If this guy: doesn't "get it" then "it" shouldn't be gotten. If your business is investing in educational technology and you aren't allowed to point out educational technology that shouldn't be invested in, this whole artifice needs to come down, man. These guys should be allowed to comment. If you're following them on Twitter, it's because you want to know what they think about stuff. A Zuckerberg and Thiel-funded libertarian spankbank that eats shit to the tune of $250m? We need the world to talk about that shit.Prior to his current role, Jason served as Deputy Director at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, leading postsecondary innovation efforts to improve the outcomes of disadvantaged college students by investing in colleges, universities and entrepreneurs pursuing digital and adaptive learning, student coaching and advising, financial aid innovation, and employer pathways. Prior to the Foundation, Jason founded and grew three investor-backed technology and services companies before holding a series of executive positions at Microsoft, SchoolNet, Kaplan and StraighterLine. At Kaplan, Jason led three education businesses as general manager or president, in addition to founding and leading the company’s venture capital effort.
Wait you're literally saying that professional investors shouldn't be allowed to opine about professional investing on Twitter? But it's totally okay for the rest of FinTwit to pillory this guy and declare that he's blackballed forever? Jason Palmer is under 50. What's the cutoff for using Twitter? What, to you, is "semi-old?"
...I mean I get that your beef is with Twitter. And I get that you're trying to make a point here that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and I want to notice in passing that you're arguing that people should realize that Twitter is public (the Cheeto Benito has made that thunderously obvious). What you're steadfastly refusing to acknowledge is that your argument 100% GLOSSES OVER OTHER PROFESSIONAL INVESTORS eating this guy's lunch. On Twitter. This is a case of "say whatever the fuck you want" SO LONG AS IT'S PRO-STARTUP or ANTI-STARTUP CRITICISM. And three comments deep here, you are still arguing that "say nothing at all" is somehow a reasonable position to take in response to an article in which business criticism is systematically crushed by business interests.
NO. The whole problem is that people inside that tech bubble went to war over comments that were negative. And they went to war in an extremely negative way. The whole problem is that you can say whatever you want about stuff you're selling to investors so long as you don't say anything that might ever make an investor question the idea of investing. THAT is the issue.t's clear some people outside that particular tech bubble thought their comments were uncalled for