4 ms·

Just as Dorsey was influenced by that abstract force you mention as 'illiberal consensus' because of fear of different factors (political, employee/stakeholders

by lalos 4y ago

Just as Dorsey was influenced by that abstract force you mention as 'illiberal consensus' because of fear of different factors (political, employee/stakeholders, financial consequences). Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. It was beneficial to be for the ban before, and now it is beneficial to be against it. Dorsey was the CEO. It is business, after all. Sounds like your argument (or conspiracy theories) and mine aren't that different. Just to be explicit for all the rabid fans, I'm not against Thiel, Musk, Zuckerberg or any other tech CEO. On the contrary, they have so much impact and are involved in multiple projects in so little time. I'm not proposing any conspiracy of them wanting to control us or whatever straw-man argument others are injecting on my comment. It's interesting to see this deal unfold from a business perspective with all the different stakeholders involved, and the flip-flopping of Dorsey's decisions.

wutbrodo 4y ago
> Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. I don't know if you did this intentionally, but there's some rhetorical sleight-of-hand here that prevents it from cohering logically. This isn't a case of "not contradicting" the new buyer. Dorsey _actively tweeted out_ that he supported reversing the Trump ban. If he had simply not spoken on the issue at all, how on Earth would you consider that "contradicting the person he is selling to"? Note that in the converse scenario, he never actively tweeted out that he happened to personally agree with increasing speech restrictions. There's a pretty obvious asymmetry here: a period of silent assent with heavier speech codes vs active support for lighter speech codes (where the latter is also consistent with tangentially-expressed personal views).
- lalos 4y ago
  I meant to say this: - Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. - Now Musk goes out and says he would revert. - Even in the wild case (I personally think it is not the case) which Jack fervently would still believe that the ban should go on, why do it? why add drama to a business deal and say "no, Musk is wrong"? that would just sour the whole business deal that he would benefit from. Or why would anyone be antagonistic to someone on the other side of the table, this applies to any other business deal not just this. - Reporters or anybody would naturally question Jack, hey the new owner is saying this do you want to go on the record about why the new owner is against something that happened on your command? Paraphrasing: "Yes, I agree with him now, lets move on". Very diplomatic and 'correct' answer from his part.
  - dmatech 4y ago
    It's not improbable that he was privately opposed to it, but he had to be publicly in favor of it in order to not undercut people like Vijaya Gadde and Del Harvey. Remember that Dorsey was also CEO of Square at the time and doing a bunch of crypto stuff. Dealing with Twitter drama was probably not the hill he wanted to die on.
  - tomlin 4y ago
    – Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. No. He's even commented on this. He was CEO at the time, with a board of directors. He didn't "enact" it any more than any CEO "enacts" every single decision at any company.

by lalos 4y ago

wutbrodo 4y ago

> Dorsey is now influenced by the likely new owner of Twitter because of fear of different factors (stakeholders, financial consequences), he wants the deal to go through he will not go on the record and contradict the person he is selling to. I don't know if you did this intentionally, but there's some rhetorical sleight-of-hand here that prevents it from cohering logically. This isn't a case of "not contradicting" the new buyer. Dorsey _actively tweeted out_ that he supported reversing the Trump ban. If he had simply not spoken on the issue at all, how on Earth would you consider that "contradicting the person he is selling to"? Note that in the converse scenario, he never actively tweeted out that he happened to personally agree with increasing speech restrictions. There's a pretty obvious asymmetry here: a period of silent assent with heavier speech codes vs active support for lighter speech codes (where the latter is also consistent with tangentially-expressed personal views).

lalos 4y ago
I meant to say this: - Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. - Now Musk goes out and says he would revert. - Even in the wild case (I personally think it is not the case) which Jack fervently would still believe that the ban should go on, why do it? why add drama to a business deal and say "no, Musk is wrong"? that would just sour the whole business deal that he would benefit from. Or why would anyone be antagonistic to someone on the other side of the table, this applies to any other business deal not just this. - Reporters or anybody would naturally question Jack, hey the new owner is saying this do you want to go on the record about why the new owner is against something that happened on your command? Paraphrasing: "Yes, I agree with him now, lets move on". Very diplomatic and 'correct' answer from his part.
- dmatech 4y ago
  It's not improbable that he was privately opposed to it, but he had to be publicly in favor of it in order to not undercut people like Vijaya Gadde and Del Harvey. Remember that Dorsey was also CEO of Square at the time and doing a bunch of crypto stuff. Dealing with Twitter drama was probably not the hill he wanted to die on.
- tomlin 4y ago
  – Back then Jack, active CEO, enacted this ban. No. He's even commented on this. He was CEO at the time, with a board of directors. He didn't "enact" it any more than any CEO "enacts" every single decision at any company.