Who owns Twitter?

Who owns Twitter

^This guy is the co-founder.

He is one of the very few people in the world that can do multi-tasks among high brain requirement tasks.


,And you have to understand when a company grows but more and more people hop on as investors, some c-level (CEO, CTO, etc.

) or senior position and equity dilute, many companies are public as well which means you can buy their stock and technically, you are the owner as well but might not hold the high decision-making capabilities due to very little ownership in the company.

,,Credit goes to Wikipedia for the info and my personal experience from books, courses, etc.

,Thanks for reading and I hope my answer helped you.


History of Twitter

As of 11 May 2017,Following Carter Wilkerson who got 3.

5 Million Retweets in 1 month and 5 days and he broke Ellens Record on 9th May 2017The Story of #NuggsforCarter belowIt all started as a joke.

I was laying in my bed scrolling through my twitter timeline when I thought of something.

I recalled tweets I have seen where kids will text their parents asking How many retweets for a dog? types of questions.

I decided to kick it up a notch and ask my favorite fast food restaurant the same type of question, How many retweets for a year of free nuggs? After I received an outrageous goal of 18 million, I just thought of it as a silly joke to laugh at with my friends, so I replied Consider it done.

Then it took off and now I am making twitter history.

,Ellen DeGeneres has the second time highest amount of retweets on twitter which are 3.

4 MillionOn 2/3/14 Ellen tweeted a picture taken during the Ocsar Awards and got over 1 Million Retweets in an hour.

Twitter CEO

Before answering the question, I would like to share the meaning of u201cpatriarchyu201d which says,1.

a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is reckoned through the male line.


a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.


a society or community organized on patriarchal lines.

,So these are the meanings of that world which is known to everybody, including the Twitter CEO.

, jack Dorsey.

,In 2016, a Dalit activist and artist in the United States, Thenmozhi Soundararajan, designed a poster of a woman angrily holding up a sign that read, u201cSmash Brahmanical patriarchyu201d.

,Twitter chief executive officer Jack Dorseyu2019s visit to India this fortnight included a meeting on November 9 with a group of women journalists for an off-the-record conversation.

At this meeting, he was photographed with Soundararajanu2019s poster.

On Monday, when the photo of Dorsey was tweeted out, it became a lightning rod for controversy.

Angered by the call to u201csmash Brahmanical patriarchyu201d, a number of Indian commentators criticized the poster, claiming that it was u201chate speechu201d that served to u201cmalign a communityu201d.

Congress politician Manish Tewari even went so far as to suggest that it proved that Brahmins are the u201cnew Jews of Indiau201d.

,So anger against Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey is justified not for the poster but he failed to learn the meaning of the poster.

My be he has no knowledge of Indian caste system.

He might have assumed that it was the matter of women problem in India.

He might not have expected that this matter will go to such a length.

,Any foreign dignitary coming to India should know the culture here and to do a lot of home work when coming to India for participating in some programs related local problems.

,Since the question not relating to the discussion on the writing of the poster, I am refraining from giving my opinion.

But I would like to share a few of the opinions.

,{ A poor Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or OBC [Other Backward Classes] person can expect some support from the government in the form of policies for education and ration.

Can a poor Brahmin person expect the same? Brahmins, by virtue of their traditional occupation, are poor.

They are the supposed knowledge-bearers of the Vedas and are expected to teach without charging their pupils.

How much does the author think that a poor Brahmin at any of the temples earns? Is it enough to buy him and his family even two square meals for a single day?,There are various platforms that can be used to address the grievances of the Dalits, by virtue of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Such legislation is needed.

But how many Brahmins have misused this Act or indulged in atrocities? If we dig deeper, we will realize that all the statistics quote upper classes (which include the mighty Kshatriyas and Vaishyas), but what proportion of these are Brahmins?,If the author examines Indian history, he will realize that it there are Brahmins who have fought against inequality and the caste system.

u2013 Sumedha DharmarajanI do not agree with this article.

It may be that Brahmins enjoy a privileged position, but they do not control the levers of the economy or power in an overall sense.

Look at the whou2019s who of the central and state Governments u2013 Brahmins are a minority in this.

When this is the situation, it is utterly insensitive and malicious to call out the name u201cBrahminicalu201d, because it so closely lands near the term Brahmin.

The piece would have been balanced had the attack been on the caste system as a whole.

u2013 HrushikeshIt is telling that when the writer reaches for an example of u201cBrahmanicalu201d patriarchy he finds a non-Brahmin Vanniyar family committing a hate crime against a Dalit man.

There can scarcely be a clearer example of the reasons behind the outrage over the use of the word u201cBrahmanicalu201d.

,Let us be clear, the issue here is not about the word patriarchy; it is about the word u201cBrahmanicalu201d and what it implies.

If Dorsey had held up a sign saying u201cstop patriarchy in Indiau201d, any negative response would have been muted at best.

The issue is whether, as the writer claims, u201cBrahmanicalu201d refers to a social order practiced across India as a whole, or whether the word u201cBrahmanicalu201d refers to a particular caste group of a particular religious community.

,Various Leftist scholars and caste activists may have used u201cBrahmanicalu201d as an adjective imputing blame to a broader section of the population than Brahmins, but that is not only beside the point but also lacking in factual basis.

The use of that term implies a lack of agency in non-Brahmin groups such as the aforementioned Vanniyars, as if they are so foolish as to be brainwashed by Brahmins into adopting discriminatory practices.

,There is plenty of scholarship grounded in genetic and textual evidence calling into question not only whether caste was an invention of Brahmins but even whether caste was originally connected to u201cBrahmanicalu201d Vedic/Hindu practices at all.

See George L Hart for example, who theorises that accountability originated in the ancient Tamil country.

At the very least there are viable competing theories of how caste originated in India such that the question is nowhere near settled to the point of scapegoating one community for all of Indiau2019s caste discrimination.

,More importantly, in a message directed at the general public, when the scholarly/elitist usage of a term clashes with popular understanding, the popular understanding should hold.

The existence of the controversy is evidence enough that the popular understanding of the term u201cBrahmanicalu201d is u201cof or relating to Brahminsu201d.

,Whether Ambedkar used the term to refer to all non-Dalit Hindus, the average reader does not interpret the word the same way.

The obvious, textual understanding of that sign is that it condemns one particular social group for Indiau2019s patriarchy, thereby absolving other groups of any responsibility (including, say, the Islamic patriarchy that keeps Indiau2019s Muslim women significantly behind other Indian women in most social indicators).

,Finally, the writeru2019s protests about Brahmins not being a minority fly in the face of common sense and reveal the central contradiction of the secularistu2019s world view.

A minority absolutely does connote numbers, especially so in a democratic system where every person has the same ability to vote and every community has political representation commensurate with their numbers.

If the writer sees the absurdity of declaring the British a minority, then he agrees with the vast majority of caste Hindus that the salient issue in determining social standing is power, not numbers.