Plumbers and Smart TVs are straw men. A more apt comparison might be: Your mail carrier who was recorded stating they only deliver mail to your address that the

Plumbers and Smart TVs are straw men. A more apt comparison might be: Your mail carrier who was recorded stating they only deliver mail to your address that they feel you should see. > you're clinging to That's a pretty grand assumption. I'm not clinging to anything. I'm simply stating "how can you make this assertion when there are recordings of people who make decisions for the userbase, claiming they do so based on the thing you're asserting they don't care about?" On the contrary, it would seem that you desperately want the inverse to be true. It's a fair question. To say that they're the small minority doesn't discount the fact that they exist. It honestly wouldn't matter the persuasion of these people in the context. "People there don't care about X" -> videos of people saying their actions at said company are based on X -> assertion is false. If Twitter truly didn't care about activism - regardless of the slant - as part of their core business decision making, then they'd purge these people from their ranks, or make it wildly transparent that decisions weren't being executed by people who have broadcast their slant as influencing their work. I don't know about you; whenever I've stepped outside my bounds of what the company wanted to accomplish, I was put back in place pretty quickly. > You can choose to believe in that conspiracy theory style stuff To paint any discussion as tin-foil conspiracy is to attempt to shut down the debate, which speaks to your disingenuous intentions and entering the debate in bad faith. This is a great example of one of the problems with discourse right now. The argument sounds nice but evidence to the contrary exists, no matter how isolated, and has never been addressed by the company publicly. If the company had taken disciplinary measures in response to the recordings, had published procedures, quite literally a bare minimum of transparency, I would personally be very likely to dismiss them as isolated incidents. As it stands, combined with speech from leadership, it does look very much like the company supports and defends bad actors internally. And the twitter thread doesn't appear to hold much water.