sigh That's the point though; who caaaarrrreeeeesssss what the employees think?

Do you care what the political views of your plumber are? I do not.

Do you care what the political views of the person who writes the app that runs your smart tv? I don't caaaare.

What I care about is what the platform does as a company, and yes, I know, people run companies, and that means they have some impact... but fundamentally twitter is run by a bunch of people who are trying to derive value for their shareholders.

That means building things, getting users, and not wasting a shit load of time and money on content moderation.

That's the point; it's not about caring about politics; it's about making problems go away, so they can make money by selling ads (or whatever) and making people click on cat videos.

You have a handful of examples you're clinging to, which show some people doing something you don't like, so EVERYONE MUST BE DOING IT. That's exactly the point this post was making; you're assuming the tiny bit of data you have, is reflective of the entire management structure, company, employees and corporate decision making process.

It's not.

> I'm unsure how Y could be that niave. I really don't believe he is, but this is baffling.

That's the point this whole thread is making. You can choose to believe in that conspiracy theory style stuff, but, really... it shouldn't be a surprise to find that some people don't.

> You have a handful of examples you're clinging to, which show some people doing something you don't like, so EVERYONE MUST BE DOING IT.

I feel like more than 50% of this thread right now is doing exactly this and is unaware they are doing it.

To be fair though. There does exist corporations who has a proven history of trying to push a specific point of view, case and point: Fox News.

People assume that since Fox News exists, there must also exist an equal, but opposite: MSNBC, CNN, and (maybe) now Twitter or whatever...

In my opinion, this sort of false equivalencies is extremely counter productive and dangerous to our society.

Your bias is showing. Case in point; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSNBC_controversies is about as decorated as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies. We live in an age where network news operates to gather eyeballs for ad sells. To pretend that one caters to their target audience where another does not is simply naive.

I would care about the political views of the person who wrote the app that runs on my smart TV if my TV started blocking certain content because they think it's wrong think and that I should be protected from it.

Plumbers and Smart TVs are straw men. A more apt comparison might be: Your mail carrier who was recorded stating they only deliver mail to your address that they feel you should see.

> you're clinging to

That's a pretty grand assumption. I'm not clinging to anything. I'm simply stating "how can you make this assertion when there are recordings of people who make decisions for the userbase, claiming they do so based on the thing you're asserting they don't care about?" On the contrary, it would seem that you desperately want the inverse to be true.

It's a fair question. To say that they're the small minority doesn't discount the fact that they exist. It honestly wouldn't matter the persuasion of these people in the context. "People there don't care about X" -> videos of people saying their actions at said company are based on X -> assertion is false.

If Twitter truly didn't care about activism - regardless of the slant - as part of their core business decision making, then they'd purge these people from their ranks, or make it wildly transparent that decisions weren't being executed by people who have broadcast their slant as influencing their work. I don't know about you; whenever I've stepped outside my bounds of what the company wanted to accomplish, I was put back in place pretty quickly.

> You can choose to believe in that conspiracy theory style stuff

To paint any discussion as tin-foil conspiracy is to attempt to shut down the debate, which speaks to your disingenuous intentions and entering the debate in bad faith. This is a great example of one of the problems with discourse right now.

The argument sounds nice but evidence to the contrary exists, no matter how isolated, and has never been addressed by the company publicly. If the company had taken disciplinary measures in response to the recordings, had published procedures, quite literally a bare minimum of transparency, I would personally be very likely to dismiss them as isolated incidents. As it stands, combined with speech from leadership, it does look very much like the company supports and defends bad actors internally. And the twitter thread doesn't appear to hold much water.

You don't care about political views of other people, buy many people do care and they are ready to go to on a social justice jihad to make sure that no plumber, no smart tv developer and no Twitter user has any nazi inclinations.

employees' political biases aside these platforms exist to make money and so they'll play within the boundaries of "acceptable" speech which in the west is pro-capitalist, pretty centerist, and with some scraps thrown to minorities from time to time. If you are outside the window you are off the platform because advertisers get anxious. saying they arent political is absurd.