People interpret things differently. It's better to err on the kinder side of language and minimize the possibility that someone will interpret your attempt to communicate efficiently as simple crass disregard for the lives affected by the significant decision announced.

I think Dorsey's email is pretty crap-free. I think to the extent that he employs long forms or euphemisms, it's intentionally intended to communicate compassion.

Management is hard, because people are going to read any interpretation that they want into your actions, and there's almost always the potential of reading in a negative interpretation. You truly can't please everyone. All you can do is try to do the best, most reasonable thing, and keep as many people on your side as possible while doing it. There's probably a lot more people that would see "we're cutting" as crass than there are people that see "we're reorganizing" as patronizing.

I agree it's corporate speak (to a degree; there are certainly worse examples). But the claim in this thread is that he didn't put the decision first. He at least did that.

I think it may be fair to expect that when a representative of a large corporation disclaims anything, that corporation is somehow engaging in the behavior that it is disclaiming.

There would be no reason to make disclaimers otherwise.

It's a form of the, "I'm not a racist, but...", style of argument.

No, giving people a free pass ("may be fair") to lie is not acceptable, even if lying is expected and commonplace. It's still dishonesty and is supremely unprofessional.

We can still recognize it as being dishonest and unprofessional. One must meet the criteria of being dishonest and unprofessional before we can label it as such.

The fairness is in the labeling (we do not want to unfairly label those who were not actually dishonest or unprofessional; sometimes mistakes do occur), not in the response to the behavior.