Talk:Jack Dorsey

Untitled

It may be true, but it sounds odd; a 14 year old, with an interest in developing dispatching software? There must be a bit more to it than that. Landroo (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am the great fan and supporter Cosmic khanal (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, this page seems to be closed to edits.

Just a suggstion:

Jack has said several times in public that he attended NYU and its computer science program, though did not graduate, and went to California in 1999. All this information is left out of his Wikipedia bio; I'm just wondering why? He doesn't hide the fact that he attended NYU, nor that he left without finishing. [I have no affiliation with either NYU or Twitter] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.70.117 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Another Suggestion

Doesn't this guy smoke a lot of Marijuana? Shouldn't that be noted? 76.90.115.62 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

No, for the same reason one wouldn't mention someone smokes or drinks. Also, there would need to be reliable sources) Jeff Carr (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It actually may be relevant. In this case, this fellow has essentially attempted to repeal the First Amendment rights of a politician he doesn't like, and that sort of digitial oligarchy would doom freedom of expression -- which had hitherto been one of the hallmarks of America. Neither Zuck nor Dorsey even managed to finish an undergrad degree, but they aspire to dictate the terms of speech to the world, and such unrestrained arrogance is noteworthy in any fair article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Alex Jones

Dorsey has taken a stand to allow Alex Jones to exist on twitter as of today. It may be news worth, but I'm not comfortable adding something that controversial due to BLP policy. [1] [2] Jeff Carr (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Controversies

Why isn't there a controversies section? Just Google "Jack Dorsey controversies" brings up numerous notable examples in the past few months. They should be represented here. Cody.berdinis (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CSECTION. Such sections are generally inappropriate and to be avoided. —ADavidB 18:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You sure took another route when arguing for that Violence section on Arundel High School being a separate section. I am sure it wasn't due to any bias. Siihb (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That January 2015 comment was in support of keeping one sourced sentence about multiple student arrests. In the same talk page section, I wrote that without other support for keeping it, I was okay with removal of the sentence. —ADavidB 10:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jack Dorsey is a criminal who, through his platform, aided a hostile foreign power in electing an illegitimate president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:120C:304:734D:C48A:9443:F1F8 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Take a few moments to look around the site. Everyone playing ball with certain "sides" like Jack Dorsey/Steve Huffman etc are blocked from having controversy sections. People who aren't protected, but have identical jobs, have controvery sections, like Mark Zuckerberg for example. Leaving a few Dorsey specific links, in response to this previous talk here for those users who don't just read the first page of PR-apedia.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/twitter-ceo-retweeted-alleged-russian-trolls https://fortune.com/2017/10/22/twitter-jack-dorsey-russian-troll/ https://www.newsweek.com/twitter-jack-dorsey-trolls-bots-plan-827670 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/trump-other-politicians-celebs-shared-boosted-russian-troll-tweets-n817036

Siihb (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Support for politicians

Lol, there is no proof Dorsey is a registered Democrat and his contributions to conservative favorite Tulsi Gabbard being a basis is a joke. That part of his bio needs to be deleted. If Admins keep using their RW bias to skew narratives, they need to be outed, and possibly attacked in public — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B15A:136C:0:1A:5487:6B01 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The article makes no mention of any political party registration, only that he has contributed monetarily to two Democratic politicians. I've updated the source for that from Twitter to a perhaps more reliable news source. —ADavidB 09:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

(I support your removal of political affiliation from the article's Infobox.) —ADavidB 09:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Jack Dorsey is obviously a Democrat because he is a radical leftist who hates free speech and constantly censors and silences conservatives. He even donated to a black supremacist professor in Boston whose goal is to make free speech illegal, and he went so far as to permanently ban the president of the United States for encouraging the right to peacefully protest, which is protected by the First Amendment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.68.30.237 (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL Jules TH 16 (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Philanthropist"

Practically every billionaire could be termed a "philanthropist" (as giving money away to pet causes is a great way to fend off arguments that they should pay more in taxes, but I digress), but they should not all be described as such in the lead of an article about them. The article does not make a convincing case for declaring that Dorsey is notable for philanthropy – unlike, say, Bill Gates or even Bill Clinton. He is a "technology entrepreneur", full stop. 100.40.20.48 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The article's philanthropy section details how he has pledged to give away just under a third of his total wealth. 86.183.78.100 (talk) 00:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Which is exactly the problem the suggestion is trying to point out - relating money to philanthropy. How can such a person, that refused for years to moderate hate-speech - establishing a double standard that famous people can say whatever they want as they are "people of public interest" whereas John Doe is banned - be called a philanthropist, just b/c he gave money to something? In other words, those people can apparently buy the title of philanthropist. This is adding insult to injury for actual people that are affected by the toxic environment not just created by Twitter, but also defended against critical voices which pointed out for years that this creates harm. It's also a very American viewpoint, unable to understand that the world is much more diverse. I understand that there is no clear definition of what classifies as philanthropy and what not, but equating it to money alone is wrong, it's the attitude and ability to actually deeply listen, that also counts, among many other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.216.204.9 (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree, Dorsey is hardly known as a philanthropist. Such a title could be applied to just about any wealthy figure. StereoFolic (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears the arguments here against the term are somewhat political. Philanthropy need not be lifelong, and it doesn't cease to exist if some do not like the giver's prior/other activity. Still, based on the recentness, I would not protest removal of "philanthropist" from the lead. —ADavidB 15:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Jack Dorsey as founder & CEO of Twitter is currently the subject of a lawsuit alleging him to be a child pornagrapher as well documented here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhCqFORlaYI https://nypost.com/2021/01/21/twitter-sued-for-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/ https://twitter.com/nypost/status/1352278850416357380 https://www.christianpost.com/news/twitter-sued-after-child-sex-video-received-over-167k-views.html JusticeNoworLater (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. None of the provided are considered reliable. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The New York Post and Christian Post are reliable sources. Only a far-left extremist radical Democrat would say otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erickclive (talk • contribs) 02:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

You DO realize you're trying to make that argument on Wikipedia, don't you? Wikipedia has been a haven for far-left extremist radical Democrats and Communists with power trips for 20 years. Look at the douchebag who tried to claim to you that the New York Post is not a reliable source...He lives in Washington State (Antifa-land) and "is a member of WikiProject Countering systemic bias". You think you're going to get a fair or neutral decision out of an admin like that? There's a reason Jimmy Wales disavowed Wikipedia. 208.90.15.25 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Block Head

As reported in the news, Dorsey's title at Block is no longer CEO but "Block Head," and he is designated (but not titled) as the principal executive officer of the company. Unlike "Technoking" Musk, he had the board amend the corporate bylaws to give the change legal effect. Still, the article should be not only accurate but understandable to unfamiliar readers, and "principal executive officer" in the lead would accomplish both. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a published reliable source for this? Saying it's "reported in the news" is not sufficient. —ADavidB 03:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is, practically, but here's a link.[3] 67.180.143.89 (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is a link, but I don't think we should be adopting random made-up names for the infobox; they only confuse the reader (see Elon Musk as an example). It may be elaborated in the body that he has this role at Block. If CEO is not preferred, principal executive officer may be adopted for the IB. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/23/block-shares-plunge-after-hindenburg-says-jack-dorseys.html?utm_content=Main&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3Oc0vujPsZC0KPZAeqo6YsUnowpfOwXt1LX299O6V26JUDdkRYebzrkhE#Echobox=1679576307 VK Cosmetics (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Open Source Dispatch Software

There is currently contention over the inclusion of the claim that Dorsey worked on open source dispatch software. Although it is clear he worked in the dispatch software industry from his own testimony and information from reputable sources, the claim that his open source dispatch software exists and was used by cab services until 2007 is only supported by a fluff piece and other fluff pieces citing said fluff piece. I’m in favor of the removal of the statement unless better sourcing comes to light. Paragon Deku (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd favor this as well, though I have to admit it is an interesting fact (if true). I haven't looked at the source(s?), but even the header of this very Talk Page cites this claim as having appeared as a Main Page "Did You Know?" fact in Nov, 2008 (implying that it was still in use even as of that 2008 date). Perhaps it's worth allowing a little time for others to chime in and/or go plundering for an additional source? Microfamous (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Personal life, meditation

I can't find any relevance to the section about meditation. Similarly, Personal life is a oneliner, and if there isn't enough relevant information it shouldn't be there, or at least not have its own title section. Miguelsxvi (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Three sentences about Dorsey's meditation are in a subsection of the Personal life section, as is a sizeable subsection on Politics, all fully sourced. Yes, a single short sentence is before these two subsections. Is it your opinion that his meditation and political views should not be identified as part of his personal life? The paragraph on meditation probably doesn't need its own heading. —ADavidB 19:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)