How did dorsey stand up to anything? They are trying to monetize twitter just as much, with extremely annoying dark patterns to boot. They just don't seem to succeed as well. The way they redesigned feeds, made linking to tweets a coin toss because of how often they just show "oops something went wrong" if you aren't logged in, or if you are lucky made it so Twitter threads just don't show anything but the single linked tweet. I'm not sure if trying and failing to grow and monetize like facebook counts
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.
Even then, he waited at the last minute to make sure there was no possible retaliation. Sure, that's a good business move. But how does that prove any courage? It's the opposite. At least zuck can say that he wants to keep his platform open, that facebook is open to challenging point of views or whatever but that Trump didn't leave them a choice at that point....and he'd at least be coherent. Dorsey can't, because he mostly doesn't care for any "big idea" that isn't related to his weird crypto fascination. So I guess I was wrong & he did show a backbone for something... Consistently not doing anything about crypto spam. Afterall, Twitter is notorious for being filled with crypto scams and being ground zero for most shady crypto schemes!
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.
They waited FOREVER to actually ban Trump. A staffer enforced the rules to ban him well before that and Jack's organization courageously reversed it. Until they finally banned him, they openly violated their own rules for years to keep him on for attention.
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.