zlacker

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+(OP)
> 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.

>>hyperp+(OP)
> not a complete dumpster fire.

I never liked Twitter, don't have accounts, etc. To me this "dumpster fire" talk sounds like just sour grapes.

>>hyperp+(OP)
> This is a perfect example of how "shareholder value" is a thought-terminating cliche.

I think "shareholder value" is just a distraction and a rationalization.

The driving force is the MBA-ization of management and people looking to juice short-term profitability so that they can cash out or get large bonuses and then job hop away.

>>Terr_+g2
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.

>>lamont+k4
Do you think old Twitter didn’t have MBAs?

>>B1FF_P+w2
It’s well documented that advertisers have been fleeing Twitter because they see the new management as bad for them. While Twitter has engineering and reliability problems, the loss of advertising revenue is the life or death challenge for the company.

I’m pretty ambivalent about advertising, but it was the only reasonable way for Twitter to make money, so I would not have bought Twitter and then chased away all the advertisers.

>>hyperp+v8
I'm not talking about only Twitter at this point