I’ll grant that Twitter might have a moderation bottleneck. Is brute force hiring the only solution?
The management style of other Musk run companies hints that there are better ways to run companies than the Twitter legacy management style.** Musk has already stated that there were more managers at Twitter than productive workers. To renovate you first get rid of the deadwood before adding fresh lumber. You first scrape off the old paint before adding new coats.
Maybe the ‘problem’ is one of view.
The Captain
** Tesla is already making more money than Toyota with just 1/8th the number of cars sold and it’s no idle comparison considering that Toyota is rated the worldwide leading car company.
Maybe not, but I never fired a talk show host without knowing what I was going to replace the show with. It’s clear Musk does not have this answer ready to go; I doubt if he has one at all given his frequent “total freedom!” remarks.
And he knows this how? Because of his studied analysis of the business? The fact that not a single Twitter employee was involved in his “war council” before he fired half the company? That there was not one to say “Uh, have you thought about the consent decree? The hate? The spam?”
His other companies were not ongoing concerns as he made his various “adjustments”. Twitter is alive 24/7. That might require a different playbook, but Musk has been lauded so long as genius boy that he no longer listens - to anyone, apparently.
Maybe that’s the reason you are not running several billion dollar companies. BTW, I have fired employees without knowing what I was going to replace them with. BTW2, I have fired bosses without knowing what I was going to replace them with. BTW3, I have fired contractors, suppliers, and even girl friends without knowing what I was going to replace them with.
And he knows this how?
You are going to have to ask him that.
His other companies were not ongoing concerns as he made his various “adjustments”.
America suffers from “Instant Gratification Syndrome” [IGS]. I’m more than happy to give Elon time to fix the mess he bought. He knew what he was getting into and Elon is willing to put his money where his mouth is. I don’t see critics doing that.
Um, no, that’s not how a breakup fee works. You can only invoke a breakup fee if an outside force causes the breakup, like a regulatory impasse, or a material defect arises later which was purposefully hidden. A breakup fee isn’t an “I changed my mind” fee; Musk would have been in breach of contract; that’s entirely and substantially different.
Yes, it’s different on an auto assembly line or a rocket ship company, where you can just bring things to a halt for a bit. Twitter is an every second, ongoing media source, and that’s what makes it unlike anything he has done before.
If you fire Dan Rather 10 seconds before airtime, you better have a substitute in mind, and preferably prepped for the show. If you fire half the news department in the middle of the program, you are any idiot.
Yes, it’s different on an auto assembly line or a rocket ship company, where you can just bring things to a halt for a bit. Twitter is an every second, ongoing media source, and that’s what makes it unlike anything he has done before.
I would agree if this were a common occurrence but Musk buying Twitter is a phase change happening. The idea is to give Twitter a 180 degree turn from <redacted> to <redacted> (I don’t want my post to suffer the fate of community <redacted>. The only other choice would have been to shut down Twitter while it is being fixed.
And Musk, I dare say in this case, is an idiot.
I’m glad you are able to express yourself without reservation, something not allowed on old Twitter.
Musk made his first fortune in Paypal. Isn’t that an “every second, ongoing” business?
Are there any overlaps between managing a business like Paypal and Twitter?
Yes it is, but there’s about 9 quarts of Musk myth in there. Here’s what happened:
Musk and others started a site called X.com. At around the same time Peter Thiel and others started something called Confinity, which was remarkably the same. The two were merged, and Musk was made CEO. He was fired 6 months later for, among other things, going behind the Boards’ back and making erratic decisions. Nevertheless, as Steve likes to say, in Shiny land he was showered with stock to get out, and Confinity morphed two years later into PayPal, run by Thiel. Musk had almost nothing to do with it, except for getting rich.
Musk wants a segment of the audience on Twitter who deal in the Crypto world. He may see the rest of Twit as disposable. If you look at Twit’s profits he is right.
Musk’s probable Waterloo is buying and selling. He is great if all he does is hold equity and build. But if he has to buy in he is terrible. Meaning he bought BTC a while back closer to highs. He sold his holdings closer to the lows. He has bought Twitter at a larger premium.
If we look at the premium he paid for his audience segment he was foolish.
BTW2, I have fired bosses without knowing what I was going to replace them with. 
BTW3, I have fired contractors, suppliers, and even girl friends without knowing what I was going to replace them with. 
