[wpietri]

When you say "never a hint of arrogance" you mean aside from him deciding to run a public company/major social media platform in his spare time? That it'd be fine to give something with 300 million users a half-hearted effort?

Unfortunately my Twitter NDA prevents me from giving details. But happily, I didn't sign the non-disparagement clause, so I don't think I can get in trouble for saying that I am very happy I no longer work at Twitter, and that I'd definitely not return while he was CEO.

I will grant, though, that he's excellent at performing reasonableness. He is particularly good at the humble apology for whatever Twitter's latest failure is, as well as the promise to do better next time. I could even believe he means it. In the moment, anyhow.

[nexuist]

> That it'd be fine to give something with 300 million users a half-hearted effort?

Is Twitter not free? What does Jack owe anyone? He didn't force you to sign up for anything. He didn't force you to work for him either. I am sympathetic if you were somehow swindled through the hiring process as too many people are, but otherwise, it seems more arrogant to demand that this one man spend his time however you see fit vs. doing whatever he wants. Clearly the way he spends his time is working for him or else he wouldn't be in his position.

[wpietri]

Of course it's working for him. That he values that over the impact on others is a sign of arrogance.

Nobody's demanding that he spend his time in a particular way. He is welcome to head off for a year-long silent meditation in Burma for all I care. But plenty of people are saying that Twitter deserves a CEO who's focused on the job. Twitter, as a key social-media platform and a network-effects business, is not something where people can choose among a variety of approximately equivalent providers. He's half-assing it, and the world deserves better.