Jack Dorsey, 45, who co-founded the company in 2006, is stepping down from his role at the company.
Jack Dorsey has confirmed that he will be resigning as Twitter’s chief executive – prompting wild swings in its share price.
Posting on the platform he said that it was “finally time for me to leave”, explaining in a statement from Twitter itself that it was “because I believe the company is ready to move on from its founders”.
Parag Agrawal, the former chief technology officer, has been announced as the new CEO and a member of the board with immediate effect, and said he was “honoured and humbled” by the appointment.
Shares in the social media platform rose 9% on market opening on Monday morning following a report by CNBC that Mr Dorsey, 45, who co-founded Twitter in 2006, was to leave his role.
Trading was halted on the New York Stock Exchange after the spike, but shares resumed trading with a gain of more than 4.5% ahead of where they started the day.Advertisement
However the gains later fell away and the stock closed 2% below its opening price.
Mr Dorsey will remain the chief executive of financial payments company Square, which has a market capitalisation of over $98bn (£73bn) compared to Twitter’s $38bn (£28bn).
Dorsey under pressure
Mr Dorsey faced ousting last year when Twitter stakeholder Paul Singer, the found of Elliott Management, publicly questioned his ability to run both companies at the same time.
The investment firm eventually reached a deal with Twitter’s management.
ANALYSIS: THIS ISN’T A SURPRISE
By Ian King, Sky News business presenter
It is no surprise to see Jack Dorsey stepping down as chief executive of Twitter.
There has been disquiet for some time among shareholders at Mr Dorsey serving in that role and also at Square, the fintech payments company he co-founded, with Paul Singer – the head of the influential activist investor Elliott Management – having called in the recent past for him to step down at Twitter.
Mr Dorsey made peace with Mr Singer on that occasion by giving Elliott and its ally, the private equity firm Silver lake, seats on the Twitter board.
But ultimately the arrangement was unsustainable and given the comparative size of the two businesses, with Square valued at $97billion and Twitter at just $37billion, it was obvious which one he would opt for if made to choose between the two.
Moreover, Square is becoming an infinitely more demanding business to manage, with Mr Dorsey recently announcing plans for the company to look into running an open-source Bitcoin mining system.
Something had to give and just about the only significant obstacle to Mr Dorsey stepping down at Twitter was the need to find his successor.
It seems that hurdle has now been cleared.
Following the announcement, executives at Elliott said in a statement on the appointment of Mr Agrawal and new chairman Bret Taylor that they were “confident that they are the right leaders for Twitter at this pivotal moment for the company”.
Susannah Streeter, senior investment and markets analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: ”Such has been the consternation surrounding Jack Dorsey’s ‘part-time’ role as CEO of Twitter, that it’s little surprise investors initially reacted positively to speculation that he was leaving the platform.
“But the initial euphoria fizzled out, as the new pick for the driving seat, Parag Agrawal, the current chief technology officer, appeared to underwhelm investors.
“The realisation of the mountain to scale and some disappointment that a Twitter outsider hasn’t been brought in to offer fresh ideas, is likely to be behind the loss of initial gains.”
Mr Dorsey leaves a business he has repeatedly had to defend before Congressional committees, including relating to the company’s controversial decision to ban Donald Trump in relation to comments he made regarding the 2020 US presidential election.
Earlier this year Mr Trump asked a federal judge to force Twitter to restore his account, which was shut down after his supporters attacked the US Capitol in January.
COVID-19: Facebook removes Chinese-backed network of fake accounts spreading coronavirus disinformation
The false profiles, with links to Chinese-backed agencies, originated and spread false claims the US pressured scientists to blame China for COVID-19.
Facebook has removed hundreds of fake accounts linked to a campaign by China to spread unfounded claims about the pandemic.
The bogus profiles originated claims the US pressured scientists to blame China for COVID-19.
An investigation found these claims were amplified by employees of Chinese state-run companies, soon becoming the subject of domestic news headlines.
“In effect it worked like an online hall of mirrors, endlessly reflecting the original fake persona and its anti-US disinformation,” Ben Nimmo, who leads investigations into disinformation at Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, said.
The social media company said one of the accounts belonged to a fictitious Swiss biologist named Wilson Edwards.Advertisement
In July, when the operation began, Mr Wilson’s profile claimed US officials were using “enormous pressure and even intimidation” to get scientists to back calls for renewed investigations into the origin of coronavirus.
Within hours, hundreds of other accounts – some only created only that day – began liking, reposting or linking to the post.
Many of the accounts were later found to be fake, with some of the users posing as westerners and others using likely fabricated profile photos.
Facebook said it found links between the accounts and a tech firm based in Chengdu, China, as well as to overseas employees of Chinese infrastructure companies.
Within a week of the initial post, large media outlets in China were reporting on the claims as if they had been made by a real scientist.
The operation was exposed when Swiss authorities announced in August that they had no record of any biologist with that name.
In all, Meta removed about 600 accounts on Facebook and Instagram that were linked to the network.
China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said in the past that the country’s government does not employ trickery on social media.
Coronavirus emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019 before spreading around the world.
Different governments, experts and organisations, including the US, have suggested the virus may have come from a lab leak in the city – a claim China vehemently denies.
That theory was dismissed by a team led by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that spent four weeks in and around Wuhan in January and February.
However, their report, released in March, was criticised for not finding sufficient evidence to discard the idea – and the WHO’s director-general has since said there had been a “premature push” to rule out the lab leak theory.
The US carried out their own investigation and came to the same conclusion.
Meta: UK competition regulator tells Facebook owner to sell GIF library Giphy
The investigation into the acquisition has been acrimonious, with Meta previously being fined £50m by the CMA for deliberately refusing to comply with the regulator’s inquiries.
Facebook’s owner Meta has been issued a legally binding order to sell the GIF library Giphy after an investigation found the takeover “could harm social media users and UK advertisers”.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched an in-depth investigation into the deal in April after raising a number of concerns. It subsequently warned of the potential forced sale in August.
Giphy – a website for making and sharing animated images, known as GIFs – was acquired by Facebook (now Meta) in May last year to integrate the GIFs with Instagram, but the CMA has now ordered the acquisition to be unravelled.
Sky News understands Facebook intends to appeal the CMA’s decision. It has four weeks to do so and the appeal would go to a the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which is independent of the CMA.
Meta could potentially challenge that ruling in the UK courts, but only on points of law.Advertisement
Stuart McIntosh, who chaired the independent inquiry into the acquisition, said: “The tie-up between Facebook and Giphy has already removed a potential challenger in the display advertising market.
“Without action, it will also allow Facebook to increase its significant market power in social media even further, through controlling competitors’ access to Giphy GIFs.
“By requiring Facebook to sell Giphy, we are protecting millions of social media users and promoting competition and innovation in digital advertising,” Mr McIntosh explained.
The investigation into the acquisition has seen points of acrimony, with Meta being fined a record £50m by the CMA for deliberately refusing to comply with the regulator’s inquiries.
Meta argued that it has been in compliance with the competition watchdog’s primary orders at all times.
At the time of the fine, the company complained that the CMA delayed for seven months a request to amend these orders which was eventually agreed in what the company described as nearly an identical manner to what had been requested.
When Facebook first merged with Giphy it terminated the image library’s advertising services, “removing an important source of potential competition” according to the CMA.
This was considered “particularly concerning given that Facebook controls nearly half of the £7 billion display advertising market in the UK”.
However in Meta’s response to the preliminary findings, the social media giant described the acquisition as a simple vertical merger and said that Giphy was financially troubled and suggested that its attempts to monetise its GIF library for display advertising were unsuccessful.
“If GIF paid alignments were the promising business model that the CMA believes they are, then one would expect to encounter them in the real-world at scale… Yet that is not the case,” the response stated.
According to the regulator, the acquisition potentially also enabled the social media giant to change the terms of access to the GIF library for its competitors.
“For example, Facebook could require Giphy customers, such as TikTok, Twitter and Snapchat, to provide more user data in order to access Giphy GIFs.
“Such actions could increase Facebook’s market power, which is already significant,” the regulator said.
In its review of the merger, the CMA said it risked entrenching Meta’s market dominance, noting that its platforms (Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) already accounted for 73% of all user time spent on social media in the UK.
A spokesperson for Meta said: “We disagree with this decision. We are reviewing the decision and considering all options, including appeal. Both consumers and Giphy are better off with the support of our infrastructure, talent, and resources.
“Together, Meta and Giphy would enhance Giphy’s product for the millions of people, businesses, developers and API partners in the UK and around the world who use Giphy every day, providing more choices for everyone.”
COVID-19: Mild and moderate cases during pregnancy doesn’t harm babies’ brains, finds study
Parents should be reassured, there is “no evidence that a maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection has any effect on the brain development of the unborn child” say scientists.
Mild and moderate coronavirus infections in pregnant women appear to have no effect on the brain of the developing foetus according to a new study.
Two years into the COVID-19 pandemic “there is evidence that pregnant women are more vulnerable” to the coronavirus, according to a study presented to the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA).
The new study aims to identify what the possible consequences are for the unborn child if the mother is infected during pregnancy, and to study the likelihood of the virus being passed on to the foetus.
“Women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy are concerned that the virus may affect the development of their unborn child, as is the case with some other viral infections,” said Dr Sophia Stoecklein, senior author of the study.Advertisement
“So far, although there are a few reports of vertical transmission to the foetus, the exact risk and impact remain largely unclear,” added Dr Stoecklein, from the department of radiology at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich.
“The aim of our study was to fill this gap in knowledge regarding the impact of a maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection on foetal brain development,” she added.
MRI scans were used to study 33 pregnant women who were infected with COVID-19 during their pregnancy, with the women roughly 28 weeks into the pregnancies at the time of the scan.
The scans were evaluated by radiologists with years of experience in foetal MRIs who found that the brain development in the assessed areas was age-appropriate in all of the children, with no findings indicating any infection affected the brains.
“In our study, there was no evidence that a maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection has any effect on the brain development of the unborn child,” Dr Stoecklein said. “This fact should help to reassure affected parents.”
But she cautioned that only mothers with mild to moderate symptoms who were not hospitalised were included in the study, meaning the impact of “severe infection on brain development in the foetus has not been conclusively determined”.