Twitter had serious vulnerabilities that the governments of Russia and China could try to exploit, according to a whistleblower complaint by Peiter “Mudge” Zatko, Twitter’s former chief security officer. (Zatko refers to himself as “Mudge” in the complaint, but I’ll call him Zatko because that’s the name of his government.) Zatko also claims that Twitter had no incentive to properly count bots. I can’t help but notice, however, that all of these allegations suggest that Dorsey was an incompetent leader. The first time Dorsey was CEO, he was fired in 2008 Most of the things Zatko complains about happened while Dorsey was in his second term as CEO of Twitter. The first time Dorsey was CEO, he was fired in 2008. That’s likely because Dorsey was a lousy manager, according to Nick Bilton’s Hatching Twitter. Dorsey liked to take credit, hated criticism, loved to party, and made some weird, expensive texting deals that cost Twitter six figures a month. In addition, he was often uncommunicative with investors. Personally, I wouldn’t hire this guy back for a second round, but Twitter was desperate in 2015. And so it was Dorsey, in his second term as CEO, who personally recruited Zatko. However, according to Zatko’s complaint, Dorsey was a “disengaged CEO” who didn’t speak a word in some meetings. Zatko even heard from his colleagues that Dorsey’s silences could stretch for “days or weeks” and that the senior team was concerned about his health, while “even the mid-level and junior staff could tell that the ship it was without a rudder.’ Nah! Taking the complaint seriously, much of the problem seems to stem from what it describes as Dorsey’s “absentee behavior.” Apparently, Zatko had “little to no support for his task of fundamentally changing the dangerous behaviors of 8,000 workers.” Now, there were people who said Dorsey was unfit to be CEO of Twitter, most notably the fearsome Elliott Management, who argued that Dorsey wasn’t paying enough attention to Twitter (as he was also the CEO of payments company Square, the which was later renamed Block) and that it was pulling the retention of senior staff. Eventually, Dorsey resigned and was replaced by Parag Agrawal as CEO, Elliott’s preferred choice. This is noted in the document and then followed by extensive wording, which I am deeply curious about. Isn’t that something Jack Dorsey should have noticed from his chosen security chief? Agrawal fired Zatko, as well as other senior Dorsey executives, including former chief product officer Kayvon Beykpour and chief revenue officer Bruce Falck. This is not particularly unusual for a CEO change. Often the new CEO wants to replace the old CEO’s team with his own. In Zatko’s case, however, Twitter spokeswoman Rebecca Hahn attributed the firing to “poor performance and leadership,” according to the Washington Post. He also says that Zatko’s complaint is “filled with inaccuracies” and that the point is to “opportunistically cause … harm to Twitter, its customers and shareholders.” Well, okay, Twitter would say that. Doesn’t necessarily make Zatko wrong, though! However, in Agrawal’s response to the story, emailed to employees, he repeats the line, writing that Zatko was fired for “ineffective leadership and poor performance.” Isn’t that something Jack Dorsey should have noticed from his chosen security chief? Agrawal also suggests there will be more stories, but says, “We will go all out to defend our integrity as a company and put things right.” Sorry if it’s just the reporter’s brain, but “pursuing all avenues to defend our integrity” sounds like “we might file a libel suit.” I hope Twitter does! I can’t wait to see what they find in the discovery. Anyway, the other thing I notice here is that Musk’s legal team subpoenaed Dorsey yesterday, among other things, about communications and documents related to the merger or any transaction between Musk and Twitter, including the purchase of common stock. Musk’s team also wants information about Musk joining Twitter’s board and other Twitter communications. And Dorsey being Dorsey, he’s not going to defend the company he ran or even admit wrongdoing I wondered when Musk’s offer was announced if Dorsey was involved behind the scenes. he was still on Twitter’s board at the time. Dorsey and Musk are friends – which is part of what makes this subpoena strange to me. Musk couldn’t like it, you ask? Doesn’t Musk have his own records of many of these conversations? Well, yes, Musk could ask, but Dorsey, historically, is known for his indecisiveness and inability to make good calls in time. This was the heart of Elliott Management’s problems with him! It’s part of why he got fired the first time! If I’m Musk’s lawyers, I think Dorsey’s meddling is part of what caused this whole mess. And Dorsey being Dorsey – remember he likes to be a cult leader and hates to assign any blame – he’s not going to defend the company he ran or even admit fault. Anyway, if you needed more proof of Dorsey’s spectacularly poor judgment as a leader, he mimicked Musk’s vanity title at Tesla (“Technoking”) with his own at Block (“Block Head”). Our much-loved Block Head tweeted at the time that Musk was “the only solution I trust” for Twitter’s future. In July, Twitter will sue Musk for refusing the deal. So yeah, most people will focus on omg what does this mean for Twitter. But I have to say, if I were working at Block right now – where Dorsey is currently CEO – I wouldn’t feel great! Dorsey’s pet cause, Bitcoin, is a revenue boon for the company, but it’s not a profit. And in the last quarter, Bitcoin’s earnings fell 24% as consumer demand fell. Block’s shares closed at $70.94 today — and are worth less than half of what they were on Jan. 3, the first day of trading this year. Oh, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau says Dorsey is involved in an investigation, which one honestly? Sounds like Dorsey.
