In a tweet, the outspoken provider of safe-spaces, retweeted an essay by Charles Eisenstein entitled "The Conspiracy Myth" which appears to go against everything Twitter has done.
So, we ask in all seriousness, why did Dorsey - who has shown himself, via his actions, to be an enemy of any non-establishment-sanctioned narrative with his suspension and banning of any tweets or twitter-ers that dare to offer alternate views - retweet an essay that raises doubts about the over-arching threat of "conspiracy theories" to snowflakes, promotes the idea of exploring all sides of an argument before dismissing it, and most ironically, rails against "information suppression" and centralized decisions based on someone's "trustworthiness"?
Read the essay for yourself (emphasis ours):
Comment: An interesting question, why did Dorsey tweet this article when it suggests taking a line of action and inquiry into conspiracy narratives that is the opposite of what he has done for the past several years? Is he changing his mind about the best way to 'protect' society from the 'dangerous' conspiracy theories, or is it something else?
As for the article he tweeted, it doesn't fully taken into account all of the facts that go into supporting the case for the grander conspiracy that the article takes only as a myth, and much of what the author brings up as real isn't connected or put in its proper context or perspective. The author is right when he says that the human elites aren't the puppet masters and that there is something higher than humans at work on human consciousness that is creating the appearance of conspiracy that people are seeing. However, it's not myths. The real truth of what's at work is far stranger than that.