[addajones]

Why does it matter how much he’s worth? Never understood why people are so concerned about him cutting jobs? He bought the company and took it private. It’s his right to restructure it and try to make it generate profit as he’d wish. The board of directors of public Twitter approved of this. What do people think, the USA is FOSS?

[krisoft]

> Never understood why people are so concerned about him cutting jobs?

There can be many different perspectives on it.

A possible perspective is someone who uses twitter. If Elon cut jobs too hastily that might risk the stability, safety, or moderation of the platform. That is a valid concern for users.

If you are an advertiser for a big brand you are concerned about what content your advertisement appears next to. Brands don’t want to see their names plastered next to things which are too controversial, or frowned uppon. This is called “brand safety”. They might worry that a deep cut in twitter’s headcount will mean that twitter can’t quarantee that they can maintain the required level of moderation for this.

There is then the perspective of a regular everyday person who is not a twitter user in any way. They are interested in a safe society. If the changes at twitter lead to an under moderated free-for-all that can give power to all kind of dangerous individuals. Radicalisation is a real thing. Free rethoric against groups of people can lead to more radical rethoric. And more radical speech can lead to violence.

> It’s his right to restructure it and try to make it generate profit as he’d wish.

Of course! That is without dispute. One can be concerned about how something is managed even if the owners of said something has every right to manage the think the way they want it.

[notimetorelax]

I recently started reading history and it speaks a lot about land ownership and how peasants would get indebted to barons for working on it. On the surface that made a lot of sense, and yet this was not the type of society we wanted.

Nowadays billionaires remind me of those barons, some even buy out land (see Bill Gates and his buying spree [1]). So people mentioning someone’s net worth states their class and this is important for the context. As for Musk being entitled to fire anyone, sure he can do that, although some of it may not be legal, plus we as society may decide that this is not the norm we want to accept. Same as the peasants didn’t earlier.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/05/bill-g...

[parineum]

> Nowadays billionaires remind me of those barons, some even buy out land

I'm pretty sure you missed the important point of that history you've been reading. The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership.

> On the surface that made a lot of sense

To whom?

> So people mentioning someone’s net worth states their class and this is important for the context. As for Musk being entitled to fire anyone, sure he can do that, although some of it may not be legal, plus we as society may decide that this is not the norm we want to accept. Same as the peasants didn’t earlier.

There are a plethora of companies that behave in this exact way that millions of people continue to patronize in a much more substantial manner than they do Twitter (Food, vehicles, electronics, etc.).

Musk's behavior is not new, unique or shocking. These people are overplaying their outrage over his behavior because they don't like the man and Twitter is their safe space. It has absolutely nothing to do with his actual business practices.

[__alexs]

> The bad part is the indentured servitude, not the land ownership.

I guess you're not familiar with the Inclosure Acts? (To name but one of the grossly amoral uses of land ownership in the past few centuries.)

[parineum]

Using land amorally isn't the same thing as owning land unless you think land ownership is amoral.

[__alexs]

I'll take that as a yes then.

OP was not claiming all land ownership was bad. Just that rich people have commonly used land ownership to harm others. There is a long and rich history of this.

[parineum]

> creating legal property rights to land previously held in common.

That's not a use of land ownership, that's an amoral redistribution (theft) of land.

They took ownership from one party to another. The amorality was the transfer, not the ownership. Unless you think both parties are equally amoral for owning the land in the beginning and the end of the process.

The argument you're making would be like saying it was amoral for plantation owners to own the land they held because they had slaves. The problem is the slaves (and all the evils that came with it), not the plantation.

[PM_me_your_math]

Poor people have harmed people too.

[kemayo]

> Never understood why people are so concerned about him cutting jobs? He bought the company and took it private. It’s his right to restructure it and try to make it generate profit as he’d wish.

Absent a few questions about whether the layoffs have been done in a way that violates employment laws (which I've seen enough debate about that I imagine we'll have to see how lawsuits turn out), I don't think anyone is saying he doesn't have the right to do this. Rather, criticism focuses on whether it was (a) a good idea, and (b) well-executed.

There's a few major strands of criticism of the layoffs that appeal to me:

1. It was less than a week. You can't possibly have reviewed who you were firing well enough to be confident that you were firing the right people.

2. The departments that were laid off are concerning. Apparently the trust and safety teams were hardest hit, and making the already-bad moderation worse on Twitter doesn't sound great.

[tayo42]

To add to that first point there's rumors they're asking people to come back. Maybe confirmed by now?

[forgotusername6]

Because there is something distasteful about a man that rich firing loads of people. There is something almost medieval about it. He's basically a modern day king. I've never understood the complete lack of empathy displayed by so many people on HN. It's worse than Reddit.

"He bought the man, it is his property now. He can do with him as he wishes" - legal ownership can still be wrong.

[fsdjkflsjfsoij]

> I've never understood the complete lack of empathy

A lot of Twitter employees have spent years being about as obnoxious as they possibly can be to anyone with even slightly different views. I've seen a Twitter employee practically in tears calling someone a fascist because they insisted on putting semi-colons after statements in JavaScript.

> Because there is something distasteful about a man that rich firing loads of people.

I don't think it's distasteful at all. Twitter isn't a charity and it needs to fix its finances. Even the previous CEOs recognized that there's a ton of Twitter employees that do basically no relevant work.

[joshmanders]

> "He bought the man, it is his property now. He can do with him as he wishes" - legal ownership can still be wrong.

Jesus do you even read the words you just typed? Someone bought a company that was hemorrhaging money, he let go of the fluff and you're equating it to slave ownership?!

[Karunamon]

It is somewhat telling that those who used to dismiss all complaints about Twitter's moderation practices with a variation of the "private companies can do whatever they want" canard, are not really repeating that one anymore, or worse, seem to have abandoned that principle outright and are now complaining that the owner is, indeed, doing whatever he wants.

Twitter was a $4 million a day money pit at the time of its acquisition. It has had 2 profitable years in its entire life. Corporations are not charities and it absolutely beggars belief that people seem to think radical changes were not both necessary and inevitable.

[zimpenfish]

> Twitter was a $4 million a day money pit at the time of its acquisition.

Do you have a source for that? They lost $221M in 2021[1] which is ~$600k/day (and that was after a $800M lawsuit settlement which would have put them at ~$580M profit for 2021.)

[1] https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-posts-loss-2021-stock-1301280...

[Karunamon]

Twitter hasn't even been acquired for a month yet, how are numbers from nearly 2 years ago even relevant?

Straight from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1588671155766194176

[zimpenfish]

Ok, do you have a source that isn't someone known for playing fast and loose with facts, especially financial ones? Anything pre-takeover that suggests they were losing $4M a day? Because it is almost certain that the $4M a day he quotes is likely only due to the $1B a year debt interest Musk himself saddled the company with.

Or do you think it is even slightly plausible for a company to go from a profit of ~$570M to a loss of ~$1.4B in under a year?

[kemayo]

Is this the moment to snarkily bring up "corporations are people, my friend"? :D

[parineum]

"Corporations are people" is the plural of "a corporation is people". It has nothing to do with assigning person hood to a corporate entity. "Corporations are people" is in reference to the 1st amendment free speech rights that the _people_ who make up a corporation still maintain when they are acting as a group.

Consider not eating up the soundbites of politicians without understanding the context.

[expensive_news]

Twitter has lost money nearly every year since it’s been public, and was losing $4 million a day when Elon took over. If jobs don’t generate money they can’t exist in the free market, and the real shock is that the previous board of directors didn’t initiate layoffs sooner.

[kemayo]

I've seen it claimed that the $4M/day figure is mostly because of the debt servicing cost that Musk's acquisition added to the company's books.

The new debts apparently add over $1 billion / year in interest payments alone. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/03/technology/elon-musk-twit...

(Being able to do this as part of a buyout sounds ridiculous, I know. And yet.)

[CuriousCosmic]

From when twitter went public(2013), the deficit decreased every year and eventually the company ran a measurable profit in 2018 and 2019. It ran red in 2020 but since then has been making a profit most quarters. This seems to indicate that while they weren't running on great margins, they were above board even if just barely.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/299119/twitter-net-incom...

And the $4 million/day is from the debt incurred by Elon's purchase.

[_djo_]

Twitter's net loss in 2021 was $221 million, far from $4 million a day, and there's nothing to indicate that had changed before he bought it. The figure he quoted is made up predominantly of the $1 billion in annual interest payments Twitter now has thanks to Musk's leveraged buy out.

There was no imminent need for Twitter do anything. It still had a healthy enough cash pile and leeway and time to layoff 10% of the workforce or so to return to pre-COVID staffing levels.

[jurassic]

Exactly. He's running it into the ground financially by saddling a low margin business with high-interest debt and also tanking revenue by spooking advertisers. 5D chess.

[bluesign]

> I've never understood the complete lack of empathy displayed by so many people on HN.

I don't think this is empathy related to be honest ( as your statement is "a man that rich firing loads of people." )

It is either wrong to fire those people, or not. If it is not wrong to fire those people, it shouldn't matter who did it.

[dislikedtom2]

System is broken and hating or getting rid of the winner does not help since there is a line of people ready to take his spot and that spot is only open for people who are not afraid of a fight. Don't hate the player, hate the game as they say.

[mmplxx]

> He's basically a modern day king

In what way? I mean, besides him being very powerful. Other than that, his behavior here seems perfectly capitalistic to me.

[matthewdgreen]

He has a right to buy the “public square” and do whatever he wants with it. The people who occupied that public square have the right to move to a different one. Isn’t that what TFA is all about? Obviously that’s inconvenient for a lot of people and probably disastrous for Musk and his investors but I guess we’ll see what happens.

[ploika]

It's not just about the USA. Twitter has to follow the law wherever it operates. The way the company went about announcing redundancies in the Dublin office could well fall foul of Irish employment law (IANAL etc), and people have legitimate cause for annoyance if Musk feels he's rich and powerful enough to get away with doing it anyway.

[TaylorAlexander]

People really like twitter. They’re concerned about the new guy coming in and making rash decisions with shaky justification. Millions of people have to deal with the implications of his decision. Just because it’s his legal right doesn’t mean people have to be happy about what he’s doing. And it’s yet another reminder that we’d rather be on platforms where users have some amount of power, but network effects and billions in investment favor platforms where that’s not the case.

[qzx_pierri]

> Why does it matter how much he’s worth?

Because some people think that wealth somehow equates to evil. It's a very juvenile way to think, and I suspect most people don't even know why they dislike Elon (or any other billionare - Elon is just an example). After people read so many sensationalized articles online, they adopt the author's sanctimonious opinions/views as their own.

It's shocking how people can hold so much contempt for a man they've never met. Even if Elon posts snarky shit online, who doesn't? If everyone's life was put under a microscope, they would likely be under the same media firestorm as Elon, or even worse.

EDIT: Instead of replying to me and engaging in discussion (maybe I could learn something), I get downvoted. Stay classy, HN.

[krisoft]

> Stay classy, HN.

I could ask the same about your comment please.

> Because some people think that wealth somehow equates to evil. It's a very juvenile way to think

You set up a strawman and knock it down. There are many legitimate reason why someone might object to Musk or his wealth. Thinking that “wealth somehow equates evil” is indeed juvenile, yet somehow you assume people hold that thought and work from that assumption.

> I suspect most people don't even know why they dislike Elon

Oh great. The sheepish masses. They don’t even have a coherent thought!

Except this is your fantasy again. There are many legitimate reasons to dislike him. Why don’t you ask people, instead of labeling them empty headed media-driven zombies? This is hardly a way to “engage in discussion”.

> It's shocking how people can hold so much contempt for a man they've never met.

He kinda put himself in front of others. That is his brand. It has benefits and drawbacks. I don’t know why you think one has to meet someone to judge their character. If he does contemptible things through online discussion why can’t someone hold him in contempt?

> If everyone's life was put under a microscope, they would likely be under the same media firestorm as Elon, or even worse.

I doubt it is truly everyone. Many many individuals live a public life without kicking of a firestorm with the same regularity he does.

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

Money equals power. One billionaire equals too much power in single set of hands. Some of us don't like power concentrated in too few hands. it is a simple argument.