Yes, and the Dutch East India Company was just a trading operation that had no long-term repercussions on the world. They're both transnationals (something that is an abomination against humanity, in my opinion).
There is no good faith reason to be on Twitter's side unless:
1). You work there, and it aligns with your interests for your current employer to continue to operate and generate profit (likewise if you hold Twitter stock).
2). You genuinely believe Twitter is furthering your goals, and you believe your goals to be parallel with the common good.
Otherwise, Twitter is not a person with a life, emotions, and hardships. It's a hollow corporate shell that's only purpose is to generate profits for shareholders.
Or 3). You still believe in the constitution and first amendment. They have their right to free speech just like I do, and I don't plan on chipping away at that right. If you have such issues with these massive companies perhaps we should address that, instead of trying to strip people of their constitutional rights?
> There is no good faith reason to be on Twitter's side unless:
Where did I say I was on Twitter's side? That's a whole loaded comment full of completely unfounded assertions.
Y'all are raising pitchforks when you haven't actually heard Twitter's side, just their automated message responses.
Personally, I think Twitter is a net negative for society, but there is an implication here that there is some totalitarian government control (i.e. anti first amendment) which is simply not true.
There is no good faith reason to be on Twitter's side unless:
1). You work there, and it aligns with your interests for your current employer to continue to operate and generate profit (likewise if you hold Twitter stock).
2). You genuinely believe Twitter is furthering your goals, and you believe your goals to be parallel with the common good.
Otherwise, Twitter is not a person with a life, emotions, and hardships. It's a hollow corporate shell that's only purpose is to generate profits for shareholders.