Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Linda Yaccarino is leaving X

    (www.nytimes.com)
    537 points donohoe | 13 comments | 09 Jul 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 1.076s | source | bottom
    Show context
    CyberMacGyver ◴[09 Jul 25 14:57 UTC] 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 ◴[09 Jul 25 15:10 UTC] 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 ◴[09 Jul 25 15:17 UTC] 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 #
    1. thayne ◴[09 Jul 25 18:04 UTC] No.44513089[source]▶
    I don't think she is entirely to blame, but I think there is some blame for not standing up to Musk and leading better.
    replies(1): >>44513141 #
    2. dctoedt ◴[09 Jul 25 18:09 UTC] No.44513141[source]▶
    > I think there is some blame for not standing up to Musk and leading better.

    That seems in the same category as saying there's some blame on her for not working harder on basketball in her youth and so never becoming a WNBA Finals MVP. (Narrator: Um, no, she's not nearly tall enough ....)

    replies(3): >>44513658 #>>44515439 #>>44516570 #
    3. SpicyLemonZest ◴[09 Jul 25 19:02 UTC] No.44513658[source]▶
    I'm just not sure her complete lack of power to stand up to Musk is a defense. If a controversial rich guy offers you a CEO job that consists entirely of laundering his reputation by pretending his decisions are your own, you have a social responsibility not to take it. I'd be more sympathetic if she were some random person who couldn't otherwise dream of an executive level pay package, but she was the head of ads at NBC.
    replies(4): >>44514005 #>>44514944 #>>44515716 #>>44516324 #
    4. greedo ◴[09 Jul 25 19:40 UTC] No.44514005{3}[source]▶
    “We have established what you are, madam. We are now merely haggling over the price.”
    5. michaelt ◴[09 Jul 25 21:34 UTC] No.44514944{3}[source]▶
    > If a controversial rich guy offers you a CEO job that consists entirely of laundering his reputation by pretending his decisions are your own, you have a social responsibility not to take it.

    I don't think you become the CEO of any major company by believing that "social responsibility" exists. Doesn't the job pretty much select for the type of person who thinks the world owes them $20+ million a year?

    With that said - it's dumb to blame the puppet for the acts of the ventriloquist.

    replies(1): >>44515518 #
    6. Aeolun ◴[09 Jul 25 22:41 UTC] No.44515439[source]▶
    I mean, you are hired as a CEO by Elon Musk, there must be some certain expectations on the capabilities of a CEO, and I think one of the first one is being able to stand up for yourself, if nothing else.
    7. XorNot ◴[09 Jul 25 22:51 UTC] No.44515518{4}[source]▶
    "just following orders" has been well established as no defense, and is more relevant than usual.
    replies(1): >>44515656 #
    8. BurningFrog ◴[09 Jul 25 23:12 UTC] No.44515656{5}[source]▶
    In a genocide context, sure. I don't think that applies here.
    replies(2): >>44516932 #>>44517949 #
    9. ◴[09 Jul 25 23:22 UTC] No.44515716{3}[source]▶
    10. Lu2025 ◴[10 Jul 25 01:18 UTC] No.44516324{3}[source]▶
    > a social responsibility not to take it

    She was paid $6M a year + undisclosed stock package. A lot of people will set aside their morals for this amount of money.

    11. squeaky-clean ◴[10 Jul 25 02:15 UTC] No.44516570[source]▶
    This analogy would work if she actually was the WNBA Finals MVP but didn't score a single point.
    12. sorokod ◴[10 Jul 25 03:35 UTC] No.44516932{6}[source]▶
    In general "just following orders" implies being morally bankrupt.
    13. chgs ◴[10 Jul 25 06:31 UTC] No.44517949{6}[source]▶
    It’s Facebook that causes genocide, not Twitter. Funny how the left gives sick a far easier pass.