←back to thread

539 points donohoe | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
woah ◴[] No.44512516[source]
It's conspiratorial thinking to assume that everything that happens in the world is perfectly executed by omniscient villains with 20/20 hindsight. Maybe a formerly-brilliant but drug-addled rich guy just bought a social media platform with bad fundamentals at the height of its valuation and then mismanaged it while flailing around with other ventures and political adventures. Occam's razor.
replies(4): >>44512676 #>>44512734 #>>44513893 #>>44515102 #
schmidtleonard ◴[] No.44512734[source]
You are missing the forest for one very odd tree. Yes, the tree is wacky, but

* Every private media company has beneficial owners * Those beneficial owners are rich * Rich people who own things for a living have incentives opposed to those of most people, who work for a living

These are not conspiracies, they are just basic facts of capitalism.

replies(1): >>44512932 #
psunavy03 ◴[] No.44512932[source]
Better to put "facts" in quotation marks considering that is clearly a statement of opinion, and a fairly caricatured one at that.
replies(2): >>44513909 #>>44516140 #
1. quantified ◴[] No.44513909[source]
I haven't downvoted you, I am curious. Why do you disagree? In what relevant ways are their interests aligned?