuff on twitter that makes many blue people very angry.


Compare to before, where the only voices you heard where ones that were allowed by a hand full of media execs.


I don't see Twitter as an improvement over what we had before.

The same people controlling the media once, are on the boards of the companies that allegedly made the change possible.

On the other hand, their faces are hidden now, so we can't really say if a certain topic is legitimately important for the general public or the consensus has been fabricated or, even worse, their platform has been abused and we won't know until it's too late because it's bad PR.

At least in the past I could almost be sure that a media outlet was not easy to infiltrate so their opinion reflected their beliefs and I could take a stance pro or against.

For example

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_infiltration_of_Twitte...

Now if I think Twitter has been corrupted by malevolent entities, I can't really do a lot about it, because I risk to.lose my voice too.

There aren't many other ways I can have the same exposure.

There's a completely different set of incentives at play.


Before Twitter you didn’t have a voice you were afraid to lose.

Edit: re-reading this, I’m giving Twitter too much credit, but I hope the point I’m trying to make is still visible.


> Before Twitter you didn’t have a voice you were afraid to lose.

it depends on where and when

people with no voice are still with no voice, even with Twitter

people that had some kind of voice, still have a voice, probably more.

people with lots of voice power, still have a lot of power

except now people that have gained popularity don't want to lose it to silence potentially dangerous actors, because they are on the same boat, and entities with a lot of resources can have a voice (sometimes very convincing) where they wouldn't have before.

Think about the staggering amount of visibility the Talibans have on platforms like IG, they are influencers now!

Not entirely Twitter's fault, but the Jack Dorseys didn't think about the consequences and here we are.

They did what they are good at: built a platform, made it grow exponentially, lost control of it, but profited.

Not judging the intentions, they could have been the best ever, but the result is that they built something that we have to deal with, whether we like it or not.


> On the other hand, their faces are hidden now,

Having a name and face didn't exactly help pre-social media, see Rush Limbaugh and the rise of dishonest & polarizing media post-fairness doctrine.


Before, the voices I heard were people in my life and my local community.

The media was just the media; they'd get put in their own box for analysis and skepticism.

Twitter's great power is controlling peoples' impression of what the people around them are thinking and saying. Or, rather, allowing various aggressive agenda-driven groups to control that.

So now the corps don't just control the voice of the media; they control the voice of your community too.


That stuff is an issue, but it's nothing compared to positive effects arising from an increased ability for people to communicate and coordinate in actual oppressive states


> There are so many things that can go wrong, so many other things that will set your company on fire without warnings, and that doesn't give people the time to think strategically on how to tackle certain difficult scenarios.

> never seen such amount of power in the hands of a few companies.

These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many things.

Twitter has more than enough resource to prevent it from being the extremely harmful manipulation machine that it is.

There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.”


>These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many things.

Power isn't a single resource that can be accumulated and spent. The accumulation of soft power over public discourse isn't the sort of thing that inherently helps you put out fires, and in fact managing that growth can be one of the fires.

>There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.”

Which GP covered in their 4th point. Even a CEO who doesn't believe that answers to a board who does. And if the board has reservations, they answer to shareholders who do. It's a structure that continually passes the buck so no one has to consciously decide to put profits over people.

Fiduciary duty is a pretty slick moral hack, making the act of chasing the dollar feel like a communal good.


Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thanks.


> There is no excuse beyond “we want money more than a healthy society.”

Socrates's prosecutors called, they want their undisprovable accusation back! Serious any claims of "ruining" or "harming" society are specious and a classic symptom of a moral panic. You would think people would have learned from atonal music, Jazz, rock and roll, and rap alone having already ruined society. Let alone allowing women and minorities to vote and gay marriage and things getting better from a "ruined" society.


>Twitter has more than enough resource to prevent it from being the extremely harmful manipulation machine that it is.

But would you actually want them to do that? What if their idea of "extremely harmful manipulation" is different from yours?


> it has essentially enabled an incredible explosion of "voices" that can be heard

Very controlled, curated, and politically corrected explosion. "Very lively debate within allowed spectrum".


What exactly would you like to discuss on Twitter? I’ve never felt censored there regardless of what my opinion was.


This probably isn't what the parent meant, but also:

I began using Twitter a week ago after avoiding it for years. Imo it incentivizes you to gain likes/followers, but in order to do so you have to tailor your content to appeal to bots/algo/quick-digestion. And it's not fun tweeting if nobody interacts, so you end up self-censoring to post clickbaity hype content


That sounds like the dream.


> Twitter is not run by Jack Dorsey, nor that other companies are run by their CEOs. Companies are run by boards.

FB (Meta?) is run by its CEO. He controls the board. This is rare, of course (and perhaps unique for a company of this size and powe).


I don't think it is valid to say that the difficulty of running large successful companies buys moral leeway for their CEOs. They get payed the big bucks for a reason, let's hold them responsible.


> Facebook (sorry but I don't give a sh*t that its new name is Meta)

clearly, you do


> Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want.

Elon Musk seems pretty free. He just pays the fines time to time.


Yes. I guess Musk is the exception proving the rule.


Of course, exceptions don’t prove rules, they disprove them. Maybe Musk is showing that CEOs could say a lot more than they choose to, at least if they have charisma. And run certain kinds of businesses, appealing to a certain kind of investors and customers.


It's a reference to a popular saying: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

The logic of which is, if something is an exception or so exceptional that it's called out as an exception, that implies the existence of a rule.


I just think it’s sometimes used when it shouldn’t be.


Well i think in your case you’re the exception proving the rule


I’m off to the island of misfit toys. :-(


It will be interesting to see how Twitter changes as a result. Twitter with selective following and setting your timeline to 'time order' creates a pretty good environment for me. It feels like the equivalent of living in only a few chosen 'subreddits' rather than getting the full frontal reddit experience.


The difference for me has always beem that Twitter is organized by person rather than by topic. In some ways that's good if I'm following someone because I care about them personally, but usually I follow people because I'm interested in a particular aspect of their work like art or announcements. In those cases, I don't want to hear about their political opinions or what their child did that week. I know you can follow topics as well, but that often seems overwhelming and imprecise. Social media as a platform is just incredibly confusing in the way it blurs the line between performer and audience.


Yup. There was this "follow the whole person!" bullshit on infosec Twitter a while back, and it was just such nonsense. I follow them because I'm interested in their thoughts on computer security, no other reason. I couldn't care less about a security nerd's political opinions; it's just as irrelevant to me as a politician's thoughts on computer security.


The politician could be trying to legislate standardizing on Windows XP, banning firewalls and connecting said computers to the Internet.


And the security nerd could be running for local office. Typical HN navel-gazing that is orthogonal to the point.


I've found the solution a while ago: unfollow. I only follow people who tweet about themes that interest me.

If somebody wants to tell the world their private life, good for them, but without me.


My solution was to mute words. It was way too tedious to say “show fewer of Bob’s RTs”. So like, I muted the word “Trump”. But I use twitter in a really specific way, and I acknowledge this isn’t a great solution.


This has been my fundamental problem with Twitter; I use Facebook to follow actual friends and their goings-on, and Twitter to follow Important People with Important Things To Say.

Turns out, I care a lot more about the former than the latter.

You could relatively easily flip the script and use the platforms in the opposite way. (although Twitter's narrow reach makes it harder to follow IRL "friends" because they're not so likely to be on the platform or use it regularly).


Likes and Retweets are the big annoyances, IMO. If I'm following someone, it's because I want to see the content that they are consciously putting out, not just whatever they impulsively click a heart on. And unless you're a personal friend or a particularly interesting content aggregator, I probably don't care about your RTs either.


I've been mostly successful in removing likes from people I'm following by using (on the desktop) the ... > I'm not interested in this tweet > show fewer likes from X. Though sometime likes reappear and I have to reload the page once or twice to get a chronological timeline. Though that doesn't do anything about retweets.


I mostly ignore the stuff not about the topic I followed a person for, but it does help me to keep my world view wider.


Muting words or hashtags helps a lot for focusing your timeline, though Twitter's mute list has a max of 200 words.


This seems to hold true for many social media sites: facebook, reddit, twitter. It takes effort on behalf of the user to make their experience on the site "better".

And by better I mean, less divisive, and less mindless scrolling of memes/low effort content.

Thinking about it from the business's perspective, it probably ultimately also lowers their user engagement metrics. Users get a higher quality experience using the site, but also spend less time on the site. It sorta reminds me of the freemium/grinding experience in games today. It makes for a worse game experience, but a better company bottom line.


I don't think it's necessarily a business incentives/metrics thing. Rather I think a social media experience can be at most 2 of 3:

- Uncensored/unmoderated

- Encompasses all viewpoints

- Civil


I do not think you can get a site to be uncensored and remain civil, assuming anonymity.


I think if its sufficiently niche (topic or membership wise), the communities can have fairly civil conversations (and even disagreements). I think this is largely due to the fact that being niche means its less likely to attract troll-types looking for a platform.


    It takes effort on behalf of the user to make their 
    experience on the site "better"
Broadly, I agree.

I would say that for me, Twitter falls approximately halfway between:

1. Facebook: which is only barely tolerable, after much effort, and still seems to optimize for negative emotions, spam, etc

and

2. Reddit: with minimal effort (just need to subscribe to subreddits) it is an entirely personalized experience of exactly what I want to see


Reddit is and will change more over time. Today I get “posts you may like” on my home feed which are basically rehashed horrible takes from /r/politics on a different subreddit.


True, but it's easy to find games that don't use that model (especially on desktop or console), whereas it's hard to find a way to consume thoughts from interesting people outside of twitter.


Read a book?


>it's hard to find a way to consume thoughts from interesting people outside of twitter.

You can subscribe to high quality substacks and publications


I don't think this is solvable, or indeed even a problem to be solved. Our definition of "better" probably overlaps quite a bit, but it decidedly does not with many, many people. There are a lot of people who really enjoy "memes and low-effort content".

The reason it takes effort on behalf of the user is because there's no such thing as a perfect read-your-mind content recommendation system that doesn't require any inputs from you, as much as people like to pretend machine learning is magic. Twitter/Reddit et al are a tool for building a content stream that fits you perfectly: their recommendations aren't intended to be blindly and indiscriminately consumed, but to narrow your search space to make the construction of this stream possible in the first place.

This is a simple extension of the trend of broadening distribution we've seen, from having three broadcast channels (all reporting the same news with the same slant and the same blind spots), through cable television, all the way up to today's wide-open, bottom-up distribution system. The root of this type of complaint about social media is that they treat their users with too much respect, trusting them to have the emotional continence and intellectual maturity to build a custom content stream that fits them instead of being told precisely what to believe and what to care about by Walter Cronkite.


It seems reasonable to propose that perhaps most people do not find that experience "better." Frankly, I've not been that careful about who I follow, and the curated feed is better than the uncurated one.


Long ago I made a reddit account with the first suggested name after the one I asked for was 'taken', disabled following all the subreddits, and then selectively added subreddits specific to my hobbies.

I don't see anything that normally hits the front page, everything I do see is somewhat relevant to me, and it basically deletes all politics from what is presented.

By far the best reddit experience possible, I think.


This is the way. But also creating information bubble.


I don't get any news from reddit - its purely an entertainment vehicle for me, so I don't worry about the bubble portion of it. If I'm in a synthesizer or fiction writing bubble, so be it.


I assumed this is how almost everyone uses reddit!


by vote counts its clear the default subs (and subs that used to be default) are the biggest with the most traffic, so probably not.


Mind sharing a few interesting ones?


they're literally my personal interests. Find smaller subreddits related to your personal interests. If you don't like the same things I like my subreddits are unlikely to be interesting to you.

The whole point here is to get rid of the all of the default subreddits, since they become garbage once they become default no matter what, and then find things that you're actually interested in that aren't default and thus not full of 'normies' who ruin most of reddit.

There was a time before reddit got huuuuge that most of it was pretty ok, but that time was years and years ago. Now there are just niche subreddits of quality and an ocean of garbage.


I used to enjoy reddit so much but it’s honestly the worst place on the internet today. Every major sub is infested with politics, bias mods and toxic comments.

I wouldn’t be surprised if reddit is heavily influenced by bot activity. If you were a foreign influence who wanted to convey a certain narrative, then reddit would be the de-facto place for that.

1. Upvote and downvote system, where downvoted squelch bad takes, is perfect for narrative forming. 2. The demographic for reddit are young minds who most likely have a position on a certain topic because they’ve been told to from a place like reddit.


mind sharing what you're into?


r/ethfinance


I use tweetdeck and only follow specific users, i.e., all my columns are "user" columns. It's kind of like a micro-blog RSS feed of sorts. It's wonderful if you're careful about who you follow.


i've been using tweetdeck the last 2 weeks and its a dream. is there something better?


Check out “Fenix” (3rd party client on Apple platforms) - it mimics the multi-column view, but is more flexible; a list can be a Twitter list, a search query etc.


I haven't used Fenix before (it does look nice!), but I can definitely do all of the above in tweetdeck and did so in the past before raising my walls by following only specific users.


Society is going through a learning process in understanding the value of scope in our social environments. If you simply connect all the nodes into a gigantic hyper graph you get a constantly evolving shithole.

It’s like programming using only global variables.


There is both value and risk in highly personalized social scoping. The largest risk IMO is epistemic closure, which at large scale is corrosive to society. A platform which has the effect of enabling frictionless epistemic bubbles for everyone is harmful, not beneficial.

This is a systemic risk of decentralization in all of its forms, too, really. At its most extreme, a world comprised of arbitrarily many self-governed communities is a dystopia.


Personally, I prefer using lists but I do not participate much, just consume ...


Lists are fantastic. Pinning them on mobile makes them very accessible. They can be set to private which means that you don't show up as a follower.

I think Twitter has forgotten about them, since they don't display ads.


I wish I could pin more than 5 of them


I'm sure the first change will be the redemption of a certain political figure.


why bother. certain political figure has their own Mastodon installation now.


...which was discussed on the #fediblock tag as soon as it went up, with a lot of admins who set up their own Mastodons because they were sick of that guy constantly showing up on Twitter immediately defederating from that particular instance.

Being able to block entire instances is a really, really nice power.


I suppose they're going to monetize more aggressively? Sigh...


Same. It's a handy RSS replacement. Or a telegraph office


There's just too much noise - not nearly enough signal.


There's zero explanation in the email for why he resigned. He's re-iterating the point that the company is fine moving forward with the rest of the board, the new CEO and the existing team, but no actual reason as to why he left.


Twitter, ~$35B Market Cap, no profits, operating expenses keeps growing with Gross Profits. Future projection of profitability is still slim. Along with trillions of social / political issues that you have to due with because you are running social media.

Square, ~$100B Market Cap, profitable, still mainly US based and growing. Crypto and Payment. Lots of potentials.

It is not too hard to pick which one to run.


Yeah from people that work there: it's hard to keep ad companies happy. Ad services want more personal info, tracking systems, they want geo, they want the user signed in, etc. Ad companies can get ALL that on facebook. This is completely against what twitter users (the vocal ones anyway) want.


If your goal is personal monetary profit, maybe. Is it the case of Jack? Why want more when you already have too much


Because at a certain point money becomes an addiction.



Not sure what your point is. Even gambling addicts like to donate or give away money to the hostesses and waitresses at the bar.

The addiction is earning money. Accumulating wealth. Donating it, if anything, adds to that addiction, since it lets you play god for a bit.

  Not saying Jack is all of those things, and donating money is objectively a good thing, but the greedy race for money can't be solved by promoting charity.


It’s not about money - it’s power, and shaping the future.

It’s not a matter of getting some amount of money…it’s choosing when you step back from the game and cede the future to your rivals.


Its not about "personal" profits or money, although money is certainly an indicator. It is about impact. I question Twitter's growth and future impact, good or bad.


Not only that, but it's a much simpler proposition: "Our mission is to sell payment processing". With Twitter it sounds like there was a constant battle between employees, some championing free speech, others wanting twitter to curb abuse, others angry Trump got banned, a different group angry similar Trump adjacent folks are still on Twitter...

What a headache. I'm not trying to dismiss these issues, but I can certainly see why it's a lot easier to spend your time worrying about how to make everyone happy at the company when it's Square than Twitter.


Running social media company is a job, where in the best case, half of the world hates you. No matter how good you’re, you’re always walking thin line between hate, free speech, conspiracy theories, political polarization, media and countless other issues. It’s a game you cannot win, and I’m pretty sure that’s why he’s resigning.


Maybe he just wants to do something else.


Uncharitable explanation: he's being forced out over his pro-free-speech views. He's been pretty vocal about disagreeing with Twitter's recent actions.


That makes no sense. He is the CEO and on the board, he _is_ the decision maker and could reverse any action he disagreed with. Any disagreement was purely theatre.


A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support. If everyone on the board decided that Jack wasn't the guy anymore, Jack can't wave a magic wand and make them disappear. CEOs have been ousted many times.


> A CEO isn't a dictator. They still need board support.

Dictators can't operate without support either.


People forget that Jack was ousted in 2008!


The board can't unilaterally decide the color of the Twitter logo is now green. They can pressure the CEO and threaten to hold a vote to fire him if he doesn't change it, but up until that point the CEO is the ultimate decision maker for the company.

Jack saying he didn't like decisions Twitter made is like if I started complaining that I didn't like the restaurant I chose for dinner.


> Jack saying he didn't like decisions Twitter made is like if I started complaining that I didn't like the restaurant I chose for dinner.

Do you have kids?


From what I hear that's not the case the with Zuckerberg, in that most decisions go through him. I would guess the same with Elon


Zuckerberg owns too much from the company. Elon is the public figure of his companies and firing him crashes the stock.


That's because Zuckerberg stacked the decks that way because he pressed his advantage early. He owns controlling interest of his operation and it can't be wrested from him.

I don't think it's the best approach to manage a company but it's sure been lucrative for Mark.


>it's sure been lucrative for Mark

I don't hear many FB shareholders complaining either, I wouldn't claim equal voting rights on my few shares even if I could (please don't crucify me HN, I'm just a tiny fish that dislikes the company but likes the stock). On paper, supershare structures are not a great thing for the common shareholder as it makes their shares basically free of voting rights when the CEO (or united group) holds such a supermajority. In practice, a strong operator like Mark gets more leeway to steer the ship with fewer barriers and inside power struggles. Imagine if the board stopped him from buying IG or WA, these purchases were very controversial at the time and many thought he was a lunatic for paying such a steep price, it only looks genius in hindsight. When/while it works, it is an effective governance structure.

Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.


> Notable that these types of structures are no longer allowed, companies like Facebook, Google and Berkshire (no super-majority here) got grandfathered in.

Could you maybe elaborate on that? I have never heard about this before, what exactly isn't possible these days?


Am I misremembering? I vividly recall finding information with regards to this type of structure not being allowed (unsure if regulatory or stock exchange level) with these examples (Mark's majority, Page+Brin's majority, BRK A shares) last time I came across this, but now I come up empty-handed. So I'm unsure and don't have much time to dig in, maybe someone more knowledgeable comes by. Feels bad that I can't edit in a disclaimer to my previous comment, I don't want to parrot misinformation.


Look for a video of his speech during the Bitcoin conference that happened in Miami this year. Some activist invaded the area blaming him for censorship and then he proceed to apologetically explain that the pressure comes from the companies advertising on Twitter.

EDIT: here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5zlw13FU


If you think that the CEO of a company can just do whatever they like then you haven't run a company.

If you attempt to do things that the employees do not want to do then your company will turn to shit. People will leave, and those that remain will have terrible productivity.

Yes, you get some "Just do as I say" points, but you have to choose where to spend them very wisely.


Perhaps he did reverse or prevent some actions the board in general felt he shouldn't, and this is the "please leave".


Everyone (except maybe Zuck) has a boss.


Welcome to public relations.

This is par for the course, ask a politician a question get a non-answer, ask an NFL coach about the next game “They are a good team, we have to practice hard.” It’s all just talking without really saying anything.


yes, that's the downside of the 'iterated game' dynamic: the desire to minimize leaks of future strategy. the upside, of course, is fewer defections/betrayals. it's one of the reasons we need independent journalism in society not beholden to moneyed/political interests. unfortunately, just about every news outlet, including npr, has been subverted at this point.

here's hoping jack actually believes in sacrificing money and power to defect out of this information oligopoly, though i'm skeptical as those forces are irresistable to most humans.


This is a great skill to learn BTW... along with answering only the questions you want and saying only what you want when asked questions. Rumsfeld was a master of it. It's more than public relations but also negotiation and diplomacy even in the non-political sense. I mean try to get a school board to do something or your local govt.


Replying to my own comment, but if I had to guess (on absolutely zero context and evidence :p), I would say he wants to focus on crypto/Square, and Twitter is more of a time sink. Twitter is in a good enough state at the moment that the team can move without him so it's a good moment to leave.


The 10% appreciation of the shares as a result of him leaving is reason enough. He's still a big shareholder.


Except now the stock is DOWN 2.7%.


Other than Musk for Tesla and SpaceX, I can't think of any of the major companies who would really be impacted much by their CEO leaving. Maybe Zuck leaving FB might make a small difference but IG seems decently independent of him anyway.


Zuckerberg by all accounts bullied Kevin Systrom out of the company and now it prompts you to sign in when trying to browse photos; doesn't seem independant


Jack Dorsey did something similar too to Noah Glass which doesn't get talked about much:

https://youtu.be/p8N0xN0ihMA


He is/was CEO of two companies, but seems more interested in what's going on at one more than the other. Makes sense. Get out of the way of the people focused on the mission.


When a CEO leaving the same day the news come out, it means it wasn't his decision.


I was digging around this morning and found this from 2020. You think he was just feeling the heat lately and wanted out? Or has this been in the works from opposing forces for a while now?

A billionaire Republican megadonor has purchased a "sizable" stake in Twitter and "plans to push" to oust CEO Jack Dorsey among other changes, according to new reports, raising the prospect of a shocking election-year shakeup of the social media platform that conservatives have long accused of overt left-wing political bias.

Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. has already nominated four directors to Twitter's board, a development first reported by Bloomberg News, citing several sources familiar with the arrangement. The outlet noted that unlike other prominent tech CEOs, Dorsey didn't have voting control over Twitter because the company had just one class of stock; and he has long been a target for removal given Twitter's struggling user growth numbers and stock performance.

Aside from these two paragraphs the rest of the article is a lot of speculation and some quotes from people who've been against Twitter for some time:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twitter-paul-singer-republi...


Not really. When you don't want the discussion to linger for the whole transition period, announcing the news the last minute can make sense. Not saying it's the case here though, just saying it's a possibility.


They've fired him before and last year he nearly got fired by the board when an activist investor came on board. I think if that was the case it would be public knowledge.


Maybe there is a current trial or lawsuit that could damage his reputation and then the company?

Like a trial that is touching a lot of big players in tech?

something.. something.... L*** express?

Thus resigning is better for the shareholders and him.


You're seeing a lot of political consolidation around getting rid of, or revamping considerably section 230 which most social media platforms have been protected from lawsuits for a while now.

When you have both parties in agreement that FB, Twitter and Google are a threat to free speech and democracy, you best watch out.

This was my thought. The heat was getting too much for him. Law makers repeatedly asking him to come testify on this and that. The pressure to get rid of 230, and have better controls on banning people may have just worn on him enough where he just decided to toss in the towel and move onto something else and quietly disappear.


All while telling us how amazingly transparent the company is.


Honestly, does he really owe the public a reason? I am no Jack Dorsey fan, but it would be unusual for any CEO of even a moderately successful company to expose any internal business with the public.


He probably realistically owed the public (or shareholders) an explanation of how he could justify being CEO of two companies more than he owes an explanation of why he left one of them.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: