There’s a thesis here I can’t get my head around which seems to be when powerful people do things you don’t like, don’t speak out. Don’t speak truth to power, defer to it and let power manipulate the world without criticism.
And when you do speak out against it, the person with power is victimized.
There is speaking truth to power, and there is speaking truth to Twitter's CEO.
The latter is neither effective nor impactful. Even if hypothetically we could have some say in how Elon runs Twitter, the world won't be much better or worse if a bird app is run into the ground. It's a great opportunity to pick one's battles.
> The point I am trying to make? If you dislike Twitter’s new direction, why don’t you quietly close your account and find a new home?
This is a small glimpse of the shamelessly apologetic white knighting that emanates from the article. A billionaire cannot do no harm or be held to scrutiny because, as the result of a major screwups, was forced by a court of law to purchase a company. Said billionaire cannot be scrutinized when he's speed running through the destruction of a service used by the whole world. Said billionaire cannot do any harm because another billionaire stated he bought other companies.
Does the validity of any criticism directed at Elon Musk change depending on the net worth of anyone criticized for making the exact same torrent of errors?
And when you do speak out against it, the person with power is victimized.