Moreover it's gross that Jack Dorsey is put on a moral pedestal and Zuckerberg/FB employees are villainized. I'm not saying there's an exact equivalence between Twitter and FB (due to lack of transparency around news feed, Instagram's impact on young teen girls, FB's history of lying) but the disparity in rhetoric and treatment is concerning given that Twitter has undeniably played a role in some of the same societally destabilizing things that FB is involved in, such as extreme echo chambers, abundance and virality of fake news, abundance of bots and scams.
I haven't figured out the reason for the out-of-whack disparity yet. Is it because Zuckerberg lacks charisma, because he has Aspergers and people hate the awkwardness, or because FB is the tallest poppy, or because journalists have found a credentialed home on Twitter (blue check mark)?
> journalists have found a credentialed home on Twitter
This.
Twitter made a deliberate decision to recruit opinion-formers early on.
The face of Faceache is Zuck, with his blank expression and absurd haircut (surely after 20 years, he could find a decent stylist). The face of Twaddle (in the UK) seems to be Stephen Fry - a comic that I used to admire. Now, not so much.
I think Twaddle did a better PR job than Faceache from the beginning. I think they're still doing a better job.
I haven't figured out the reason for the out-of-whack disparity yet. Is it because Zuckerberg lacks charisma, because he has Aspergers and people hate the awkwardness, or because FB is the tallest poppy, or because journalists have found a credentialed home on Twitter (blue check mark)?