Reason First: Why Tech Execs Are the Neo-Heroes of the Digital Age

Bureaucrats and Big Tech executives live on the same moral spectrum. Most of them regard altruism as the ruling moral ideal. They’ll both be quick to say that their services are “bigger than themselves.” But the tech executives at least have the position of privatization over their products and services than any politicians could ever dream of in their sphere, with all of the ways that Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, and Netflix have disrupted the system and challenged Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules and regulations. The technology is light years ahead of any political dictate that Capitol Hill or any other government body could issue.

The critical steps that sites like Twitter and Facebook ought to make ought to have nothing to do with the influence of government. They should focus on the fact that content that can threaten elections or lead to other issues can still draw criticism. Problems like site content that posts drug sales over Twitter and Facebook ought to be of no real concern to either company. The steps that they’ve taken to block such activity is all that they should do to prohibit any type of this activity or behavior.

When Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and Jack Dorsey are put before a board of bureaucrats, they’re showing that there is more brain power, more idealism, and more understanding behind those microphones than the politicians can offer. Zuckerberg was like Floyd Mayweather on the microphone. He dodged the questions and hit them back with persuasive, knowledgeable verbal jabs. He was relaxed and confident in his abilities when those politicians launched those queries his way. While they have to spend their time away from their desks, their teams, and their work, it only serves as a poor showing of what these executives ought to be doing. None of the politicians could make a network as robust and accessible as a Facebook or a Twitter. These entities reflect the best business minds in the field. They should not be grilled on the Hill for their virtues. So, update your status for Reason First: Why Tech Execs are the Neo-Heroes of the Digital Age.

Twitter is the main source for the open discussion on politics. Cambridge Analytica may have hogged the political news cycles in relation to Facebook, but the Twittersphere is a much more open, much more different beast. The trolls that exist on this platform have served as the groundswell in racism, sexism, and other vicious -isms that led to the presidency of Donald Trump. On any given page of a self-described “White Power World Wide,” “1488” Twitter user, the Make America Great Hats crop up like twisted roses in a garden of hatred.

Facebook could’ve had some inclusion in the way of the 2016 United States presidential election—that has been established. But the droves of fervent Trump supporters far outweigh any of the ways that the consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, had swayed the way that the election had taken place. It doesn’t come close. Twitter is chock-full of haters who don’t have any qualms with expressing his or her opinion even if it is dripping with vitriol and unreason. President Trump doesn’t have to be worried about being lumped into some collusion with Russia over the election results. All he has to do is thank some Twitter users for being alt-right, Aryan, cis, white supremacists.

Now, President Trump will never advocate for the congratulations of these groups. He can, however, propagate the idea that his xenophobia and ignorance of other cultures is in line with their notions. Twitter ought to be open for all of this kind of viciousness. It is a private entity that permits its users to say anything within the limits of the law. Racial, sexual, and other slurs are commonplace on this platform. This ought to continue as the hatred of the people who harbor such thoughts is broadcast to the world. Just as long as such verbiage doesn’t violate any terms of use (TOS) laws, they should not be stopped. Bots became pernicious yet powerful tools for dark web groups to bring to the fore the ugliness of Twitter as well as Facebook. Fortunately, the two companies are fighting such Internet nuisances.

The way that people of this ilk have been able to gain power and put an oafish, anti-intellectual as their leader only demonstrates the fact that these people yearned for something that aligned with their cause. If not explicit on Trump’s part, the people can continue to act as the voice of what Trump can’t say on Twitter. He knows that the Twitter trolls will be out on the digital frontlines, waving the banner of nationalism, fascism, or even anarchism.

Twitter posts can be about hatred unlike Facebook. The word that starts with “n” and rhymes with rigor can be displayed on Twitter but not Facebook. Within the realm of the 240 characters that go into a Twitter post, anyone can type in this word and have it published to the world. But most of the white supremacist trolls on Twitter demonstrate that their harshness ironically doesn’t involve this usage of this term. Facebook views this word as a severe violation to their rules and TOS and results in the user being barred from posting for about a month.

With the technology that Twitter deals with, they could care less how many vicious words you say just as long as they do not promote initiation of physical force. Facebook is a competitor and collaborator with Twitter. Both companies have indicated that the power of the send button has amplified the voice of the people to air out their differences peaceably. Words can hurt. They can be fraud, slander, or libel. So, Twitter and Facebook have been able to be a soap box for the people who sought to have then Presidential Candidate Trump rise up to the highest office in the land.

For all of the implied respect of Miss Sandberg and Mr. Dorsey of Facebook and Twitter, respectively, they should have went the way of Alphabet or the parent company of Google and rejected appearing before the senators. These politicians don’t possess the mental might to meet the technical, interpersonal, and business concerns that Sandberg and Dorsey face on a daily basis. Facebook and Twitter are two of the most well-known and well-rounded companies in the world. Sandberg and Dorsey retain the intelligence and grit to meet challenges that allow for both companies to grow and to flourish.

Google executives were smart. They never showed up to be chastised on Capitol Hill. It might be the altruism that has seeped into the consciousness of Sandberg and Dorsey like a lethal toxin being injected into their bloodstream. Both representatives of the social media sites may have in their minds the idea that they wanted to be honest and open about their dealings with their respective corporations. They might have wished to see that the weaponization of Twitter, for example, ought to be eradicated from the site.

Sandberg and Dorsey are among the Atlases that hold up the world of the Web. In conjunction with their other executives, they shoulder up the world. They’re bleeding and struggling trying to keep up the platforms to be more reachable and healthy and powerful. All the while, bureaucrats level questions at them that are worthy of sighs and eye-rolling. Imagine a politician forming his or her own social media site. They would be more concerned with the regulations and controls that would be inherent in the building of the business. Instead of innovation and trade, they would only consider gridlock and the slowness or blockage of the freedoms of the First Amendment.

Politicians have no clue as to run multi-billion-dollar companies on the Internet efficiently. They live largely in a bubble in Washington and seek to undermine and undercut any success story. They attack the creator and demonize him or her not because they did something wrong, but because they did the right thing. So because of that envious divide, politicians come together in councils and fire questions at luminaries like Sandberg and Dorsey because they would never have the wherewithal to invent a new and valuable platform.

But it is the selflessness that does Sandberg and Dorsey in concerning this case. Rather than throwing the weight of the world off of their shoulders, they just tried to walk. Each stumble produces the need for them to shrug off the questioning in the future.

Executives of any business have been targeted with antitrust legislation and other ways for the politicians to browbeat them into submission. Why is this? Besides the obvious envy involved, it is also the glee that bureaucrats experience with knocking the top people down to the level of everyone else. Their egalitarianism is most evident in their line of questioning that attempts to belittle, berate, and insult the intelligence of the people that have helped to shape the modern world.

With other companies vying for the position of top site in the world, the idea is that Facebook and Twitter will come out as completely beneficial platforms. Only goodness can result from the ability for people like Sandberg and Dorsey to continue to innovate and provide safety for the users of their programs.

Contrary to the questions intended to mar the images of the sites that these two have helped to construct, Sandberg and Dorsey spoke out and handled themselves with equal amounts of power and grace. In particular, Sandberg delivered a profound and cogent idealism about how Facebook is in the process of cleaning up all of the bugs and ethical issues that have arisen in the past. Mr. Dorsey performed well, too. He used impassioned language about the company he helped to create and conveyed a message to the politicians that he is more than competent with “looking at the incentives to help people everyday.” He discussed a transparency report and the ability to look at analyses of information.

Sandberg’s emphasis on authenticity was about taking down foreign or domestic entities who pose a threat to Facebook. What both of these tech leaders hold onto is the virtue of self-control. They could just yell at the top of their lungs that they’re not the problem. The issue is the government calling upon them to face bureaucrats who haven’t a clue what Twitter and Facebook do. Sandberg and Dorsey are preparing for the future. They’re both focused on cleaning up all the mess ups and start on a clean slate without all of the distractions.

Both of them seek to grow and thrive through building more networks and partnering up to ensure that the two sites win.

Over the next few months, even years, Twitter and Facebook seek to make their platforms even more powerful and intelligent in weeding out nefarious groups who mean illwill. Politicians thanked the two leaders for their “openness” and “transparency.” This, in the future, would not be an issue. With the big problems solved, Twitter and Facebook would be enabled to grow and continue to be the social media juggernauts that they are.

What the future holds is for these beacons of industry to keep on glowing. As tech moguls, Dorsey and Sandberg have the opportunity to bring about changes to their respective sites. The discomfort of bureaucrats ought not be their concern. They should, moving forward, host their sites with the same vim, vigor, and vitality that helped them to launch and sustain Twitter and Facebook. By being called to talk to the senators, Dorsey and Sandberg join Bill Gates and the aforementioned Zuckerberg as the brains behind the two largest companies in the world who have been censured by politicians. As they go forward, may they not accept the request to be brought before bureaucrats.

What they ought to continue to do is develop, create, and run the businesses that have revolutionized the web. The role of their minds ought to stay, in the future, steady on commanding their respective ships. Sandberg and Dorsey could assure to their billions of users (combined) that they engage in a safe, fun, and engrossing experience on their sites.