Twitter & job cuts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I worked in Silicon Valley my entire career. There is nothing tragic about Twitter employees being laid off. Workforce "churn" and layoffs are part of the game in Silicon Valley.

Scott
Yup. The Valley is brutal. It is not for everyone. If you can't roll with the punches, this ain't for you. Everything changes because everything is political.
I have tons of admiration for those who got canned, fairly or otherwise, who got up and got something better.

And Elon paid way too much anyways.
 
... because the person with the highest net worth is always the smartest person in the room? I do better than most...

So I guess everyone who inherits wealth instantly gets smarter? Hmmm...
It depends on what one does with the money. I know two siblings that inherited a good amount of money that with some easy to do management would have made a very comfortable life's cushion. They partied vacationed , time shared etc. bacically threw away their parents final gift and both went bankrupt lost it all.
 
Twitters stock has already been suspended from trading, so even if he kept all the employees I don’t believe they’d be awarded any stock since it now all belongs to X Holdings I as a private company.

Elon “Chief Twit” Musk has this… chaotic “what do you mean I’m not supposed to do that?” energy. He also has a history of saying things that either don’t come to fruition or take years to do so. It’s now a private company, he could press “delete” on the entire thing or lay off 75% of the staff, it’s his to do with as he sees fit.View attachment 123736
The purchase agreement said the employees would get cash instead of stock. But my point is to layoff people the day before they were going to get stock or cash awards is crap.
 
I worked at companies who did crap things at layoff time. Like there were legal requirements for things you had to do if the layoff was 500 or more so they would layoff 499.
 
With an IQ of 155…. he IS smarter than most people!
Yes, but so do many other people with autism, and most of them are also socially dysfunctional, like he is. Combined with the fact that he is a major league narcissist makes him a particularly unpleasant person.
 
Elon is in a whole different league than any of us are. To us money is what we buy things with , at Elons level money is power. Remember the Golden rule
Yeah, I wonder why he wanted Twitter? Mouthpiece I guess. Doesn't seem to fit with his other companies.

In a note on Thursday to advertisers, Musk said that he acquired Twitter because he believes it's important for the “future of civilisation to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner”.
 
Yeah, I wonder why he wanted Twitter? Mouthpiece I guess. Doesn't seem to fit with his other companies
Because he could? Maybe he is bored and it's a challenge, a challenge different than a technical challenge?
( Although it will have a technical aspect).
 
Is that not exactly what I said - they sensor one side of the argument and not the other - hence there journalists now.
What is your definition of "journalist"? A journalist in the normal definition isn't involved in censoring anything.

Exact text of the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing about a private company big or small behaving unethically.
 
It depends on what one does with the money. I know two siblings that inherited a good amount of money that with some easy to do management would have made a very comfortable life's cushion. They partied vacationed , time shared etc. bacically threw away their parents final gift and both went bankrupt lost it all.
The point was in many cases net worth has no relationship to intelligence.
 
Yup. The Valley is brutal. It is not for everyone. If you can't roll with the punches, this ain't for you. Everything changes because everything is political.
I have tons of admiration for those who got canned, fairly or otherwise, who got up and got something better.

And Elon paid way too much anyways.
Elon is up to something.
A robust economy is profitable.
Green urgency is slowing things for now.

I agree with Musk about having a Digital Village Square with broader exchange of ideas. (like BITOG !)
 
What is your definition of "journalist"? A journalist in the normal definition isn't involved in censoring anything.

Exact text of the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing about a private company big or small behaving unethically.
If the NY times publishes an article that say AZjeff has done something bad (and you didn't) then you can sue them in court for damages to your reputation. Its called slander and its quite well defined. Free speech referenced in the constitution is political speech. You can't publicly say anything you want about anyone at anytime. The Sandy Hook parents were just awarded billions because a radio host kept saying the sandy hook killings didn't occur. He tried hiding behind free speech but the court ruled otherwise. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't spread lies with impunity.

Twitter and other internet forums are protected against lawsuits because there considered the "public forum" in which these discussions take place. So while you could sue someone for what they post on Twitter - you can't sue twitter - because there the public square so to speak.

However when they start moderating or suppressing the information in the square based on their own beliefs they have now become the arbiters of the information. They don't simply say you can't talk politics - they allow political speech, but suppress some stories and highlight others. Therefore there now no longer the public square, there journalists. And journalists can and are often sued.

That's the difference many don't understand.

If they want to be journalists that is 100% there right, but then they shouldn't be protected by the special laws that protect public forums. Congress agrees actually, and both parties have been talking about modifying these laws - there woefully out of date.
 
As long as rules are enforced equally, it shouldn’t much matter. It’s literally the foundation of this country’s formative documents. If you don’t like the rules, you have two choices: follow the procedures and try to change them; or leave and find someplace with a different set of rules.

I’m still disappointed that all those celebrities made false promises that they were departing after they claimed the country was going to implode in January 2017. We’d be much better off if they had backbone and followed through! 😂
I have a cousin, who lived many years in San Fran. After a short stint in Indiana he is moving to Portugal next month. Doesn't like the direction we are headed. I give him credit for following through, I hope he is happy there. He's a nice guy and all, was a college professor in California before he retired.
 
Elon definitely has to flush the toilet and get rid of the toxic trash within HIS company.
NEVER & wont use twitter yet it is obvious to anyone, most of twitter workers and universe hate him + what he stands for.
He seems to favor common sense / fairness / hard work. How can that be a bad thing? They actually had workers making
threats of all sorts if he bought the company. They should be out the doors ASAP.
 
I worked at companies who did crap things at layoff time. Like there were legal requirements for things you had to do if the layoff was 500 or more so they would layoff 499.
That sort of law is well-intentioned but flawed, as in your example.

The easy fix would be to prorate the requirements for lesser numbers of employees - or to not have a minimum number.

Here, there are labour laws requiring employers to pay benefits to full-time empoyees - so grocery stores, particularly, hire a more workers part-time, to avoid having to pay benefits.

Why not prorate the benefits so that the employer can't dodge paying benefits?
 
Is that not exactly what I said - they sensor one side of the argument and not the other - hence there journalists now.

If they let both parties speak then exactly - who cares.

Twitter doesn't. They sensor and ban all kinds of crap based on affiliation - then hide behind the internet public forum laws.

The NY Times, CNN, FOX can say any crap they want about anyone, but they can also be dragged into court over it as well. Twitter can not. They hide behind "we didn't write it" BS. So if I write something they like, good. If you write something they don't like, then your banned. Its not equal, and its no longer a public forum.
Sorry, I wasn’t meaning “you” specifically. It was meant in the public side… didn’t mean to imply I was calling you out on it. Wording 😳 😁
 
If the NY times publishes an article that say AZjeff has done something bad (and you didn't) then you can sue them in court for damages to your reputation. Its called slander and its quite well defined. Free speech referenced in the constitution is political speech. You can't publicly say anything you want about anyone at anytime. The Sandy Hook parents were just awarded billions because a radio host kept saying the sandy hook killings didn't occur. He tried hiding behind free speech but the court ruled otherwise. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and you can't spread lies with impunity.

Twitter and other internet forums are protected against lawsuits because there considered the "public forum" in which these discussions take place. So while you could sue someone for what they post on Twitter - you can't sue twitter - because there the public square so to speak.

However when they start moderating or suppressing the information in the square based on their own beliefs they have now become the arbiters of the information. They don't simply say you can't talk politics - they allow political speech, but suppress some stories and highlight others. Therefore there now no longer the public square, there journalists. And journalists can and are often sued.

That's the difference many don't understand.

If they want to be journalists that is 100% there right, but then they shouldn't be protected by the special laws that protect public forums. Congress agrees actually, and both parties have been talking about modifying these laws - there woefully out of date.
With rare exceptions, I prefer that there not be restrictions on speech. The big problem for me is that someone, likely a small group of self-appointed elites, has to decide what is unacceptable, which might well clash with most people's common sense.

If someone wants to express their stupid ideas in public, more power to them; the antidote to bad ideas is good ideas, not censorship.

My eight farthings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top