It's unclear to me (no sarcasm) why tech debt is an issue. I would be grateful if someone could explain why they would need to cut down on tech debt in order to keep the product in a functional holding pattern. Obviously there are going to be things that break and new exploits that need to be taken into consideration, but when I think about tech debt I imagine kludge-ridden, inelegant/inefficient code that is poorly documented.

As with Meta and Alphabet, Twitter's major problem right now is ad revenue.

The final earnings report prior to the acquisition stated that uncertainty around Musk's then-incomplete acquisition of Twitter contributed to a dip in ad revenue. Perhaps it was counterproductive for Twitter to put that sentiment in writing as part of their note to shareholders, insofar as it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They communicated to the public -- including advertisers -- that advertisers would hesitate to continue advertising on Twitter due to the pending deal (and, inductively, that they have good reason to do so).

As with Meta, Twitter's revenue derives almost entirely from its ad business. Other ad-funded tech firms have faced similar headwinds in 2022, so if Twitter is facing a one-two punch of deal uncertainty and secular headwinds, it seems wise to batten down the hatches by reducing operating expenses. The product is mature, user growth is not driven by sales staff, and advertisers are tightening their respective belts.

I'm not sure what the percent breakdown of terminated employees is by business area (looked for it and couldn't find it), but if you have staff dedicated to keeping Twitter clean and inoffensive in order to keep advertisers happy, but those same advertisers are already shying away and forecasts suggest they will continue to do so, then cutting staff in those areas is not entirely bonkers.