50 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] thread
Does Elon own twitter now or doesn't he? I lost what was happening there.
I believe "not yet although he appears to be trying to get out of it but he has no wiggle room thus will probably own it at some near future point" going off the "Money Stuff" columns by Matt Levine (which Bloomberg provide no easy way to link to, obviously.)
No, his purchase hasn't been finalized yet.
We are on the brink of a major global economic turndown [many still in denial]. Q2/Q3 results will be telling. How does one make money selling advertising in a global downturn? Earnings will be crushed. Twitter is taking measures to cut fat and protect its stock price. I expect rest of FANG will eventually follow.
>rest of FANG will follow

It’s already happening.

> How does one make money selling advertising in a global downturn?

By not selling advertising but hardware. So at least the two AA of the FAANG are safe(ish), Netflix shouldn't have been in there anyways. And well FG are fine to take a hit :shrug:

The return of the Peek Messenger?
>By not selling advertising but hardware. So at least the two AA of the FAANG are safe(ish)

I doubt it. In a recession people will buy less products and subscriptions form Amazon, and less VC money means less startups, means less AWS customers.

Also, people will upgrade their Apple iShiny less often, holding on to their existing devices which work well due to Apple's great SW support, and will buy less stuff from the App Store.

They're safe in the sense they won't tumble, but I expect them to trim the fat by firing their lowest performers and turn the heat on existing workers.

I could also be wrong though, I'm no financial analyst.

I guess due to the hiring freeze they had recently, it might be hard to justify keeping a big hiring team around.
So what's the status of the Musk/Twitter deal? 3 key developments to note.

Twitter, has laid off 30% of its talent acquisition team, per WSJ. https://lnkd.in/d38rGUvX

Elon Musk’s deal to buy Twitter, is in peril, per Washington Post. It states talks with investors have cooled down. https://lnkd.in/dg7d_Vsr

Twitter, has reaffirmed that spam accounts represent less than 5% of daily users based on closely held user

https://lnkd.in/dy37nMsu

No, he is still trying to get out of the purchase agreement he has signed.
What is a talent acquisition team and why did twitter need one?

Is it like the Scouts in Moneyball? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWgyy_rlmag

"Jane has a good looking typing motion, has a git checkin rate of .324, and scored a 465 on their leetcode"

"She has an ugly husband though, suggests a lack of confidence"

"I like Jim, good coders body, lean cut, good face. Good looking keystroke, the code just explodes off his keyboard with a real pop. You can hear it all the way over at the kombucha tap."

"If he codes so good, where are the git checkins? He's checking in at a .154"

It’s a fancy phrase for tech recruiting.
I think it is just a way to call the human resources team. It sounds better if you are hired by the talent acquisition team rather than the human resources team.
Putting all of it under the umbrella term of HR is like putting software engineering and dev ops under the 'IT' umbrella. There's no cross-capability.
I've seen people move into and out of HR roles from areas far more exotic than recruiting, including PAs, engineers, accountants, and be very successful at it. Claiming that there is 'no cross-capability' between HR and recruiting, when those jobs are often done by the very same people in smaller organizations, is ludicrous.

You've drunk so much of the corporate bureaucracy kool-aid that you started to believe it is truly necessary.

I could probably move into IT. Moving into management is common. But I won't pick up tickets for either.
> software engineering and dev ops under the 'IT' umbrella

Anywhere with a small team has people doing both, which, as it happens, is exactly the same situation for HR…

Wondering when "talent acquisition" will be the new "human resources" and what fancy term takes its place.
AFAICT it's pretty common among tech companies for "recruiting" to be called "talent acquisition" and "human resources" to be called "people operations" or similar
And even "human resources" is a fancied-up name for "personnel department".
“Personnel department” sounds so much better. At least they’re people, not resources.
The term human resources means that the department manages resources for humans not resources which are humans.

Those are called people managers.

Recruiting or “talent” often reports to HR.
HR gatekeeping development, to make themselves seems important. Guess that ruse is coming to an end finally.
In a firm the size of Twitter, someone's got to keep the recruitment process organized. Making sure candidates are told their feedback, arranging calls with the managers, making sure there's job ads up on various sites, plus talking to agency recruiters.

If they're not hiring anyone though, they don't really need a lot of TA people...

> making sure candidates are told their feedback

Lol. Of the 15 companies I interviewed with, only 1 gave feedback.

was... was it twitter?
Talent? Didn’t know that much talent is required to get the talents to maintain a trillion 140-char records distributed database.

Must be the 10,000+ “bot-farmers” (according to SEC filing).

I wanted to have faith that Twitter could actually return to it's former glory, before it was a dictatorial nightmare...

Twitter literally varies it's timeline every day to simply push what it wants to to everyone, just like Instagram. Literally, I've watched it switch from real time reporting to just a total spam haven that ignores everyone's wishes and pushes out repetitive content and dull posts from people and corps that pay money for visibility.

Not even top posts are ranked based by likes or even account popularity (real or even fake followers) any more. Based on what I've observed, it's just whoever pays or spams keywords that ranks first. It's just opinion of course, but I feel like dead Internet is alive and well on Twitter, and even the deal to purchase it is a promotional scheme to keep everyone distracted from the underlying feeling that Twitter is a lifeless shell of it's former self.

It eventually gets to the point where you've got to stop logging in because the emphasis on content that has no real value ranks above the real interesting, relevant, and noteworthy stuff anyone posts on there. It's corrupted far too much to go back to being functional, a smoke screen for pocket change behind the scenes. Elon could do better just building something entirely new (opinion again, but I think the people that really use it would agree).

I have never seen an authentic hashtag in the trending section. Either its some advertisement or its an obviously astroturfed political campaign.
Or Doja Cat, Kanye, BTS, Politics or whatever random accounts pay to promote or bot to death... sigh
a) As a hiring manager (not at Twitter, but at another tech firm), we prefer to have recruiters to help us source and evaluate engineering candidates (instead of doing everything ourselves, given we also have other responsibilities around engineering and building product)

b) If you think it doesn't require much talent to run Twitter, then the talent must really really suck at some of the recent competitors who are trying to take on Twitter.

Talent at Twitter is apparently not there, notably not being forthcoming with the inner operation details required for a buyout, unless they do not wish to be bought out, which jn that case is an even sadder form of corporate decline in its intrinsic and inherent value.
I wonder how much of this is economy versus Elon wanting to instill the type of workforce he wants by replacing the cause at the source. Similar to how companies make no politics policies and then give people that don't like that a generous severance.
Probably 0 to do with Elon given that he hasn’t bought Twitter yet. Who cares what he wants to do when he hasn’t written the check yet?
True, but their hiring freeze was pretty close to the acquisition announcement. So I feel like that is partly to blame.
I'd imagine it's entirely due to the economic downturn, as most high growth tech companies have slashed hiring this year.
They have, but this is a long-term play. Slowing hiring is one thing, but slowing your ability to ramp up is commitment to slowing hiring for a long time in the future.
(comment deleted)
(comment deleted)