Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey took quite a bit of heat for promoting an article calling for “Democratic one-party rule,” and now he’s responding.
Last week, Dorsey shared the piece, whose author argued the U.S. should be more like California and eliminate Republicans’ political power. The writer, who published the story to Medium, claimed conservatives “deserve” to be cast into the “political wilderness.”
In response, Dorsey called the article a “great read”:
Great read https://t.co/O2djSQf8Qv
Dorsey faced intense backlash:
Revealing to see Twitter’s CEO sharing an article that says the only political path forward is to annihilate political opposition and usher in one-party rule. https://t.co/ampnz8gjvS
— Jarrett Stepman (@JarrettStepman) April 7, 2018
A “great read” says the CEO of Twitter about an article endorsing a new American civil war. https://t.co/dBdQQqzhyd
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) April 7, 2018
Twitter’s CEO loves this article about driving conservatives from public life and turning the rest of the country into California in the “new civil war.” Literally what it’s about https://t.co/b8DUxlC9Cw
— Peter J. Hasson (@peterjhasson) April 6, 2018
“California is the future, always about 15 years ahead of the rest of the country.” I admire you, @jack – if for nothing else, at least for being crystal clear about your political bias. Now try driving through the utopia of downtown Los Angeles sometime… https://t.co/bAcmTyj46c
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) April 7, 2018
In case you needed more proof what kind of bias the folks at twitter have https://t.co/ZrH73303XB
— Ashe Schow (@AsheSchow) April 7, 2018
Now he’s responding:
Dorsey, in a series of tweets he posted Tuesday afternoon, called the criticism he faced for posting the controversial article “fair”:
I thought this was a strong analysis and thesis of competing economic systems in the past (labor) and today (energy), where one ideology had to win completely to move us all forward.
As I read it, this wasn’t a call for civil war (author used as a provocative metaphor) or a one party system (author states both parties still exist), but a bunch of learnings and warnings for both parties. I disagree both parties can’t work together.
He claimed he viewed the author’s “provocative” language as metaphorical but nevertheless saw the piece as a “strong analysis and thesis of competing economic systems in the past (labor) and today (energy).”Loic Venance/Getty Images