@emilygorcenski Well, this is quite interesting to read.
On the one hand, it kinda throws cold water on a theory I have heard making the rounds that Musk was playing 4-D chess against humanity by buying Twitter and that Jack was knowingly in on the plot.
On the other hand, there are *far* better ways of handling something like this, even were one to agree with Dorsey's rather nihilistic view of Twitter's future. In addition to the fact that workers got shafted by this, couldn't he have put provisions in at the company to release/give over an archive of public tweets to the Internet Archive, Library of Congress, or so forth in the event of the company's dissolution? Would have been a godsend for preservationists.
@beccanalia I assume you are talking about the article Mr. Troy wrote about BlueSky? Because while longtermism is indeed vile and Musk is very much a longtermist, I didn't find that article convincing regarding Dorsey being a longtermist.
Given that you used "articles" in the plural, I assume Mr. Troy has written something else since then on the subject. If so, feel free to link some of them here.
Troy's written at least two articles about their relationship. He's got two outlets where he publishes.
I'll find the URLs and post them later.
@beccanalia And to be clear, I don't feel sorry for Jack, and I don't agree with how he handled this.
@mathlover
Don't feel sorry for Jack. He really DGAF. He knew that conversation would go public at some point: His replies reveal little.
Jack made Musk's purchase happen. He wooed Musk. Jack sold out and walked away leaving Musk to do what Jack could not: Kill the company quickly while exploiting it.
Read @davetroy's articles about their shared,
deeply racist & classist pseudo-philosophy called "Longtermism."
Jack could have done MANY things to protect the company. He didn't. He DGAF.