←back to thread

543 points donohoe | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.608s | source
Show context
CyberMacGyver ◴[] No.44510796[source]
One time they let her speak publicly it turned out to be a disaster. She never had any say and worst part is she was not even a good fall guy, it was clear who’s pulling the strings. The most immaterial and inconsequential hire ever.

I love all the replies on Twitter thanking her but during her time the valuation dropped 80% and they were suing advertisers for not advertising. Remarkably inept.

replies(17): >>44510897 #>>44510953 #>>44510983 #>>44511425 #>>44511714 #>>44511753 #>>44511880 #>>44512012 #>>44512131 #>>44512214 #>>44512413 #>>44512547 #>>44512796 #>>44513070 #>>44513587 #>>44515113 #>>44516760 #
sorcerer-mar ◴[] No.44510983[source]
It's weird that you say both she had no material power and also seem to imply the valuation drop and lawsuits were due to her ineptitude?

Anyway she volunteered to be a puppet for a man who is clearly off the rails and her legacy will forever be stained.

replies(16): >>44511093 #>>44511112 #>>44511345 #>>44511579 #>>44511585 #>>44512652 #>>44512717 #>>44512941 #>>44513076 #>>44513182 #>>44513996 #>>44514772 #>>44514958 #>>44515142 #>>44516446 #>>44516894 #
josefresco ◴[] No.44511093[source]
Both things can be true: Valuation did drop during her tenure, AND she was not to blame.

Therefore the praise is weird, because she seemingly neither helped nor hurt the business.

replies(7): >>44511682 #>>44511788 #>>44511820 #>>44513017 #>>44513089 #>>44515866 #>>44517082 #
mandmandam ◴[] No.44511682[source]
> she was not to blame.

Fall guys bear some of the blame in the fall.

My long-held [0] personal theory - borne out by everything Musk has done, and by who bought Twitter - is that it was bought to curb the possibility of large positive social movements along the lines of OWS or BLM.

Enabling that can entail being useless at your supposed job, while doing your actual job (which deserves some amount of blame, from a number of perspectives).

0 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36685384

replies(9): >>44511742 #>>44512208 #>>44512238 #>>44512516 #>>44512609 #>>44513300 #>>44514157 #>>44514969 #>>44515551 #
ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.44512238[source]
See my only counterpoint to this theory is Musk has a long and well documented history of being absolutely stone desperate to be cool, which is the only thing he can't buy, and he simply revels in his ownership of Twitter even as he comprehensively runs it into the ground as a business.

Now, would he be upset about such efforts being derailed as a result, or is he even slightly bothered about his website now being packed to the tits with Nazis? Absolutely not. But I do think as unbelievably cringe as it would be if true, I really think he bought the damn thing because he just wanted to be the meme lord.

Mainly I just struggle with giving him as much credit as your theory does in terms of long term planning. He's an overgrown man-child.

replies(3): >>44512406 #>>44512557 #>>44515845 #
1. JohnBooty ◴[] No.44512406[source]
I think you and the parent poster are doing a good job of describing the same thing from different angles. Both observations are true.

Musk wanted to steer culture toward his own ends as the parent poster described and he wanted to be seen as some kind of.... cool vanguard of that, as you say.

It's really different facets of the same thing, right?

replies(1): >>44513999 #
2. ToucanLoucan ◴[] No.44513999[source]
I guess what I struggle with is seeing Musk taking that kind of top-down strategic view of things? Which that could entirely be a me problem. I think there's an inherent bias in the way a lot of people think where they assign these Machiavellian motives especially to the super-privileged and those in positions of power, the 5D chess type shit, and I tend to bias in the other direction where... a lot of times these guys are just fucking losers and they don't think terribly dissimilarly from your weird uncle who doesn't come to the reuinions anymore.

Ultimately though, this is a bit of a weird aside to go on I fully admit. The "solutions" so to speak for people like this are basically the same whether they are dark-room schemers or dickheads with far too much money and not nearly enough accountability.

replies(1): >>44514795 #
3. JohnBooty ◴[] No.44514795[source]
Yeah, I don't think it was 5D chess at all.

I think he saw a good (to him) opportunity to steer public discourse by tossing a big stack of cash at probably the most influential social media network in terms of mindshare, to push whatever ideas were careening through his mind at any given point.

He may not have even been sober, much less playing 5D chess.