[worker_thread]

There is definitely something going on with Indian Govt and Twitter. When the farmer's protest was on its peak, on my timeline I saw Jack Dorsey's activity liking tweets critical and mocking the current govt. I was totally shocked by Jack Dorsey's passive behaviour - you need to model and exhibit non neutral stance especially when you are the messenger of the information. Needless to say, with great power comes great responsibility.

Jack Dorsey should stop acting like he is the sole flag bearer of the free speech in the entire world. Blocking Trump because he made calls for violence makes total sense, but passively liking and expressing your political likings and stance as CEO of twitter is is not cool & ethical. If you are publicly expressing your ideologies, god knows what goes behind the scenes at Twitter. I am just wondering what I will do as an employee of Twitter, if I doesn't agree with with the ideologies of my CEO and expressing otherwise. I am not sure ideologies is the right word, but I hope I get my point across.

I always give benefit of doubt where it's due, but Twitter has definitely something sinister going with their Indian Operations. If Indian companies goes abroad they are expected to follow local laws, and if Twitter wants to operate in India it must give way to the law of the land.

Additional Context: Twitter user of 12 years, NRI with no political leanings at all.

One of Twitters recent mishaps: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/twitter-drops-removes-...

EDIT for clarity

[mlnj]

>I saw Jack Dorsey's activity liking tweets critical and mocking the current govt.

>but passively liking and expressing your political likings and stance as CEO of twitter is is not cool & ethical.

Let's flip the script for a second here. Is a CEO allowed to like a positive story about the Indian leader? Can he retweet a cause he might care about (which many others might not)? Does this mean that CEOs abstain from taking part in public discourse or be called as not 'neutral'?

>Jack Dorsey should stop acting like he is the sole flag bearer of the free speech in the entire world.

Can this argument not be pointed to anybody who argues for free speech? Who is allowed to be a flag bearer for free speech?

[worker_thread]

> Let's flip the script for a second here. Is a CEO allowed to like a positive story about the Indian leader? Can he retweet a cause he might care about (which many others might not)? Does this mean that CEOs abstain from taking part in public discourse or be called as not 'neutral'?

Well, you missed very important piece of context from my argument, 'at the peak of farmer's protest' . You already know the sentiments are running high, there is lot of misinformation, wide disconnect between ground reality and digital narrative. A little act of nudge or sign can trigger violence and get people killed on the street. Well, then I am looking at the CEO of the company that is carrying all of this information wether it is true or false, and how he behaves and if chooses sides wether correct or wrong.

> Who is allowed to be a flag bearer for free speech?

In my opinion, anyone who understand that free speech has its limitations, I am allowed to say whatever I want in certain context and situation but staying within reason.

Anyone who understands, the difference between shouting 'Hey, I got little firecracker on me' on an Airplane vs someone at a child's birthday party. Some things under different context trigger different reactions. It's not very hard to understand. Now imagine Jack Dorsey liking tweets of a person supporting the group that supports the ideology of those who attacked Capital Hill. Not sure about how other Indian Citizens feel about it, being an NRI of 15+ years I took hoisting of religious flag on Red Fort as an attack on democracy and also akin to attack on Capitol Hill as well.

[kapuasuite]

>I always give benefit of doubt where it's due, but Twitter has definitely something sinister going with their Indian Operations. If Indian companies goes abroad they are expected to follow local laws, and if Twitter wants to operate in India it must give way to the law of the land.

Do you believe the Indian government's policies are sinister as well? If not I don't see how this is anything other than apologia dressed up as neutrality.

[worker_thread]

Well, I think the Indian Citizens should decide if their Elected Government has sinister policies or not, and what remedies they have under the democratic processes & constitution. I am not big fan of Modi or pro any political party, but he did not come to power by force. He was elected with a great majority and mandate under what is touted as world's largest democracy.

Coming back to my argument, Twitter should follow land of the law and if not should cease Indian operations. I'd love to hear your counter argument to this.