The amount of media attention to the layoffs seems disproportional to the number of people actually laid off no? 1000 people? There's high schools with more than that. Local to twitter yeah that's a big fraction. But compared to the economy? That's peanuts.
The context makes the news: the world's richest man offered to buy a company that was very obviously unprofitable for much more than it was worth, tried to back out, was compelled to honor his contract, and is now callously cutting every cost he can in an effort to redeem his ridiculous mistake.
Besides, this is no longer receiving front-page attention by national newspapers. The first wave of layoffs did for the reason above; this follow-on article is by a city newspaper in a city where Twitter has lots of employees. It's an obvious story.
What am I missing?