Why should we focus exclusively on low level henchmen when there's a huge Saudi influence on Twitter like that one?
Why should we believe that owning the single largest stake--one even larger than the Jack's--isn't relevant when discussing how they influence Twitter to get what they want?
Well to start the actual information in the story is about the folks involved... and they got all that done without any overarching conspiracy from ownership.
So is the risk here some unproven ownership influence, or the something any given dude can just go and do if he can get a job?
Comments
Why should we focus exclusively on low level henchmen when there's a huge Saudi influence on Twitter like that one?
Why should we believe that owning the single largest stake--one even larger than the Jack's--isn't relevant when discussing how they influence Twitter to get what they want?
Well to start the actual information in the story is about the folks involved... and they got all that done without any overarching conspiracy from ownership.
So is the risk here some unproven ownership influence, or the something any given dude can just go and do if he can get a job?