I've seen it remarked and it seems generally agreed upon that Twitter was overstaffed. The extent to which that was true is unclear, because whether Twitter's service meaningfully degrades or not remains to be seen. There's an $8 blue subscription being floated, but otherwise, to what extent the new leadership will change the core service remains to be seen. Whether power users sustain a revolt or exodus remains to be seen.

Dorsey left, didn't he? There's been some fairly major executive turnover over the years. Twitter sort of hummed along, didn't it?

You remarked, hyperbolically I'd say, that he speed ran the destruction of a $40 billion-whatever acquisition in mere weeks. That may turn out to be true. But it hasn't happened yet. I think many people want this to be true, but this is an exceptional event and is hard to make dispassionate predictions about. It's possible, but improbable that it'll take the shape of Newscorp's myspace acquisition, or Verizon's yahoo acquisition. Those were services that were already in steep decline. I don't know for sure, but Twitter appears to be relatively stable when it comes to user activity.

Overall, I think the prognostication around this acquisition has been inflamed by culture war biases.