Ends don’t justify the means. And this has nothing to do with institutional problems, and more with the fact that if original author (or you for that matter) d

Ends don’t justify the means. And this has nothing to do with institutional problems, and more with the fact that if original author (or you for that matter) don’t like how Twitter became, simply don’t use it and try to convince others not to as well, that way Twitter might change what it’s doing. If you’re going to go along and still pretend like you’re not in agreement, people won’t buy your sentiment for long, especially if you’re building tools to enrich it. I’m not saying you can’t build your product, but own what you’re selling, it’s hypocritical to do that while blaming Elon or new Twitter for what you’re building as if you’re not the one who came up with the idea and made the choice. I would recommend you look into a Ludwig bin Mises book called Human Action, where he discusses purposeful behavior as distinguished from reflexive behavior in that an observer imputes a goal to the actor. For an action to occur, the actor must be in a state of unease, imagine a more satisfactory state, and believe that purposeful behavior can reduce the uneasiness So back to my original point, if you’re going to “hate the system” yet participate not only in existing in it, but producing tools to empower it and it’s methods, then you are part of it and it’s hypocritical to complain about it. As for your own comment, I think your ideological hold is roaring, calling my comment a waste of energy just because you disagree also shows high tendency for being shallow and oppressive. What you think is the point and the actual problem might actually not be, other people can disagree and share their moral value judgments. What you see as division is actually conversation, a way for any human to grow and learn. I hope you grow more eloquent in your methods of expressing yourself in the future.