'Twitter’s priorities are no longer even remotely aligned with my own.'
Since when were they? The mistake was perhaps to ever think that they were. It was twitters 'priority to sell themselves to Musk, hence why they took him to court to ensure he bought them.
This is a somewhat crazy, knee-jerk reaction to some news headlines, the author has no idea of what is really happening, i'm not saying that i do, but for example the post says that 'the entire accessibility team' has been laid off then points to a tweet about someone saying there team had been laid off, firstly there is no indication that this is the 'entire accessibility team', just that the team this person was head off, secondly, the author has no idea about twitters accessibility plans in the future, for example, accessibility could have been given an even higher priority and given to a more competent team. Now i know this is likely not the case, but the real thing, is basically we don't know.
To make a knee-jerk reaction to a bunch of assumptions is crazy.
I've been using Twitter for 16 years. I've known many people who work or have worked for the company - heck, they tried to hire me when the company was less than 20 people.
I have a friend who worked ON that accessibility team who I have known since university.
Honestly there was no way to get good PR out of this. Musk is disliked by those who form "public opinion" and he's been threatening to make their home (twitter) no longer their home (by making it no longer reflect progressive values).
There is no universe where Musk takes over twitter and gets good PR.
Getting good PR and having disastrous PR are not the only two possible outcomes. This could have been managed far better. But Musk is impulsive and there are PR consequences to being impulsive.
You could also consider that Musk rushed into buying Twitter with a poorly written contract and he was legally forced to buy the company. He didn't end up there due to a well managed plan. He's there thanks to his impulsive and childish nature.
This is weird position to contrast with the widespread fawning coverage Musk received until the last few years ago, not to mention the claim that public opinion is set by progressives which ignores both the massive conservative media ecosystem and the generally centrist leanings of most other outlets. Conservatives like to dismiss the NYT, WaPo, NPR, etc. as progressive but that’s a ploy to avoid engaging with stories which make them uncomfortable and shouldn’t be confused with sober analysis.
The reason Musk has PR problems is simple: he creates them. No other CEO at his level has such an unfiltered stream of consciousness going public without a filter, and few have his taste for pointless stunts. The stuff which hurt his reputation wasn’t things like dating rock stars or having children with women other than his wife (this is largely priced in to the reputation of very rich men) but stuff like very publicly calling someone a pedophile out of pique from being outdone. He could stop that at any time and pretty much every employee and shareholder of his companies would be grateful.
But why are people so obsessed with PR in the first place? Who cares? People are obsessed with drama. My view is there is too much of that, cut that crap out, it's irrelevant to your life.
Either Twitter as a product, is useful to you, or it's not, so either use it or don't. Twitter as a product did not change in the past week, if you never read any news headlines, you would be completely none the wiser and still happily using it if you were using it before.
There is too much real stuff to worry about to get caught up in the drama of this.
>> particularly struck me was that he laid off the entire accessibility team. For me this feels like a microcosm of the whole situation. Twitter’s priorities are no longer even remotely aligned with my own.
Since you have ignored those sentences - you had to make "crazy" assumptions.
This has been my perspective. I’m a neutral observer in regards to Musk the person. Obviously some folks have a pretty strong feelings towards him for a lot of reasons, but watching the knee-jerk reactions to every rumor and all the assumption analysis that follows on HN is entertaining.
I am not neutral on Twitter though, I think it’s a bloody cancer. If it implodes or improves under Musk. I am good either way. I can’t see it getting any worse.
The act or practice of conspicuously displaying one's awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action. [1]
And from the person who coined the term:
British journalist James Bartholomew claims to have originated the modern usage of the term "virtue signalling," in a 2015 Spectator article. His 2015 formulation described virtue signalling as empty boasting.
"No one actually has to do anything. Virtue comes from mere words or even from silently held beliefs. There was a time in the distant past when people thought you could only be virtuous by doing things...[that] involve effort and self-sacrifice." [2]
Fair criticism if you ignore the coiner of the term and focus only on the first definition I supplied.
I thought it was obvious that talking about moving to a platform is very different from actually making the move. The author has presumably moved, which is taking effective action and can be contrasted with people who are saying they are going to move but haven't done anything about it.
You should also note that the coiner of the term disagrees with you:
No one actually has to do anything. Virtue comes from mere words
I don't think it's fair to call it virtue signaling when someone took effective action. Does that clarify enough?
Since when were they? The mistake was perhaps to ever think that they were. It was twitters 'priority to sell themselves to Musk, hence why they took him to court to ensure he bought them.
This is a somewhat crazy, knee-jerk reaction to some news headlines, the author has no idea of what is really happening, i'm not saying that i do, but for example the post says that 'the entire accessibility team' has been laid off then points to a tweet about someone saying there team had been laid off, firstly there is no indication that this is the 'entire accessibility team', just that the team this person was head off, secondly, the author has no idea about twitters accessibility plans in the future, for example, accessibility could have been given an even higher priority and given to a more competent team. Now i know this is likely not the case, but the real thing, is basically we don't know.
To make a knee-jerk reaction to a bunch of assumptions is crazy.