One of my most libbed up opinions: Twitter under Jack Dorsey was… probably about as “good” as one can expect from a privately run, “for profit” (on paper anyway. I don’t think Twitter’s model is ever profitable in and of itself) “general use” social media app and company.
Good is relative obviously compared to… Twitter now with daily incantations from Mein Kampf being boosted to millions of viewers. Same goes for Facebook, Instagram (also “Meta” owned), YouTube comments, 99% of Reddit. If anyone or any company ever tries to actually abide by “both sides have extremes” it seemed to be Dorsey’s goal. I don’t agree with the goal for ideological and I’d argue moral reasons, but, he did ban the outright and obvious Nazis. The bar is in Hell here, but, libbed up opinion, “he was the lesser of the evils!” We finally found who should’ve been president…
And by general use I mean seeks to bring in a broad audience and isn’t explicitly going to be favoring certain ideological viewpoints. Of course it still favored liberalism as that’s the default “western” stance, to defend western governments and such, but again,… an attempt was made. It was imperfect, even “bad” most of the time, but the bar is deep inside Satan’s rectum on this topic.
If we had tribunals for the creators, major investors and owners of these rancid platforms, and I were a judge (which obviously I would be 👀), I’d argue for leniency for Dorsey. Let him be a humble miner for the rest of his life. Musk, Zuckerberg, that Tom guy from MySpace… well… I am censored on their fates
This is the part where I’ve set myself up to have someone come in and inform me that Dorsey is a suspected serial murderer or some shit
I think they were potentially referring to Native or Indigenous American genocides in the Americas. When the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics came they justified enslaving and genociding the natives under the justification from the Spanish monarch at the time that basically Catholics (interestingly of any race/ethnic group) were not allowed to suffer under slavery or be slaughtered… but non-Catholics weren’t protected under this decree/law/whatever it was.
This actually is credited with the “invention” of racism as we know it now days. If anyone could theoretically convert to Catholicism and escape slavery, that was bad for the slavers. So they slowly moved over to a race-based, ethnicity-based system of chattel slavery where one’s ancestry determined one’s place in the world forever with no chance of upward mobility. Obviously the English and other first European settlers in what became the United States took the racism to the inevitable maximum endpoint and now over 150 years out from the formal abolishment of chattel slavery the effects of the racist systems still remain.
Anyway, I think if the reference was to Gaza or Palestine the more correct statement would be “because they aren’t Jewish.” Because that’s ultimately the “problem” for the state of Israel and their pursuit of a permanent Jewish ethnic/religious majority. Palestinians could believe in Hinduism or Christianity or whatever else but at the end of the day the “issue” is they aren’t Jewish. Just like white supremacists are concerned only with white/non-white dynamics. Acknowledging this also demonstrates why the “it’s an ancient war!” idiots are dead wrong. Well, another way of demonstrating that fact. It has nothing to do with what they are and everything to do with what they are not. Again, the same as white supremacy. You’re either white or you aren’t. You’re in the protected oppressor group or you aren’t