[miroljub]

Twitter is not badly managed. It managed to grow to the point of being indispensable, and drama is just one of the reasons why it keeps being popular.

[digging]

Twitter is badly managed by almost any metric - are you referring to its management pre-acquisition?

[miroljub]

Both. I can't imagine a company being so successful and so influential being badly run.

Of course, if someone uses a moral, ethics, or personal political and societal view to judge if a company is well run, then I agree it may appear to many people that Twitter is badly run. But if we take a company valuation and consider the time it took it to achieve it, it's certainly one of the best run companies.

[digging]

> I can't imagine a company being so successful and so influential being badly run.

I'd argue this is a failure of imagination more than an endorsement of Twitter. Twitter has inertia - it's going to keep going until it literally can't, and that doesn't mean it's been run well.

It's been chaotic there since acquisition, with major policies being changed on a whim and then retracted and whole functions of the company disappearing entirely or almost entirely. Major news outlets are dropping their twitter presence, and stocks have dropped - if you define that as "good" management, what would bad management even look like?

[rsynnott]

I mean, even before acquisition it’d be hard to credibly claim it was well-run. In comparison to now, sure, but that’s the lowest of bars.

[dopamean]

idk losing 59% of ad revenue feels a bit mismanaged.