THE MOST INTERESTING CONFLICT IN SILICON VALLEY- MARK ZUCKERBERG VS. JACK DORSEY￼
Mark Zuckerberg’s feud with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey – As a result of fighting for a portion of the social media market, a clear result has emerged. [ THE MOST INTERESTING CONFLICT IN SILICON VALLEY- MARK ZUCKERBERG VS. JACK DORSEY ]
THE MOST INTERESTING CONFLICT IN SILICON VALLEY- MARK ZUCKERBERG VS. JACK DORSEY
Recently, Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey had to go through it. Both CEOs took opposing views on how people should utilise their social media sites. Both of them took a firm stand, and the consequence is the Silicon Valley battle that everyone is talking about.
If you haven’t been following it, you can read this article in detail to learn more about it, including what it was, how it happened, and, of course, who won. Are you curious? So, let’s not waste any more time piqueing your interest and get down to business.
WHEN DID MARK ZUCKERBERG AND JACK DORSEY BEGIN THEIR DISPUTE?
The feud between the two prominent CEOs of the two leading social media platforms began on October 23rd, when Twitter’s CEO announced that no political ads would be allowed on the network.
When it comes to the conflict between Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg, this statement can potentially add fuel to the flames.
WHAT TYPE OF POLITICAL CONTENT ARE WE TALKING?
Paid political content of any kind, according to Twitter’s CEO, will not be permitted. Advertisements from political candidates running for office or issues-based advertisements, particularly those with political implications, would be prohibited. Ads on the issues of abortion and climate change are only a couple of examples.
This policy exists because Jack feels that his platform should not be used to promote false information about people or political parties. When using communication, he believes it is critical to retain chastity and honesty.
This attitude was obviously a reply to Facebook’s policy and a comparison of Twitter’s policy to Facebook’s policy, and he tweeted: “This isn’t about free expression. It’s all about how much you’re willing to pay to get your name out there. Paying to expand the reach of political speech has substantial consequences that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to deal with. It’s worth taking a step back to examine.”
“We speak a lot about speech and expression, but we don’t talk about reach enough, and we don’t talk about amplification,” Dorsey remarked at one of the gatherings. And there was no mention of reach or amplification in the address,”
He made it clear that free speech and paid message amplification are two separate things. There should be no restrictions on free expression, and no one is doing so. The only restriction is that political news cannot be advertised (for now altogether).
WHAT’S THE STANCE OF FACEBOOK?
The position of Facebook on permitting and disseminating political information is diametrically opposed. The acceptance and propagation of paid political content was recently deemed acceptable by the Facebook administration in a statement.
Their position is based on the notion that private entities are not allowed to decide what is true and what is phoney. As a result, it is critical that everyone, whether employed or unpaid, has access to free speech. No such limits would be offered, according to the company. While defending the policy, Zuckerberg remarked. “I believe there are compelling reasons for this. Private firms should not be allowed to censor politicians or the press, in my opinion.”
In one of his speeches, Zuckerberg also cited political history to support his position. “Perhaps things would have gone differently if more individuals had a voice to tell their stories,” he said, referring to the Iraq conflict.
The battle between Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey, which has been in the news in Silicon Valley since then, was sparked by these diametrically opposed statements made by both CEOs of the platforms.
BUT IS THAT THE END OF MARK ZUCKERBERG’S AND JACK DORSEY’S DISPUTE?
No, most likely. This feud isn’t only about the wordplay employed by both CEOs. Both platforms are actively working to implement their positions to the best of their abilities.
Twitter is ensuring that the law is followed by removing all political adverts from the platform. This policy will be in effect until there is a proper mechanism in place to check for false news and spread.
That is not to say that the conflict between Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey will prevent individuals from expressing their opinions. Any political viewpoint can still be shared and propagated. The only change is that targeted targeting for a specific message will no longer be tolerated. As a result of advertising campaigns.
In the Language of Jack Dorsey, “Best to focus our efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings. Trying to fix both means fixing neither well, and harms our credibility.” [ SILICON MARK JACK ]
IS TWITTER REALLY COMPLYING WITH THIS POLICY?
However, many people believe Twitter’s position is more credible. Is Twitter, on the other hand, truly adhering to this policy of banning phoney political agendas? It’s possible that this is accurate to the extent that sponsored material isn’t supported.
President Donald Trump’s Tweets, on the other hand, are clearly in violation of the platform’s terms and conditions. However, the platform has not yet blocked or removed these tweets. Similarly, harassment and toxic speech are two of this social media platform’s most serious issues. And no such action has been taken to yet.
As a result, the CEO’s reputation may suffer as a result of the policy’s limited execution.
TIMING OF THE GENERATION OF CONFLICT BETWEEN MARK ZUCKERBERG AND JACK DORSEY:
The development of the entire quarrel between Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey did not happen by chance. These remarks by Dorsey came just before Facebook was about to release its third-quarter revenue figures.
If you don’t think it’s important, reconsider. When your competition is set to announce that they have met their revenue targets with the market, starting a discussion about the company’s policy is enough to start a discussion about it. And this debate got off to a good start as well.
However, other from general conversation on the matter, no significant influence has been detected, owing to the timing of the controversy. Maybe it’s because both companies have grown into Silicon Valley behemoths capable of handling minor squabbles.
Another reason for the minor impact could be because the CEOs want free expression and a robust debate on the subject to continue. So, even if there is a huge difference, there is no purpose in refusing to accept other people’s viewpoints. [ SILICON MARK JACK ]
IS THIS THE FIRST TIME TWITTER HAS ANNOUNCED THE BAN?
This isn’t a brand-new concept. TikTok has issued a similar statement. As a result, the viewpoint that free speech does not include talking about anything is gaining traction. Because Twitter isn’t the only platform with this viewpoint, it carries greater weight, whereas Facebook must defend its policy alone.
The impact of the policy change by Twitter or its criticism on the policy adopted by Facebook has not particularly yielded any sort of financial impact for both the countries. Because both the companies claim that only a minimal amount of their earnings are from the political campaigns. [ SILICON MARK JACK ]
WAS IT A REAL WAR?
No, it’s not true. We frequently witness the battle of words between competing businesses. One of the odd things about this feud between Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey is that neither of these CEOs used the company’s or founder’s names in any way.
As a result, both leaders’ criticisms and rebuttals are now subject to the will and assumptions of the people. You can expect rebuttals or simply refer to them as generic statements. These leaders haven’t said anything at all.
Aren’t you all in agreement? [ SILICON MARK JACK ]
WHO’S THE WINNER?
The battle between Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey does not appear to have a clear winner. For starters, both companies have a long history and a loyal fanbase due to the things they offer. Second, policy acceptability by the general public would be more focused on the particular stances that each of the individuals would have in both circumstances.
However, because Twitter is primarily used for political acceptance, the policy of prohibiting marketing on the network actually strengthens it. And that prompted Mark Zuckerberg to reconsider his position. “Although I’ve pondered whether we should not run certain ads in the past and will continue to do so in the future,” he says, “on balance, so far, we have.”I believe we should continue.”
Overall, no financial consequences are envisaged as a result of this strategy, thus we don’t expect it to make a significant effect. However, yes! This will remain the case until the Facebook administration or Mark Zuckerberg personally imposes a ban on political advertising. If such a prohibition is enacted in the coming months, we’ll have to concede that Jack Dorsey will emerge as the clear winner.
There would be a rivalry between Twitter and Facebook. The battle between Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey would be the same. However, I’m sure I’ll be working on something different in the future.
The whole thing was about Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey’s feud. Both of these points of view have some merit, and they are correct in one way or another. I warned you! Taking a stand in a circumstance when you are the CEO is different than taking a stand as a third party. Both CEOs say that their policies are correct and that they are moving their firms in the right path.
What are your thoughts on this? Which policy proposition do you believe is more rational or advantageous to society? Do you believe Twitter’s policy will have any impact on the 2020 US presidential election? Is it possible that the overall relaxation that the ruling party enjoys as a result of Twitter is relevant?