Typically most people would regard good leaders as people you follow because they inspire confidence, you feel like you can trust them, and that your efforts will be rewarded. Authoritarian leaders on the other hand are typically those who use their ability to punish people to force compliance.
While the owner of a private company doesn't need the approval of their employees to make decisions I would never work for someone who uses threats and doesn't explain the rationale behind their decisions.
You are extremely lucky and privileged to be able to make that choice while your skills are in high-demand.
"I dunno why any Twitter engineers would be really trying that hard right now. Passively destroying Twitter from within by not trying, and trying to make a billionare lose 44 billion dollars is a significantly more fun and interesting challenge than making Twitter a better product."
Huh
An "L"? Are you 17?
>“Fifth column” paranoia is a hallmark of authoritarian leadership.
Is it paranoia when within this very same thread people are making posts about ways to see the company fail? By omission or direct action, if the ideas are expressed here then they are held by workers at Twitter.
Do you fail to see how this is relevant?
They comment I replied to is making a rather poorly founded insinuation of authoritarian leadership, ie Musk, despite having 'lead' over the enterprise for days, at best.
Presently this jibe, 'authoritarian' is being levied at conservatives & most absurdly at free speech advocates. The idiocy of such an assessment is, in fact, the operation of an authoritarian ideology.
So, yes, I believe that makes it relevant.