←back to thread

Linda Yaccarino is leaving X

(www.nytimes.com)
543 points donohoe | 1 comments | 09 Jul 25 14:52 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source
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 #
mcphage ◴[09 Jul 25 15:33 UTC] No.44511345[source]▶
(1) She had no power

(2) If she did have power, nothing good happened during her tenure, so what would she even be thanked for?

replies(1): >>44511732 #
sorcerer-mar ◴[09 Jul 25 16:07 UTC] No.44511732[source]▶
I'm not suggesting she should be thanked. I'm suggesting that the failures listed are hard to ascribe to her ineptitude.
replies(1): >>44511866 #
anonymars ◴[09 Jul 25 16:20 UTC] No.44511866[source]▶
Right but the point was:

> *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.

What was there to thank her for?

replies(1): >>44512433 #
sorcerer-mar ◴[09 Jul 25 17:05 UTC] No.44512433[source]▶
Nothing! That's why I didn't comment on that. I commented on "remarkably inept."
replies(1): >>44513485 #
1. anonymars ◴[09 Jul 25 18:43 UTC] No.44513485[source]▶
Gotcha. I guess another episode of "both participants think the other is crazy"

My read wasn't that the "inept" was specifically her, but rather the leadership of the company at the time in general (for which, regardless, she is being thanked on Twitter). In other words, either

(1) she was a figurehead that didn't do anything and thanking her is stupid

(2) she wasn't a figurehead and actually was in charge, in which case thanking her is still stupid because such leadership was inept (suing their advertisers, etc.)