By the time they make the move, they'll be able to fit all the staff in a campervan.

They can take a road trip over to Texas.

Why is the sibling comment flagged and dead?

At a minimum, I'd suggest "office freeloaders" and "energy vampires" are indicative of someone not commenting in good faith.

It seems fairly clear that Twitter had at least some employees that were adding very little. Trust and Safety leadership enforcing moderation based on political views while ignoring staff concerns about child sexual abuse (per this morning’s news) seems like one example.

> Trust and Safety leadership enforcing moderation based on political views

I assume you're referring to the "Twitter Files" revelations* there? Because that showed nothing of the sort, did it?

Not exclusively. We knew political based moderation was going on far before that. But yes also including the recent revelations about how it was handled internally.

If you consider interfering with an election to be non political, I’m not going to bother arguing with you.

> But yes also including the recent revelations about how it was handled internally.

Can you point to some examples where one side (I'm assuming you mean Democrats) were handled favourably and the other not favourably? Outside of ToS violations, obviously.

Yes it did.

Can you point to some examples? Note that they have to be examples which only apply to one side (I'm going to assume you mean conservatives) and aren't standard violations of ToS.

They suppressed Trump’s account before the election…

> They suppressed Trump’s account before the election…

That fact was public knowledge.

Did the twitter files reveal anything more specific about why they suppressed Trump's account?

It seems to me that merely calling them "Twitter files" is very effective at evoking and implying possibly more than what they actually contain.

This was not public knowledge, it was publicly denied.

Please be specific. They have publicly denied shadowbanning but under a very specific and narrow definition.

> but under a very specific and narrow definition.

Which I think is the standard definition - suggesting Twitter have made up their own is a bit snarky?

> They suppressed Trump’s account before the election…

If by "suppressed" you mean "suspended for repeated violations of ToS even though they'd protected him for months by saying he was POTUS and therefore newsworthy and should be granted much more leeway than other accounts", sure.

Fair enough, those terms are unfair and needlessly aggressive. I just found the comment rather interesting (especially the last part).

I think Twitters priorities are balance sheet related. Moving would seem like a bizarre distraction.

Most of this mess just seems like a bizarre distraction.

It is shocking how entirely unnecessary it all has been.

There’s no reason for the whole situation. The company is in a bad spot now.

I think it’s because the company wasn’t very profitable and has low growth.

They were barely keeping their heads above water, but the interest payments on their new loans was like tying cinder blocks to their feet.

It amazes me that the world's richest man was able to buy this company with a bunch of borrowed money, and saddle the company with the debt rather than himself. If he actually cared about Twitter's financial health, you have to figure he would have bought it outright. He has the money.

They were not in great shape, but they’re now in substantially worse.

Elon is basically doing a Gilderoy Lockhart trying to repair Harry's broken arm impression.