| It is literally the job of the head of legal to act, often without knowledge of the CEO (especially on time sensitive matters). The CEO is usually informed at some point, of course.
But this is why they are the head of legal. It's often actually written into their policies. There are certainly corporations that say the opposite, or require the board to be notified, or whatever, but it would not be that uncommon for the head of legal to respond to something and then inform the CEO after doing it. As for suppressing stories - it seems they suppressed stories from pretty much anyone who asked - Matt says explicitly they did it for "both sides". That does not seem like an abuse of power. It may be a crappy policy, but despite all the hand-wringing, Twitter is just a platform, not anything special. So maybe it's a platform with a crappy policy. Believing that 7.8 billion people talking at each other directly (where if 99% of people agree, you are still arguing with 78 million people) is somehow advancing anything useful is, honestly, crazy or highly ignorant of why we moved towards representative systems of (government, et al) in the first place. It wasn't because we couldn't get all the people in the room. Seeing it as a place to shoot the shit, awesome. Seeing it as a foundational block of democracy - uh, no. Or at least, if it ever became that, democracy is doomed. Thankfully, it isn't, really. |
So then the problems were even worse than people thought!
You have just described how the issue of story suppression is an even bigger problem!