The purge continues. At least if we all know one thing it's that the most successful way to run a company is to instill a culture of fear and to surround yourself with sycophants.
I’m not sure this wasn’t how Twitter was run before. I’ve been in a few companies in the valley where this was the case just not so brazenly and out in the open.
Id say its just as much about culture change as it is about saving money.
Musk wants to shock people out of their complacency.
They need to understand its a different company now. Results now matter.
And publicly disagreeing with the owner of the company, whilst working for the company shows this guy is not particularly bright. So probably no great loss.
Maybe it shows that the guy values integrity higher than his job, or that he thinks he has alternatives to putting up with any BS a capricious owner wants to put him through.
He was saying things that were clearly wrong (e.g. the client makes thousands of requests just to load the timeline), and easy to verify. So if that came from "multiple senior tech people", he's firing the wrong ones.
From other tweets I've read, the senior tech people could have told him something correct — that loading the timeline results in thousands of requests to microservices — but he misunderstood it — those requests do not at all originate 1:1 from the client, and they are not a huge factor in the overall latency.
Thats a possibility. Another possibility is that, unlike Elon Musk, nobody in this thread has the slightest clue as to what is going on with Twitter in any real sense but we all pretend that we do.
Do you really think a business works best if the owner surrounds themselves with yeasayers who nod along to everything they say, no matter how factually wrong it is?
It is interesting to read the termination notice referring to "violating company policy". For that to be true, there needs to be an explict policy prescribing a behavior they have violated. More likely,they were fired because Musk felt like it. Or did he really review and communicate a new policy since he took over?
I guess something I don't know about employment law, everyone says in a ~right to work~ (Correction: At-will employment state), you can fire someone for any reason, but can you lie about the reason? Do you have to be able to prove that reason was true? Certainly I suppose you might want to be able to in case of a wrongful termination suit.
> I guess something I don't know about employment law, everyone says in a right to work state, you can fire someone for any reason
”At-will employment” (every state except Montana) not ”right-to-work” (which California emphatically is not.) The latter is a restriction on unions.
> but can you lie about the reason?
Lying publicly about the reason might be defamation, but this wasn’t public, and lying doesn’t itself establish that the reason was illegal, which is necessary for wrongful termination in an at-will state.
True.. however the comment about "A tragic case of adult onset Tourette’s" will definitely throw a wrench in the gears for any disability discrimination claim.
Exactly. It is one thing to say "because Musk wants you out", another to refer to some policy in ambiguous wording. Lying about such serious matter as why you fire someone is is my book very bad. This is the first time I consider leaving Twitter. Not sure I want to have anything to do with it any longer.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
> "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?
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?
> 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.
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.
Im confused by your position here, employees should agree with all decisions or leave? That’s not generally the relationship I’ve had with management or peers in my career.
I'd remind you that Elon called out one of Twitter's engineers on Twitter for the Android app being slow. Professional conduct is clearly not a priority to him.
Following up on my own post, I failed to read the third link where he did ask an employee who tried to shine light on the Android slowness. After what looks like a reasonable series of responses, Musk fired him https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/14/23458247/elon-musk-fires...
EDIT: Ah, didn't see your reply until after I posted this.
He tweeted at Fraunhoefer:
> Twitter is super slow on Android. What have you done to fix that?
Which sounds a lot like an attack to me, coming from someone in Elon's position. If you need further explanation, he addressed it at him with the word 'you'.
Also, firing the guy after this exchange is kind of a personal attack.
One item that's unclear to me is if the employee had put that they were open to other opportunities on their profile at the time of firing. To me that changes the calculus of why he may have been fired.
Tell me more about the internal strife these engineers created, I didn’t see that mentioned in the tweet thread. Maybe it will help me understand your position better.
That's a remarkably dystopian take. Also, what about Elon's supposed commitment to free speech? Is criticism not speech?
Note: I'm not talking about free speech in the context of the first amendment, as that does not apply to private entities, obviously. I'm talking in the more broad sense, as in one should not be punished for speech, which is what I interpret Elon's take on it as.
That would be the same Elon who made parody a bannable offence immediately after people started getting blue checkmarks on accounts making fun of him :D
He doesn't care about free speech or Twitter, this is just a way for him to insert himself into the zeitgeist yet again, and throw around whatever engineering mastery he thinks he has.
