Jack Dorsey is absolutely an enemy, but it's doubtful he actually had the power to stop Twitter from becoming what it is. If he had tried to allow correct pronouns for troons, he would have been canceled and forced to step down.
Twitter went public in 2013. There is no way he would have been allowed to remain as CEO if he pushed back on people such as Vijaya Gadde.
Spez: Some examples of canceling CEOs: John Gibson, CEO of Tripwire Interactive, removed for tweeting support of Texas abortion ban; John Schattner, founder of Papa Johns Pizza, removed for saying nigger on a conference call; Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozzila, removed for donating to a campaign against gay marriage.
This. I went to a tech conference where Alexis Ohanian and Brent Herd were headliners. The whole conference was about how to get different rounds of funding. Basically... how to sell your tech company. These "founders" don't really own their companies very long, and have to sway with the investors to keep their position. Yes, Jack is to blame, but it would have happened without him.
The bourgeoisie is propertied, local, attenuated, and independent. The proletariat is propertyless, national or even international, expansive, and dependent. The bourgeoisie's power was fundamentally rooted in ownership and domination of physical space, while the proletariat is subject to whims and approval of the indivual or organizations that employ them.
The bourgeoisie no longer exists. Even physical real estate that is nominally owned requires yearly payments and government approval to develop, which is more akin to a lease. The modern managerial class, to which founders/CEOs belong, is a proletarianized elite. Larry Fink and his ilk are no less subject to this fact, as his power is derived from managerial control of assets that he fundamentally does not own; it is the collective property of the individual investors and organizations who have entrusted him with managing their capital, in other words the People.
We live in a world where the People own the means of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The "trans lobby" is just the mask that the deep state wears. Im willing to bet they'd have done something worse to him than cancelling if he didnt obey
I think the biggest factor is people's refusal to adopt new technology, which led to post-industrialization, which led to death of communities, which led to most of the issues faced in the world today.
You take an enlightened view. We can hate on Dorsey for being a creepy soy faggot all we want but at the end of the day he, his god forsaken platform and our decaying civilisation are only the result of ideas and processes taken to their logical ends.
Mandating "correct" pronoun usage is separate from the technical and business reasons why twitter isn't an open standard/protocol like email or IRC. Jack Dorsey absolutely had the authority to mandate twitter be an open platform, but then his company would have been less attractive to VC firms and may never have gone public. He wanted to maximize his chances of a big payout, so that's the choice he made. That's not a "capitalism" problem; that's a "Jack Dorsey" problem.
Western intelligence agencies are merely tools of the puppet masters.
Dorsey is probably a pedo and he knows if he displeases his masters and if his website isn't facilitating them to control the narrative he will be arrested and someone who will can be in his job within the hour. The people who work for the CIA or the Atlantic council or whoever know they'll be suicided or outed as a pedo if they don't do their jobs for the same masters.
Why would they need to even bother? Look at how stupid people were with other social media platforms like Facebook. Zuckerberg mentioned he didn't even need to ask for personal info because the users were handing it over so willingly. Same thing applies with Twitter users giving the world a live feed of their foremost thoughts without any consideration to the consequences.
So spy agencies could have set up social media companies as a massive entrapment plan but really all that was needed was to give the world a microphone and sit back while all the unhinged thoughts of humanity spilled out.
You know it's probably irrelevant what he stands for even if he is a hypocrite. It's quite obvious to me most of these CEO's are scared of vocal activist types who permeate their workforces (although probably don't actually produce anything) and that they are being leaned on from above to set the agenda for what their platforms do. Dorsey could be easily #MeToo'd or arrested for child pornography or pedophilia or whatever else degenerate that he likes to partake in.
The small era of freedom such as it was online which completely ended in 2017. My guess is the only reason this freedom existed is that the elites were caught off guard at just what a powerful subversive force the internet was. When I first got online in the 90's the internet was for nerds. No one gave a fuck in normieville. Now everyone is on here and now its as shitty as normieville.
The elites in Europe 500 years ago probably didn't hear about Gutenberg and his printing press at first and then probably thought it was a gimmick which would never catch on. Then the elites shit themselves and realised it must be totally controlled to prevent any kind of genuine opposition forming to their agenda. In the case of the printing press they couldn't really stop it. New elites had to rise up and adapt.
Social media and women are a terrible mix. Women used to get their validation from the people in the community, their friends, family, and neighbors. Now they can get instant validation from everyone on the internet. That's why so many women are addicted to social media. It's also why online dating is so bad for men. In reality, women are forced to chose a mate before all the men are taken (there's a great video about this on Jordan Peterson's Youtube channel), but online, women are offered a near endless stream of potential suitors, and thus never settle down, always striving to get a better man. This results in the top 80% of women pursuing only the top 20% of men, with the vast majority of men being left out in the cold, and women unintentionally turning themselves into harems.
This results in the top 80% of women pursuing only the top 20% of men
This has been the case since prehistory. Reproduction for women is biologically expensive, it makes sense for them to be as selective as they can be, selecting the "strongest".
Civilization requires "oppression" of a woman's natural inclinations to fuck chad(s) and using social and cultural (and sometimes physical) means to pair her off with below a 80% man.
The below 80% men get a mate without having to fight for her and civilization benefits from men who labor or specialize in trades other than warfare.
"Womens' Rights" is the rolling back of this social contract and removing any obstacles to women egagin in their primary directives: 1. fuck chad, 2. attention whore, 3. avoid accountability.
We would all prefer to get a top tier mate, but that's impossible in real life. Top tier mates can choose anyone they wish to partner with, but they almost universally choose other top tier mates. The people that are left do the same, down the line, until everyone is coupled. That's why the study of real life dating (in person) that Jordan Peterson showed is so important. It showed that even though everyone was highly selective, once people began to couple, and were removed from the dating market, it forced women to choose and settle down, otherwise they would be left alone, which is far more dangerous than selecting a less attractive mate than they would otherwise prefer. This resulted in women settling with a man relatively within their attractiveness range, rather than constantly pursuing top tier men.
This is why social media and dating apps are so bad for men, and women. It gives women a nearly endless supply of top tier men, and thus they are never forced to settle. It's also why the constant sexual degeneracy and attack on traditional marriage is so crucial for globalists.
No a de-emphasis on developing open protocols and emphasis on developing closed services is what damaged it. Usenet, IRC, HTTP, SMTP/POP3/IMAP were all protocols that anyone could implement and provide services for. And they all (for the most part) interoperated with each other despite being run by corporations.
Twitter decided that it wanted to provide a service and then actively discouraged people who attempted to interoperate with their service in ways that weren't approved by Twitter. These are technical and business decisions that can absolutely be laid at the feet of Jack Dorsey, yet in typical leftist fashion he wants to blame "corporations". No Jack, you were the one responsible for those decisions.
You could have chosen to publish an open specification for micro-blogging platforms and simply been a service provider (perhaps even the primary one) implementing that protocol. You didn't. Perhaps you had good reasons for not doing that, but that was a conscious decision you made as Chief Executive. Own it.
Right. It would have been simple to decentralize their authentication service and open up the api so multiple services couldve leveraged the "twitter protocol" and made a whole new open global network..... but that would have weakened his power over your thoughts. He couldn't have that.
Fine and dandy to regret it (because everything was fuckloads better before the Eternal September), but exactly what the hell will he be doing to make up for what he did?
Exactly zero.
This is just another performative act by someone knowing they're universally reviled by a good half of the Internet. He doesn't get to play the "I'm sowwy" card and get away with it.
Ok, so what will you do about this? Fund and support projects and legislation to halt the centralisation of power?
On a related note, can anyone suggest any reading/ watching material that documents the transformation and/ or decline of the internet? Reading up on the Eternal September was very interesting to me.
While I agree lots of the problems in the world have natural causes, but you can't deny that the cabal is involved in much of it, either by directly causing the problem or inflaming natural causes to make the problems worse, to their benefit. There's a bit of evidence to support the theory that most modern social media platforms have either been directly started up by cabal, or taken over by the cabal.
I remember being on Livejournal in the early to mid 00's and I don't remember exactly happened because its so long ago but I remember there being a mass exodus of certain people off of there to Tumblr. Knowing some of the people who left I could see Tumblr would become some weird kind of hyper feminist cult.
The cultural momentum that carried on after that ended in 2007. It really does seem to have been the high point but also the end for the internet as it was in my era. I used to participate on half a dozen different forums in that era. People generally footed the bills to run them out of their own pocket. Moderators were volunteers. It was about people who loved something and about community.
It's all about large corporate IP owners manufacturing consensus and armies of bots and PR firms astroturfing everything to push their preferred narratives. Everything is just low quality corporate slop now.
I suppose 2007-2017 was an interesting era for the internet. There was still some freedom on the internet but corporate platforms probably used it as a lure to get to a certain market share and then it was just a matter of time before they could instigate a turn key tyranny. We had a surprisingly good run I suppose. The arab spring was organised on social media. The populist uprisings from Gamergate to Brexit to Trump. The results were pretty sub optimal but the elites had certainly lost control of the narrative and really shit themselves after 2016.
Each successive crisis in the system will be used to crack down on new forms of "misinformation" - medical, political. I'm sure the next will be economic misinformation when people start complaining there is no bread on the shelves and petrol is not available at any price. After that - who even knows.
Jack Dorsey is absolutely an enemy, but it's doubtful he actually had the power to stop Twitter from becoming what it is. If he had tried to allow correct pronouns for troons, he would have been canceled and forced to step down.
Twitter went public in 2013. There is no way he would have been allowed to remain as CEO if he pushed back on people such as Vijaya Gadde.
Spez: Some examples of canceling CEOs: John Gibson, CEO of Tripwire Interactive, removed for tweeting support of Texas abortion ban; John Schattner, founder of Papa Johns Pizza, removed for saying nigger on a conference call; Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozzila, removed for donating to a campaign against gay marriage.
Papa John was removed for saying nigger in a non racist context.
The left doesn't care about context until it's their head on the chopping block.
This. I went to a tech conference where Alexis Ohanian and Brent Herd were headliners. The whole conference was about how to get different rounds of funding. Basically... how to sell your tech company. These "founders" don't really own their companies very long, and have to sway with the investors to keep their position. Yes, Jack is to blame, but it would have happened without him.
The bourgeoisie is propertied, local, attenuated, and independent. The proletariat is propertyless, national or even international, expansive, and dependent. The bourgeoisie's power was fundamentally rooted in ownership and domination of physical space, while the proletariat is subject to whims and approval of the indivual or organizations that employ them.
The bourgeoisie no longer exists. Even physical real estate that is nominally owned requires yearly payments and government approval to develop, which is more akin to a lease. The modern managerial class, to which founders/CEOs belong, is a proletarianized elite. Larry Fink and his ilk are no less subject to this fact, as his power is derived from managerial control of assets that he fundamentally does not own; it is the collective property of the individual investors and organizations who have entrusted him with managing their capital, in other words the People.
We live in a world where the People own the means of production under a dictatorship of the proletariat.
The "trans lobby" is just the mask that the deep state wears. Im willing to bet they'd have done something worse to him than cancelling if he didnt obey
Bradley Manning MK Ultra
Yep. Can't blame the individual priests for what the whole structure is designed to promulgate.
I think the biggest factor is people's refusal to adopt new technology, which led to post-industrialization, which led to death of communities, which led to most of the issues faced in the world today.
You take an enlightened view. We can hate on Dorsey for being a creepy soy faggot all we want but at the end of the day he, his god forsaken platform and our decaying civilisation are only the result of ideas and processes taken to their logical ends.
Hell march intensifies.
Mandating "correct" pronoun usage is separate from the technical and business reasons why twitter isn't an open standard/protocol like email or IRC. Jack Dorsey absolutely had the authority to mandate twitter be an open platform, but then his company would have been less attractive to VC firms and may never have gone public. He wanted to maximize his chances of a big payout, so that's the choice he made. That's not a "capitalism" problem; that's a "Jack Dorsey" problem.
Jack Dorsey is absolutely an enemy.
he has an anarcho-communist tattoo on his leg. Same as antifa (red/black)
Yea, he isn't some kind of victim who had to be pressured into doing what he did. He was either fully on board or a driving force behind it.
Source on the tat BTW: https://pagesix.com/2021/06/07/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-spotted-with-swimsuit-model-flora-carter/ (middle of the article)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
One theory is that western spy agencies infiltrated twitter and forced their hand.
This explains why NATO employees censored the_donald and why the trustedNewsInitiative banned all facts that promote vaccine hesitancy (even if true)
Something like 2% of users, who are overwhelmingly American, create 80% of the tweets.
Western intelligence agencies are merely tools of the puppet masters.
Dorsey is probably a pedo and he knows if he displeases his masters and if his website isn't facilitating them to control the narrative he will be arrested and someone who will can be in his job within the hour. The people who work for the CIA or the Atlantic council or whoever know they'll be suicided or outed as a pedo if they don't do their jobs for the same masters.
Why would they need to even bother? Look at how stupid people were with other social media platforms like Facebook. Zuckerberg mentioned he didn't even need to ask for personal info because the users were handing it over so willingly. Same thing applies with Twitter users giving the world a live feed of their foremost thoughts without any consideration to the consequences.
So spy agencies could have set up social media companies as a massive entrapment plan but really all that was needed was to give the world a microphone and sit back while all the unhinged thoughts of humanity spilled out.
You know it's probably irrelevant what he stands for even if he is a hypocrite. It's quite obvious to me most of these CEO's are scared of vocal activist types who permeate their workforces (although probably don't actually produce anything) and that they are being leaned on from above to set the agenda for what their platforms do. Dorsey could be easily #MeToo'd or arrested for child pornography or pedophilia or whatever else degenerate that he likes to partake in.
The small era of freedom such as it was online which completely ended in 2017. My guess is the only reason this freedom existed is that the elites were caught off guard at just what a powerful subversive force the internet was. When I first got online in the 90's the internet was for nerds. No one gave a fuck in normieville. Now everyone is on here and now its as shitty as normieville.
The elites in Europe 500 years ago probably didn't hear about Gutenberg and his printing press at first and then probably thought it was a gimmick which would never catch on. Then the elites shit themselves and realised it must be totally controlled to prevent any kind of genuine opposition forming to their agenda. In the case of the printing press they couldn't really stop it. New elites had to rise up and adapt.
much like voting and pretty much everything else, it was ruined when women got significantly involved with it
Social media and women are a terrible mix. Women used to get their validation from the people in the community, their friends, family, and neighbors. Now they can get instant validation from everyone on the internet. That's why so many women are addicted to social media. It's also why online dating is so bad for men. In reality, women are forced to chose a mate before all the men are taken (there's a great video about this on Jordan Peterson's Youtube channel), but online, women are offered a near endless stream of potential suitors, and thus never settle down, always striving to get a better man. This results in the top 80% of women pursuing only the top 20% of men, with the vast majority of men being left out in the cold, and women unintentionally turning themselves into harems.
This has been the case since prehistory. Reproduction for women is biologically expensive, it makes sense for them to be as selective as they can be, selecting the "strongest".
Civilization requires "oppression" of a woman's natural inclinations to fuck chad(s) and using social and cultural (and sometimes physical) means to pair her off with below a 80% man.
The below 80% men get a mate without having to fight for her and civilization benefits from men who labor or specialize in trades other than warfare.
"Womens' Rights" is the rolling back of this social contract and removing any obstacles to women egagin in their primary directives: 1. fuck chad, 2. attention whore, 3. avoid accountability.
I agree with you.
We would all prefer to get a top tier mate, but that's impossible in real life. Top tier mates can choose anyone they wish to partner with, but they almost universally choose other top tier mates. The people that are left do the same, down the line, until everyone is coupled. That's why the study of real life dating (in person) that Jordan Peterson showed is so important. It showed that even though everyone was highly selective, once people began to couple, and were removed from the dating market, it forced women to choose and settle down, otherwise they would be left alone, which is far more dangerous than selecting a less attractive mate than they would otherwise prefer. This resulted in women settling with a man relatively within their attractiveness range, rather than constantly pursuing top tier men.
This is why social media and dating apps are so bad for men, and women. It gives women a nearly endless supply of top tier men, and thus they are never forced to settle. It's also why the constant sexual degeneracy and attack on traditional marriage is so crucial for globalists.
Jack gave millions of dollars to Ibram X. Kendi. He can get fucked.
No a de-emphasis on developing open protocols and emphasis on developing closed services is what damaged it. Usenet, IRC, HTTP, SMTP/POP3/IMAP were all protocols that anyone could implement and provide services for. And they all (for the most part) interoperated with each other despite being run by corporations.
Twitter decided that it wanted to provide a service and then actively discouraged people who attempted to interoperate with their service in ways that weren't approved by Twitter. These are technical and business decisions that can absolutely be laid at the feet of Jack Dorsey, yet in typical leftist fashion he wants to blame "corporations". No Jack, you were the one responsible for those decisions.
You could have chosen to publish an open specification for micro-blogging platforms and simply been a service provider (perhaps even the primary one) implementing that protocol. You didn't. Perhaps you had good reasons for not doing that, but that was a conscious decision you made as Chief Executive. Own it.
Step 1: Make money
Step 2: Get power
Step 3: Spread that power
Step 4: Stomp out anyone who challenges your power
Step 5: Oh wow I didn't see this coming, what a mistake, who'da thunk it?
Right. It would have been simple to decentralize their authentication service and open up the api so multiple services couldve leveraged the "twitter protocol" and made a whole new open global network..... but that would have weakened his power over your thoughts. He couldn't have that.
The censor cries in pain as he strikes you.
2022 and he now realizes what has been obvious since 2012.
Strange day where I agree with Twitter Rasputin
Bandalf
Spoliers ahead:
He's fighting the Banlog now.
Instead of falling into pit of obscurity, he makes a deal with the Banlog and returns-- Bandalf the Gay becomes Bandalf the Blight.
Things will get worse.
Consider yourself forewarned.
the black
He made his fortune off of capitalism and now angrily shakes his fist at it. Typical leftist behavior.
does the faggot have a book coming out or something? everybody knows and nobody cares, jack.
Fuck off Jack you slimy cunt… you deserve 0 sympathy from anyone and are just as guilty as the Zucc
Gen-X'er wakes up, realizes he became Eldon Tyrell.
Dorsey is a bearded reptilian cuck. FJB, and F this guy. May his pancreas gain green. 😬
Fine and dandy to regret it (because everything was fuckloads better before the Eternal September), but exactly what the hell will he be doing to make up for what he did?
Exactly zero.
This is just another performative act by someone knowing they're universally reviled by a good half of the Internet. He doesn't get to play the "I'm sowwy" card and get away with it.
Dude doesn’t even have a clue how much damage he has done
Ok, so what will you do about this? Fund and support projects and legislation to halt the centralisation of power?
On a related note, can anyone suggest any reading/ watching material that documents the transformation and/ or decline of the internet? Reading up on the Eternal September was very interesting to me.
True, but much of the problem has also been centralization. Whether facebook/twitter/reddit/youtube, or just everyone using google to search the web.
also because YouTube was bought by Google, and they do heavy political manipulation
That's the second problem that ruins everything: once something becomes big enough it draws the attention of the parasites, the social justice crowd.
While I agree lots of the problems in the world have natural causes, but you can't deny that the cabal is involved in much of it, either by directly causing the problem or inflaming natural causes to make the problems worse, to their benefit. There's a bit of evidence to support the theory that most modern social media platforms have either been directly started up by cabal, or taken over by the cabal.
I remember being on Livejournal in the early to mid 00's and I don't remember exactly happened because its so long ago but I remember there being a mass exodus of certain people off of there to Tumblr. Knowing some of the people who left I could see Tumblr would become some weird kind of hyper feminist cult.
We're doomed to live in the year 2001 forever.
The cultural momentum that carried on after that ended in 2007. It really does seem to have been the high point but also the end for the internet as it was in my era. I used to participate on half a dozen different forums in that era. People generally footed the bills to run them out of their own pocket. Moderators were volunteers. It was about people who loved something and about community.
It's all about large corporate IP owners manufacturing consensus and armies of bots and PR firms astroturfing everything to push their preferred narratives. Everything is just low quality corporate slop now.
I suppose 2007-2017 was an interesting era for the internet. There was still some freedom on the internet but corporate platforms probably used it as a lure to get to a certain market share and then it was just a matter of time before they could instigate a turn key tyranny. We had a surprisingly good run I suppose. The arab spring was organised on social media. The populist uprisings from Gamergate to Brexit to Trump. The results were pretty sub optimal but the elites had certainly lost control of the narrative and really shit themselves after 2016.
Each successive crisis in the system will be used to crack down on new forms of "misinformation" - medical, political. I'm sure the next will be economic misinformation when people start complaining there is no bread on the shelves and petrol is not available at any price. After that - who even knows.
Tumblr banning porn unleashed the crazies onto the rest of the web.