Twitter is on the verge of transitioning from a corporation that aims to decentralize speech to one that bolsters corporate censors. Jack Dorsey is handing over control of Twitter to Parag Agrawal, the company’s chief technical officer, who declared last year that the company’s “mission is not to be restricted by the First Amendment, but to facilitate a healthy public debate.” The false dichotomy between healthy debate and free speech is worrisome and predictable.
In reaction to criticism of Twitter’s micro-targeting policies, CTO Parag Agrawal argued against the First Amendment as the basis underpinning our dialogue. Postmodern nonsense is the concept that a “healthy public discussion” must incorporate all viewpoints for the proper and moral ones to emerge and triumph in the court of public opinion.
Because anti-progressive speech is perceived as psychological assault, the left now regards the First Amendment as a barrier to a “healthy public discussion.” It is based on the notion that prejudice should be characterized as dissent from progressivism and that disagreement on these issues is dangerous.
Parag Agrawal, the Twitter CTO, has a highly destructive attitude to the “public discussion,” which he outlined only last year in his role as Twitter CTO. It shields false ideas from essential adjustments, gives corporatists enormous authority, and misleads people into thinking of themselves as victims.
According to news, Dorsey served as a bulwark in the corporation despite his weaknesses, avoiding a total takeover by the illiberal left. In that way, his demise exemplifies Silicon Valley’s trajectory, which promised decentralization but is now actively aiding the polar opposite.
Twitter users exist in bubbles that promote groupthink among influential individuals in politics, the media, and business. It hastens our departure from the rules that have made this country such a force for good. We don’t want anyone who believes that “free speech” is an old-fashioned desire to control platforms. He is not alone, in his opinion. He claims that public rejection of such beliefs may make a difference in the long run.