3 ms·
It’s pretty clear that the policy was heavily driven by connections and with 97%+ employees donating to the Democrats (edit:of employees who donated), it’s obvi
by refurb 4y ago
It’s pretty clear that the policy was heavily driven by connections and with 97%+ employees donating to the Democrats (edit:of employees who donated), it’s obvious which party had the ear of executives.
What’s even more damning is how their own internal folks are sounding the alarm “how can we possibly defend this decision” and yet the decision stood.
It’s pretty clear that Twitter had a very strong alignment to one political party and that resulted in the deliberate suppression of an important news story right before an election.
It’s pretty scandalous.
- madeofpalk 4y ago> 97%+ employees donating to the Democrats 97% of Twitter (US?) employees donated to the Democrats? Is it normal for approximately 100% of your staff to donate to a party? This seems quite odd to me.
- afavour 4y agoYou’re conflating a few things there. It surely isn’t 97% of Twitter employees donating to Democrats. It’s 97% of donations by Twitter employees going to Democrats. I’d imagine the actual percentage of Twitter employees who donate to anyone is pretty low. Plus you’re then drawing a direct line from that to access to execs. IMO that needs specific evidence. Plenty of tech execs are well connected to both parties, because they’re, you know, rich elites.