><i>In this as in so many other things, Twitter hasn’t paid its Slack bill. But that’s not why Slack went down: someone at Twitter manually shut off access, we’re told. Platformer was not able to learn the reason prior to publication, though the move suggests Musk may have turned against the communication app — or at least wants to see if Twitter can run without Slack and the expenses associated with it.</i><p>I'd bet that it's not the insignificant cost of Slack for Twitter licenses that's the issue (even if it might be used as an excuse), but control. Musk doesn't want internal communications sent to some outside third party. And he's have them develop some internal chat or get a self-hosted option.<p>Even if I am wrong, and it could be the cost, this alternative should have been considered in the article (as well as others).<p>In general, the article is a total case of "uncharitable interpreation".<p>><i>Another worker called the disappearance of Slack the “proverbial final straw.”</i><p>So, that guy survived mass layoffs, accepted lots of changes to the company and mission, and didn't quit, but Slack being removed is what really got him?<p>Or did The Verge specifically looked around for clowns to quote?