zlacker

> 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_+(OP)
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.