> focused on their core business?

What's their core business? Losing money on a platform where people can post racist comments?

Or do they have to earn money without getting sued for being used to spread CSAM and being a platform for harassment?

Because the first is very easy with 50 people. Elon can keep sinking money into it and never earn a dime (see Truth Social, they seem to be doing well!). The last is a lot more complicated and requires an ad platform, ad sales, content moderation, documentation writers, support agents, management, scrum masters, SREs, purchasing, et cetera.

IT people are really good at ignoring everything but the tech stack. Like tech is the only thing needed to run a profitable business. (It is... But not to run a 40B valued profitable business... And Twitter wasn't even profitable at all.)

> What's their core business? Losing money on a platform where people can post racist comments?

they've been running the same exact business for years now, if what you say it's true, maybe the answer is yes?

I never heard of Twitter making profit, so maybe their core business was "Losing money on a platform where people can post racist comments"

There was abundance of both, AFAIK, long before Musk

Remember when Dorsey tweeted nazi propaganda and then said his account was compromised? (which if true it means at Twitter they don't know what they are doing, if false, well...)

Remember when journalists wrote articles titled "Twitter is a Nazi haven for the same reason its CEO claims no bias" because Dorsey never actually distanced himself from the worst of the worst the platform hosted? Fearing he would be labeled as "too liberal"?

Remember when he started spamming crypto-bro propaganda?

Remember when a spy from Suadi crown worked at Twitter helping to uncover activists using the so called "free" platform and after he was discovered and reported to authorities, Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal bought 4.61% of Twitter shares?

Did the situation got better with more and more employees or it just revolved around banning prominent accounts? (not that I necessarily disagree with the reasons behind it, but if that is the best solution they've found, after years of fine tuning, they could have done it before with much less people involved)

> Or do they have to earn money without getting sued for being used to spread CSAM and being a platform for harassment?

it's easily provable that the 7,500 employees did not improve things on that front.

> IT people are really good at ignoring everything but the tech stack

that's a really odd proposition.

Looks to me that Twitter was in bad shape already, despite thousands of non tech employees, Facebook it's in no good shape either, despite tens of thousands of them, basically the only thing still working as intended in those companies is the tech stack.

I guess the real question you're asking is "why non IT people are so bad at doing their job"?

Not my opinion though, I never said IT over other departments, I simply said nobody is able to explain what makes WhatsApp so special that a hundred people can run it while Twitter requires 75 times that and still doesn't work as well.