Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal on whistleblower story
https://twitter.com/donie/status/1562069281545900033
90 comments
Eh, hard to grok why you think Twitter is not evil like Facebook. Have we learned nothing about the public/private partnership between the social media companies and the surveillance state? Twitter management is littered with "former" government officials. For all we know, Mudge himself and his whistle are moves in an ongoing internecine fight over who calls the shots at a valuable tool of social control. We were recently treated to a completely astroturfed whistleblower at Facebook. Fool me once...
Caveat emptor and Cui bono.
Caveat emptor and Cui bono.
I believe he didn't say they weren't evil like Facebook, just that they weren't as evil as Facebook.
That "as" is important nuance.
Personally I think that's fair when looking at Facebook's history[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook
That "as" is important nuance.
Personally I think that's fair when looking at Facebook's history[1].
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Facebook
That sort of hairsplitting doesn't make much sense to me. It's like saying one gangster isn't as bad as another because one has a shorter wrap sheet. It's a difference that doesn't make a difference. They are evil in the same way, as media institutions of a accelerating surveillance and propaganda regime. Facebook is older and has been at it longer, but Twitter is no slouch when it comes to being a front organization for the secret police state. Twitter is another co-opted tech company whose libertarian minded leadership has long been gelded by institutional power. Assume the management of these companies is seeded with government allies at a minimum, incentivizing, cajoling, sabotaging, or threatening the public leadership of the company, as need be.
N.B., it’s “rap sheet”.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rap%20sheet
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rap%20sheet
Ha, yeah, sure it is
Twitter locks accounts for verification and then turns around and sells the phone number used to verify the account to advertisers. This kind of behavior can only happen in thoroughly rotten companies.
What? I’ve worked in adtech for years and have seen a user’s phone number
Well, twitter did: https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/08/twitter-admits-it-used-two...
> I’ve worked in adtech for years and have seen a user’s phone number
Freudian slip much?
Freudian slip much?
Thank you for your service.
I thought the Musk / Twitter deal was DOA a long time ago.
It’s going to trial this fall. Twitter is going to ask courts to enforce the agreement, making Musk buy them.
My guess is he’s blustering to shore up his negotiating position, and will have to make Twitter whole in the range of $10b. Or he believes his own tweets, will go to trial, and be forced to make the purchase.
Like everyone, I’m bad at predicting the future.
My guess is he’s blustering to shore up his negotiating position, and will have to make Twitter whole in the range of $10b. Or he believes his own tweets, will go to trial, and be forced to make the purchase.
Like everyone, I’m bad at predicting the future.
He’s going to end up buying Twitter but it will be at a discount due to the bot numbers. My prediction is he ends up leading a group of investors to purchase it for roughly $35 billion.
bot numbers - you are quite gullible but arguing in good faith huzzah
He won't be forced to make the purchase because the court will determine that will cause more harm to Tesla shareholders than benefit to Twitter shareholders. The litigation will probably take about 10 years though. That's according to Andrew Torez from the Opening Arguments podcast.
> the court will determine that will cause more harm to Tesla shareholders than benefit to Twitter shareholders
How does that work with a shareholder vote scheduled before the trial?
How does that work with a shareholder vote scheduled before the trial?
Why should the court care about Tesla share holders? I’m genuinely curious. Seems asinine that you can’t enforce contracts because a CEO signed a very poor one.
Businesses are allowed to fail after all…
Businesses are allowed to fail after all…
I don’t understand why you think this would happen. Whatever Twitter would agree to, Musk would rather overpay by $10B with other investors and own Twitter, than to pay a $10B settlement and own nothing. And if it were a small enough settlement without an acquisition, Twitter investors would miss out, and Twitter’s management would be embroiled in shareholder lawsuits.
It's in limbo—trial starts October 17.
Just curious: why is FB evil but TWTR isn't? They both seem to share similar social media posts and both seem to apply quite a bit of censorship at times.
> why is FB evil but TWTR isn't?
Facebook’s senior leadership has shown a pathological pattern of lying. They’ve also predated on children in a way Twitter either hasn’t prioritised or hasn’t been able to. The only reason Instagram for Kids is because of literal Congressional hearings.
Facebook’s senior leadership has shown a pathological pattern of lying. They’ve also predated on children in a way Twitter either hasn’t prioritised or hasn’t been able to. The only reason Instagram for Kids is because of literal Congressional hearings.
Faking video engagements stats to convince a whole generation of small news sites to pivot to video and ultimately fail.
Running psychological experiments on users.
Amplifying hate groups associated with everything from genocide in Myanmar to the groups that brought Kyle Rittenhouse to Kenosha.
Blatantly breaking state facial recognition laws.
I’m sure that’s just scratching the surface.
Running psychological experiments on users.
Amplifying hate groups associated with everything from genocide in Myanmar to the groups that brought Kyle Rittenhouse to Kenosha.
Blatantly breaking state facial recognition laws.
I’m sure that’s just scratching the surface.
What groups brought Kyle Rittenhouse to Kenosha? He worked in Kenosha, his father lives in Kenosha, and he was staying with his sister's boyfriend in Kenosha.
> Twitter IMHO is not as evil as for example Facebook
Twitter is just worse at executing.
Twitter is just worse at executing.
Facebook should be avoided, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as Twitter. Twitter exemplifies the amplification of an irrational mob more than any other social media platform.
Nice way to lead with a direct attack on a former executive, and one who is very highly regarded in the broader computer/network/hacker sphere.
The whole second paragraph is just useless fluff. The "important work" they are doing, with no references at all to any specifics, it's just a feel-good word jumble.
He also does not make any claims that Mudge's accusations are patently wrong, it's couched in "what we've seen so far" and derided for lacking "important context".
This missive from the CEO reads as rushed, ill-informed, and overly emotional. Which could lead many to assume the accusations by Mudge are more accurate than not, with or without the important "context".
The whole second paragraph is just useless fluff. The "important work" they are doing, with no references at all to any specifics, it's just a feel-good word jumble.
He also does not make any claims that Mudge's accusations are patently wrong, it's couched in "what we've seen so far" and derided for lacking "important context".
This missive from the CEO reads as rushed, ill-informed, and overly emotional. Which could lead many to assume the accusations by Mudge are more accurate than not, with or without the important "context".
> reads as rushed, ill-informed, and overly emotional
Agreed. Bad email. Zero specifics. Not even an apology for letting the situation get to this point. Just empty promises and mud slinging. (Also, formatting? Also, an email? You know what your product is, right? Did you think this wouldn’t get leaked?)
Agreed. Bad email. Zero specifics. Not even an apology for letting the situation get to this point. Just empty promises and mud slinging. (Also, formatting? Also, an email? You know what your product is, right? Did you think this wouldn’t get leaked?)
Yeah, as soon as I read the attack "poor performance" I instantly had distrust come up. It felt like a Trump-style attack. And then I thought of all the pressure that would put on employees reading the message too, let go for "poor performance". What if someone previously performed well and then was having some mental health issues and their performance was poor. Are they all of the sudden going to be let go now too? That doesn't make people feel secure in order to do high-level brain work, it does the opposite. It didn't feel like a message a good leader would send.
Absolutely zero reason to say "who was terminated for ineffective leadership and poor performance". That context is not at all relevant to this matter and comes off as an attempt to distract from the subject in matter.
And it doesn't bode well for employees to see their CEO mud slinging at former employees like that. You could be next! Besides, surely they know such messages eventually reach the public eye and give people a view into the culture in the company?
And it doesn't bode well for employees to see their CEO mud slinging at former employees like that. You could be next! Besides, surely they know such messages eventually reach the public eye and give people a view into the culture in the company?
> Absolutely zero reason to say "who was terminated for ineffective leadership and poor performance". That context is not at all relevant to this matter and comes off as an attempt to distract from the subject in matter.
While it is distasteful I think it is also relevant. If twitter have an actual reason for firing him they'll want to make it clear, so that it doesn't look like they got rid of him to try and sweep his concerns under the carpet.
In practice it's hard to say whether it works. They can't go into detail about why he was dismissed which means no one on the outside is really any the wiser about whether he was dismissed because twitter had legitimate concerns about his performance or whether they don't like what he had to say.
While it is distasteful I think it is also relevant. If twitter have an actual reason for firing him they'll want to make it clear, so that it doesn't look like they got rid of him to try and sweep his concerns under the carpet.
In practice it's hard to say whether it works. They can't go into detail about why he was dismissed which means no one on the outside is really any the wiser about whether he was dismissed because twitter had legitimate concerns about his performance or whether they don't like what he had to say.
Yeah, so you say "fired for cause" and don't go into the details.
From what I'm hearing, those who can leave Twitter are leaving twitter.
What do you mean "those who can"? Everyone works there because they want to, no other reasons. If you work at Twitter and don't want to anymore, it's trivial to leave, and you won't struggle to find a new position elsewhere. It's not like Facebook where your work history is already a bit tarnished by not having left it already.
To provide a motive for the false claims?
Doesn't mean they are false, just a reason why to mention the reason of the termination.
Doesn't mean they are false, just a reason why to mention the reason of the termination.
Doesn't HR usually filter messages so as to leave no meat for any possible wrongful termination litigation or libelous tort?
Yeah, but Mudge already sent a "whistleblower" complaint to congress / FTC so this isn't your standard publicly-amicable executive departure.
Not if they did the PIP and everything, collected evidence to cover their ass, and now have the ability to use this in what's already a very public lawsuit.
> who was terminated in January 2022 for ineffective leadership and poor performance.
Gotta love how Parag goes straight to attempting to discredit the person instead of focusing first on the claims.
Gotta love how Parag goes straight to attempting to discredit the person instead of focusing first on the claims.
Yes, especially how in the announcements where he was no longer with the company, they said they couldn't elaborate due to "employment and privacy concerns". But now that he makes an allegation against them, they don't need to worry about privacy?
This person seems to be pretty far out of their depth TBH. Writing emails like this genuinely is difficult and you are optimizing for a very diverse set of stakeholders - not just engineers - but this is amateur hour. From a purely utilitarian perspective the cost/benefit of directly attacking Mudge obviously doesn't work out.
Yeah, if this was really meant to placate a nervous team there's no reason to mention Mudge personally at all, it'll just make anyone who respects him extremely pissed off, and everyone else even more jumpy as the professionalism gloves are clearly off for any interaction about this.
>... a former Twitter executive who was terminated in January 2022 for ineffective leadership and poor performance.
Coming right out of the gates with an ad-hominem attack like this is extremely unprofessional and also reckless.
Coming right out of the gates with an ad-hominem attack like this is extremely unprofessional and also reckless.
It feels very unusual for a CEO to comment on the circumstances of an exec's departure like this. It's hard to take away a message that isn't "we're trying to discredit this man" - which is a logical objective, but it feels far more transparent than what I have come to expert.
> It feels very unusual for a CEO to comment on the circumstances of an exec's departure like this.
It's unusual circumstances. Im sure if there wasn't a huge newspiece in CNN Parag/twitter would have said exactly nothing.
It's unusual circumstances. Im sure if there wasn't a huge newspiece in CNN Parag/twitter would have said exactly nothing.
I have to side with Mudge here. If there were actual factual inaccuracies, Parag would have outlined them. The blanket discrediting of Mudge here only helps discredit himself.
Opening with those causes of termination of the whistleblower was a very unconvincing way to start this memo.
I get the impression the Twitter CEO is a little out of his depth running a company like Twitter.
Twitter has a lot of drama these days.
It's honestly quite off-putting.
I've been evaluating alternatives to it, but I haven't found one with a nice technology focused subculture. I want to be able to follow and chat about databases, tech tips, funny anecdotes about tech, and etc.
I've been evaluating alternatives to it, but I haven't found one with a nice technology focused subculture. I want to be able to follow and chat about databases, tech tips, funny anecdotes about tech, and etc.
This response is nothing more than a smear towards Mudge, backed up with exactly nothing. Content free CEO-speak like this only makes Mudge's whistleblower statements more credible, not less.
Is it just me, or is it obvious the hyper-obsession of Twitter in the media is a function of its popularity amongst journalists and such?
To imply that Mudge was responsible for Twitter's poor security practices when he only worked at the company for the past two years makes me believe that the allegations are true and the leadership is absolute shit.
Also, implying that the dude who worked at DARPA and, maybe even more impressive, who was part of L0pht is incompetent is ludicrous.
Also, implying that the dude who worked at DARPA and, maybe even more impressive, who was part of L0pht is incompetent is ludicrous.
I've seen some genuinely very smart people unable to perform at their level because of the baggage holding them back in the current environment. To those unwilling to admit the baggage, I could see how it would come across as incompetent especially when it would be advantageous to the employer.
These managment types that refuse to see that core components are just bad/wrong so that the right thing is to scrap and replace. However, that is always seen as expensive and very disruptive. So if you can't come up with a way to change the tire while the car is running 65mph down the highway, then you're not able to do your job as hired. Therefore, incompetent. QED /s
These managment types that refuse to see that core components are just bad/wrong so that the right thing is to scrap and replace. However, that is always seen as expensive and very disruptive. So if you can't come up with a way to change the tire while the car is running 65mph down the highway, then you're not able to do your job as hired. Therefore, incompetent. QED /s
Is a CEO publicly accusing someone publicly of "ineffective leadership and poor performance" a libelous statement?
If it's not true, it is libel or slander depending on how it was delivered.
It may be that Twitter's HR records say "fired for cause: ineffective leadership and poor performance" in which case the statement would be technically true.
It's much more likely that Twitter's HR records say something like "fired, not a good fit" in which case it's back to reputational harm.
It may be that Twitter's HR records say "fired for cause: ineffective leadership and poor performance" in which case the statement would be technically true.
It's much more likely that Twitter's HR records say something like "fired, not a good fit" in which case it's back to reputational harm.
If the HR records say that, and it’s not true, that doesn’t get twitter off the hook. It might make it harder to sue the CEO directly though, depending on who was involved in writing the HR record.
I'm sure there's lawyers somewhere willing to take the case, perhaps even pro bono, just for the publicity.
Discovery would be hilarious.
Discovery would be hilarious.
It’s 100% true though:
He was ineffective at keeping quiet about security problems to governance parties, and performed poorly at persuading peers not reporting to him to fix things they weren’t incentivized on.
He was ineffective at keeping quiet about security problems to governance parties, and performed poorly at persuading peers not reporting to him to fix things they weren’t incentivized on.
[deleted]
Probably not, because it's an opinion.
> "given Mudge was accountable for many aspects of this work that he is now inaccurately portraying"
Is he not shooting himself in the foot here? This makes it look more like they got rid of him for trying to do his job accurately and was annoying everyone with all of these "security problems."
Is he not shooting himself in the foot here? This makes it look more like they got rid of him for trying to do his job accurately and was annoying everyone with all of these "security problems."
Lots of people are rushing to defend Mudge, and maybe it's warranted, but being an alumnus of cDc and l0pht doesn't make one a competent executive.
It is possible for someone to be a great hacker but a mediocre manager.
Twitter's taken a lot of body blows recently and Parag is obviously trying to motivate his people. He's not necessarily lying even if it's a rather unprofessional way to speak I'll of someone who's been fired.
It is possible for someone to be a great hacker but a mediocre manager.
Twitter's taken a lot of body blows recently and Parag is obviously trying to motivate his people. He's not necessarily lying even if it's a rather unprofessional way to speak I'll of someone who's been fired.
> Lots of people are rushing to defend Mudge, and maybe it's warranted, but being an alumnus of cDc and l0pht doesn't make one a competent executive.
He was also a DARPA PM, which definitely requires management/executive skills.
He was also a DARPA PM, which definitely requires management/executive skills.
>He was also a DARPA PM, which definitely requires management/executive skills.
Meh. I've worked in government and disagree with this assessment.
Meh. I've worked in government and disagree with this assessment.
He might not have gotten the memo CIO role is about signing contracts with paper compliance vendors instead of actually securing shit.
It speaks to Parag's character that he's "trying to motivate his people" by doing it in such an unprofessional way.
As far as the "great hacker but a mediocre manager" thing, same can be said of Parag... "good CTO but mediocre CEO".
As far as the "great hacker but a mediocre manager" thing, same can be said of Parag... "good CTO but mediocre CEO".
Between Mudge, Dildog, Beto O'Rourke, Wysopal, and I'm sure others, cDc/l0pht actually seems to have been an amazingly good breeding ground for competent executives compared to most dev teams.
[deleted]
Didn't mudge whistleblow this months ago? Lots of inaccuracies in this memo
Nothing really to see here. At the very minimum one would expect the CEO to express confidence in his current team as well as to disavow any accusations that could expose the company to potential liability.
I think the unnecessary slam on Mudge will have the opposite impact of improving Twitters security situation, from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
[deleted]
It must be disheartening to Twitter engineers to know that their competence may result in Parag Agrawal stabbing them in the back.
For those who don't know who "Mudge" is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peiter_Zatko
hedora(1)
It is somewhat funny that the Twitter CEO uses a picture to circumvent the character count limit of his own service.
That Tweet was not posted by the Twitter CEO.
Correct.
OTOH he has done it before: https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1513354622466867201
OTOH he has done it before: https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1513354622466867201
Alt text can bypass the character limit? Surprised I've not seen people take advantage of that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That's a screenshot of an email.
On the other hand we have the Twitter CEO who does not have any comparable track record and has all to gain by trying to deflect and a lot to lose by admiting that the company under him has serious issues. He does have some "interesting" things he said on the record though. Twitter also has a track record of severe security issues.
Twitter IMHO is not as evil as for example Facebook is but I do feel they are pretty stagnant and don't seem to get a lot done. They are only in the news because of some controversies it feels like.
I think Mr. Agrawals days as Twitter CEO are counted. If Musk ends up buying Twitter he'll surely fire him. And if the deal does not go through then I'm sure the board will have to think hard if the performance was good enough.
PS: I think it reflects poorly on him to mention alleged "ineffective leadership and poor performance" on Mudge's part in the email to all employees. Crap like that is probably the reason why Mudge is now hitting back. He is someone that seems to value honor and doesn't take shit from others.