He seems to be saying he's not comfortable with his company being as powerful as it is, and that he hopes to reduce that power. If he means it, it's an extraordinary position for a tech CEO to take.
Anyone know more about Jack’s Bluesky initiative to make decentralised social media that he mentions?<p>He announced it a year ago. Who has moved to work there?<p>Strategically how could this work for Twitter?
This is a great response to what happened. Twitter is perhaps justified in banning Trump, when there were no more options. The Parler move on the other hand was a cowardly abuse of power disguised as a display of virtue - and it will be seen as such by anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty.<p>Twitter is a net negative force in the world but Jack Dorsey is a principled man. Maybe he can fix it.
Twitter allowed Trump to speak right up until the moment it no longer benefited them. The hypocrisy is clear regardless of which side of the argument you are on.
Being the first major platform banning Trump and probably paying the biggest price for it comparing to everyone else in SV, I assume Jack was smart enough to anticipate outcome of his decision is negative: chain reaction from other SV companies, backlash from public opinion left and right, and big drop on stock price. The negative impact on his power, reputation and wealth will be likely significant for a very long time.<p>I don't like Twitter or its handling of censorship overall, but I appreciate someone with power at such level is going against personal interest in almost every aspect during their decision making, which seems to me is very rare in American business and political elites today.