• cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Part of the problem is, IMO, the corporate structure built around these companies.

    I’ve always wondered why Twitch has 1200 employees, or Reddit has 2000, or Twitter had 5,000. What do they all do, and is the cost of carrying so many people justified?

    I’m betting (and honestly, the Twitter shitshow kinda has shown) that you maybe don’t actually need 1,200 people to run a streaming site, and maybe you don’t need 2,000 to run a text-based link aggregation site and that this weird tech company obsession with growth and size is actively counterproductive, at least to some extent, when it means you can’t carry the costs of the company without having to absolutely trash the experience of your users to do it.

    • worfamerryman@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I thinks costs could be trimmed a ton in a lot of companies. Although that likely means layoffs and not lower salaries for the executive team.

      • cstine@lemmy.uncomfortable.business
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        IMO, exec salaries (and any equity grants) should be exclusively tied to company profitability but that’s one of those things that’d never happen in a million years.

        There’s just no incentive to build sustainable businesses when you’re working with free money and I think a lot of tech firms (not just social media ones) are going to crash land over the next couple of years.