Thankfully Twitter is run by someone who isn’t a progressive now, so it can actually start making some changes to do good things instead of sitting around and complaining about things like when it was run by progressives.

Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

How does this apply to the parent post, but not the grandparent?

That is the big question, that also Twitter failed to adequately answer.

I’m pointing out the fallacy of the argument as a devils advocate.

"I was happy to do free work for that billionaire, he's part of the same ideology I've been born into. But now that it's this other billionaire, I cannot continue."

I don't see a problem with this, except being born into an ideology. Most people these days have chosen one and cultivated it according to their life. I think my ideology is good, if it wasn't I would change it to be the good version. So why would I not work with someone who shares mine? Billionaire or not.

You don't choose your ideology, it's assigned by the tooth fairy when you lose your first tooth.

Alternatively, it seems to have a significant genetic component, and most of the rest will depend on the environment you grow up in. Choice isn't part of it, you don't evaluate all the possibilities and then pick the best one, you think the one you're part of is the best one because it intuitively made sense to you. The rest is rationalization.

Most people I know have the opposite ideology from their parents, who had the opposite ideology of their own. Many people change their ideologies throughout life, as incentives and personal experience pushes them (e.g. having a bad experience with a certain political party can often sour you to their whole ideology).

It's true that I don't live in America, so maybe there is a difference, but you definitely are not describing a human truth.

Studies suggest that genes play a significant role, and obviously there's an environmental component (ie your upbringing, for which your parents are very important but many other factors play a role, too). Hence you generally take on the ideology around you, even if that may slowly shift between generations (but it seems that people also simply have a different mindset at 20 vs at 40, so when you ask them at 20, they're very different from their parents, but that often changes when they are in similar circumstances as their parents).

Of course, some people do change their ideology later in life (which I don't think is the right term, because they don't actively change it, it's more that they change and their ideology is part of them), but that's not common, and overall it's remarkably stable.

Can you give me a few studies which show this genetic link? Because I would definitely be absolutely mind blown if its significant

You can choose your ideology, but there is an obvious influence of societal defaults.

If you are born in Mecca, you are very likely to become and stay Muslim. If you are born in coastal California, you are very likely to become a Democrat of leftist bend. If you are born in a small town in the English Home Counties, you are likely to become a Tory. If you are born in a Catholic part of Northern Ireland, you are likely to become a Sinn Fein voter etc.

Obviously this isn't anywhere near as sticky as your skin color or even your primary language of communication, but the defaults are still rather strong.

That is absolutely not what they said, and you are being disingenuous by pretending that it is.

The point being made that Twitter was owned by rich people before Elon bought it.

Sure, but people aren't primarily complaining that musk is rich. That's a convenient 'bonus gripe' but the main issues are his political leanings and his apparent disregard for the company's workers.

Twitter was also owned by average people. As are the vast majority of publicly traded companies.

This is false, unless you mean "pension funds".

Most people do not own individual stocks. And in fact, most people do not own stocks at all. The set of stock-owning people is far from average.

Only one average person needs to own Twitter stock for my statement to be true. And the number was far higher than one.

And yes, of course pension funds count. Why wouldn't they?

There's a real difference between a company on the public markets and a private one. American capitalism always had a democratic bent of everyone being part of the success story by owning stock and companies being aligned with the public broadly through market signals. There's a big difference between a company answering to a usually diverse and accessible set of shareholders and a Bladerunner-esque trillionaire who uses it for whatever he wants.