| Those layoffs do get attention, but I think Twitter’s gets more because: a) Twitter was acquired only a few days before the layoffs b) the previous CEO indicated no intention of laying off staff c) the large percentage of the work force laid off (~50%?) d) the new owner who ordered the layoffs is the richest person alive (at least in terms of publicly known wealth) e) the layoffs were foretold in a novel way (via Tweet), prior to the acquisition f) political tension underlying the layoffs, with some blaming Twitter’s moderation policies on the company’s employees, and some seeing the layoffs as a pivot point in Twitter’s cultural identity rather than the typical motivation for a layoff which is a financial decision So it does feel different to me. Similarly, the reaction to the layoffs seems different with many here on HN and elsewhere making various comments about the employees, their ideological bent, their work ethic, etc. Whereas in other layoffs it seems like more focus in put on the management decisions or macro economic factors that put the company in a position where layoffs were necessary, and the employees are viewed more as getting caught up in the mix. |