zlacker

>>ZacnyL+(OP)
I think we're about at the point where the people who predicted chaos at twitter after Elon basically fired most of the experienced engineers have been proven correct. The duct tape is all coming apart at the seams now.

It isn't quite as decisive as a submarine imploding, and ceasing to exist, but it has turned into a brightly burning tirefire.

>>lamont+yx
25 years of products being honed for shareholder value, instead of customer or user value. We may be at peak consumer tolerance for anti-pattern, in-app purchase, subscription-model, ad-packed, data-siphoning, dopamine driven, gated experiences.

>>bravoe+Kz
This is a perfect example of how "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche.

Twitter was previously a public company, which was beholden to shareholders, and aimed to try and increase its stock price (as far as "shareholder value" actually means anything, this is basically it). I wouldn't praise previous management (the company wasn't profitable), but they were not a complete dumpster fire.

Then Twitter was bought out, and taken private, removing the obligation to "shareholder value." The ensuing dumpster fire is one that will be marveled at for years.

I'm not saying public corporations are better than private, or that "shareholder value" is a good slogan. I'm just saying that your comment is every bit as irrelevant as the porn spam that's clogging Twitter these days. (Thanks for fixing the spam problem, y'all!).

>>hyperp+4D
> Then Twitter was bought out, and taken private, removing the obligation to "shareholder value."

Does it really though? Private shareholders are still shareholders. It replaces a diffuse duty to keep a bunch of public-shareholders happen with a possibly-more-direct "do what I say or be replaced tomorrow."

> "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche

I think when people use it dismissively, it's not really about shareholders per se, but about one that are focused on short-term growth at the expense of long-term growth or a sustainable business model.

>>Terr_+kF
If your point is that both old Twitter and new Twitter have people who have put money into it, and expect to not lose their money, you are correct.

I would still recommend not using the word “shareholder value” for the concept. It’s just…having a business that you don’t want to lose money? Some people do dislike the concept of business, but I don’t think they should talk about “shareholder value”, they should just attack capitalism.

In any case, it’s still irrelevant to a discussion of Twitter. The old management was also expected to turn a profit, but somehow avoided Elon’s string of silly ideas.