And it's not like he has shown some sort of political backbone either. Twitter is much much more of a political cesspool, and has an odd persuasive influence on real life politics that facebook posts just doesn't have. And that's with Twitter being pretty okay with handing out bans and protecting blue checkmarks (and it's obvious they have a very heavy biais when it comes to who they verify). I'm genuinely puzzled that you can see dorsey as having stood up for pretty much anything.
I know this is very unpopular but while Zuckerberg has obviously no problem with turning his platform into a creepy ad filled universe he controls, he's still infinitely more "backboned". 99% of the attention fb or Zuckerberg are getting is due to their (relatively) unwavering obsession with their vision of free speech and an open platform. Every single major media platform on pretty much both sides has been trashing him and facebook for the past 4 years. He could've gone the dorsey way of just yielding and taking the very easy path of doing whatever to make the controversy go away but he didn't. You can agree or disagree with his stance, but at least he has one (again, I'm not talking about the monetization or ad side). If he didnt, the past 4 years would've been a breeze for him and Meta. Remember, most of the mainstream controversy has been about allowing fake news, wrong think, how the platform is moderated, how meta is totally why the other side won... The privacy/tracking/advertising issues have been mostly ignored in comparison (they probably have been covered extensively on HN but that's an outlier) unless they overlapped with a political tribe issue.
Here's an example off the top of my head. Banning Trump I felt was pretty courageous.
After years of letting him say whatever he wanted, they waited until the opposing party was firmly seated and the threat of retaliation was lowest. Good move tactically I guess but it took no bravery.
Wasting tons of his time and resources on promoting cryptocurrency + NFTs was also actively bad for the Twitter ecosystem - it creates lots of negative sentiment and attention that distracts from features relevant to the rest of the userbase. These days I periodically see high-profile Twitter accounts being hijacked by hackers in order to boost crypto and NFTs and when you read coverage of NFTs in the news it's often about scams - why would you willingly associate Twitter with that kind of negative buzz when you could wait until it's settled down?
What issues have you had with Twitter's v2 apis[0].
[0]https://developer.twitter.com/en/docs/twitter-api/getting-st...
By blocking any 3rd party use of Twitter and making it impossible to write your own clients? It's more like he Killed the eco-system
people on the opposite side of the privileged class are barely allowed to exist on those platforms - only if they police their speech very carefully to avoid breaking a myriad of vague and unwritten rules, and even then they're still subject to being unpersoned for some perceived offense committed off-platform.
I'm having trouble understanding what any of this means
Also this: https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-ny-post-remains-...
Zero hedge was locked: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-bans-zero-hedge-coronav...
Trump was deplatformed of course, so everything he has to say.
Search through this for examples, I see a lot of ctrl-F "right" results fwiw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
I did go through the "Ctrl-F" for the link, and it was a list of terrorists, Holocaust deniers, neo nazis, and hate speech. I don't think being a conservative necessarily entails any of these things either, even if they are often linked to being "*-right."
I guess i should have just responded with the NYPost thing, which is the only thing I recalled initially, given it was particularly egregious right before an election and even Dorsey admitted it was a mistake: https://nypost.com/2020/11/17/jack-dorsey-admits-lockout-of-...
It's hard to convey intent over text, but I couldn't be more genuine in my curiosity. Accidentally setting "off a COVID misinformation ML classifier" is a legitimate concern. Are otherwise appropriate posts being misclassified as misinformation? And wouldn't that be of concern to folks across the political spectrum? Same goes for flagging posts; this seems like a concern that isn't restricted to a single political position.
I personally think these media platforms are evolving policies that will be enforced selectively (e.g. NYpost account frozen for writing a story involving "hacked" materials) based on the bias of the people enforcing the rules (well that's really a violation of our policies, but that other post isn't because of nuance, that nuance really just a reflection of bias in either the classifier, or human being making final judgement call).
Not sure what you're talking about. Can you provide examples/evidence?
Twitter's rules enforcement is historically EXTREMELY casual, the only thing I can think of is that they are relatively consistent about punishing death threats regardless of context. Even then, they let some of that slide. Very often a rules violation just results in a tweet being deleted or marked with a disclaimer, not a ban - few services would treat rules violations that way.
oh, that's a great example, actually. as far as I vaguely recall from the times before the pandemic, expressing skepticism or criticism towards the government and corporations was not against the rules.
>Twitter's rules enforcement is historically EXTREMELY casual
yes - for the privileged class, twitter does indeed "let some of that slide".