Not to get too cynical, but... it shows loyalty. A CEO that presided over a security breach, kept it as quiet as possible, and only cost the company $35MM. Like it or not, his job is to protect the company, not the users.

Compared to, say, Zuckerberg or Equifax's public raking over the coals.

>A CEO that presided over a security breach, kept it as quiet as possible, and only cost the company $35MM. Like it or not, his job is to protect the company, not the users.

Sorry to be pedantic but it'd be 'her job', in this case - Marissa Mayer was CEO at the time.

I wasn't sure which to say. Marissa was CEO at the time of the breach, and Tim Armstrong is CEO now.

She testified and took a lot of the blame, whereas the fine happened under Tim Armstrong. I figured I'd go with the latter since that's when the fine came down, but I think both deserve credit (good or bad).

'they' is a useful gender-agnostic singular pronoun when you're not sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they

English is not my first language, so forgive my asking, but isn’t that sort of uncomfortable to use? Looking at the examples given, they’re all PA announcements or something similarly detatched. It also seems easy to confuse with the plural. What’s the point of decreasing the clarity and utility of language for the sake of a percent of a percent who might be bothered?

English is my first language, and I think it sounds fine:

> A CEO ... . Like it or not, their job is to protect the company, not the users.

It wouldn't sound as correct if the subject was a specific person. In that case the gender-specific pronoun would be better.

> Marissa Mayer, as CEO ... . Like it or not, her job is to protect the company, not the users.

Even so, use of 'their' in the latter example would still be acceptable, if a little odd, because it's referring more to the role than the person (I think).

[edit] for what it's worth, I think you're overwhelming underestimating the percentage of people who think more gender-inclusive language is a useful thing.

That said, I didn't suggest the option because I was trying to make that point, I suggested it because the parent was dealing with a situation (unsure of gender of the CEO) where use of the singular they is really effective.

It's commonly used, at least in the UK, in informal speech even where the intent isn't to be gender-neutral, so it doesn't feel uncomfortable to use at all.

Yes, singular "they" is confusing and incorrect. "He" is gender neutral in that context.

Might I suggest you consult with professional linguists and grammarians on this topic? They will soon disabuse you of this prescriptivist nonsense about 'singular they'.

No, it isn't. Gender neutral / non-binary people exist, and "he" is not the correct term.

They exist and should be respected, but represent a tiny minority. Changing pronouns for everyone to please that fraction of the population seems silly unless you’re addressing that fraction.

Language has always changed with time. The singular they is very well accepted today and has been for decades in most English speaking cultures. I find it interesting that some people seem to find it necessary to defend the older forms - not sure what purpose that serves.

No? "They" is not incorrect nor is it even confusing to understand at all?

Tim Armstrong is not associated with Altaba in any form, so the fine did not happen under him.

It could potentially cost far more- the $35MM is just the SEC fine, they could still be subject to other actions by differing agencies. Whether that can or will actually happen? Who knows..

but in any case, yahoo is already effectively dead, so this is pretty meaningless imho

The CEO of Yahoo at the time of the fine is a male.

Who is the current CEO of Altaba ?