←back to thread

543 points donohoe | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.072s | source | bottom
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 #
mandmandam ◴[] No.44512557[source]
> He's an overgrown man-child.

Damn near every mega-billionaire is, almost by definition. If the best thing you can come up with to do with money is make more of it at other people's expense, then you're not even close to what I'd call mentally mature.

That doesn't stop many oligarchs from making cunning plans with layers and layers of depth, or being excellent at misdirection and media manipulation - both of which Musk also has a long and well documented history of showing. It also doesn't stop them from hiring people to make and/or refine those plans. Shit, there's probably cunning bootlickers out there, like Yarvin, just pitching this shit to them all the time.

> I just struggle with giving him as much credit as your theory does in terms of long term planning

As far as plans go, "buy Twitter and destroy it because it threatens our class interests - but pretend you're doing it for free speech or whatever" isn't especially complicated. Just piss off advertisers, users, and your staff, in plausibly deniable ways. It's not like corporate media are going to call you on it.

replies(2): >>44513635 #>>44515095 #
1. mandmandam ◴[] No.44513879[source]
Cannabis with high CBD and minimal THC isn't a psychedelic, fyi.

Amazing you didn't get that point even after it was made explicitly clear three times, but you still remember my username 10 days later.

Also, asserting that someone who expresses class awareness and media literacy is dabbling in "alternative facts" and must be on some kind of psychedelic drugs is wildly uncalled for. This is the second time you've cast such aspersions on me for some reason - stop.

2. greedo ◴[] No.44514039[source]
If you don't believe that what we accepts as facts are politically influenced, I have a bridge to sell you...
replies(1): >>44514254 #
3. talentedcoin ◴[] No.44514254[source]
What I don’t believe is that somebody bought Twitter only, or even primarily, to further their “class interests”. The whole framing here is bent.
replies(2): >>44514281 #>>44515386 #
4. mandmandam ◴[] No.44514281{3}[source]
> somebody

That he's the wealthiest known man in the world seems like relevant context here.

replies(1): >>44514689 #
5. mensetmanusman ◴[] No.44514689{4}[source]
Also that he tried to back out and a judge forced him to buy it.
6. dzhiurgis ◴[] No.44515114[source]
It's pretty depressing such derangement infiltrated HN. Psychedelics are really a fine line. Looking at SF as an outsider - it either mints billionaires or completely destroys people.
7. greedo ◴[] No.44515386{3}[source]
No one, not even the cringiest, wanna-be edge lord from 4chan spends $44B to buy Twitter unless they think there's value there. Even paying a big premium for Twitter. So what value does Musk see in Twitter? He's not going to make money off it. He bought a huge megaphone to push his social/class interests.
replies(1): >>44515930 #
8. evan_ ◴[] No.44515930{4}[source]
He sued to try to get out of buying it!