zlacker

>>ZacnyL+(OP)
Speaking from very painful, personal experience, few things are more agitating than being forced to execute on something you fully know is a horrible idea, especially when you tried and failed to communicate this fact to the individual pushing you to go against your best judgement.

Even more so when that person later loudly proclaims that they never made such a request, even when provided with written proof.

I can of course not say whether the people currently working at Twitter did warn that the recent measures could have such major side effects, but I would not be surprised in the slightest, considering their leadership's mode of operation.

Even as someone who very much detests what Twitter has become over the last few months and in fact did not like Twitter before the acquisition, partly due to short format making nuance impossible, but mostly for the effect Tweets easy embeddability had on reporting (3 Tweets from random people should not serve as the main basis for an article in my opinion), I must say, I feel very sorry for the people forced to work at that company under that management.

>>Topfi+Ew
Well "forced to execute" is somewhat subjective. If you are convinced leadership is doing the "wrong thing," then best to either leave or accept that you're just collecting your paycheck.

In the case of Twitter, the new owner has thoroughly broken the advertising business and is trying to aggressively pursue a new version of the data business Twitter once had-- E.g. Google's Caffeine, which Twitter also eventually lost https://searchengineland.com/google-search-algorithm-change-... ... The statements about "too many scrapers" are almost certainly as illegitimate as the previous pre-acquisition statements about "too many bots."

The nature of business is that there's no judiciary or referee... the purpose of a business is to make money. Tech businesses just happen to hire lots of academically-oriented engineers who developed their skills in a different environment. It's possible to build a culture of "fairness" in a business, but at the end of the day even Google dropped "don't be evil."

>>choppa+4C
I don't understand why anyone, at any job that is not C-level, has an attitude of anything other than collecting your paycheck. I care about my professional reputation and my career, but I don't care at all about the well-being of the company that has hired me to perform some task. I will advise to the best of my ability, but if they blow themselves up, why should I lose any sleep? That's their problem, not mine.

Detaching myself emotionally from my employer was one of the best things I've ever done for my mental health. When I was young I got upset when "the company" made bad decisions. Now I feel no negative emotion about it, sometimes I laugh at them.

>>Consul+uj1
This is healthy but some of us find themselves in a position where caring about the company has tangential benefits like bonuses, stock options, que promotions and other objectives with a well defined incentive for you to personally care about it.

>>epups+mS1
In my experience the difference between the average bonus you get by plodding along and the amazing bonus is either your boss likes you on a personal level or you killed yourself to get it. I have never seen a case where the $ difference between the average bonus and amazing bonus is worth the metaphorical "killing yourself" to earn it.

My recommendation is to recognize the stock options, bonuses, etc. as the emotional manipulations they are. Either perform the tasks or don't, but try to avoid getting emotionally bogged down in it. Instead, lift your head up and look around at the broader economy and make your decision based on that. Most of the time the fastest path to a promotion, higher income, etc. is to leave.

The better place to seek emotional fulfillment and validation is at home with your family.