I'm inclined to think there was a right answer, which was to not become a tool of democrat propaganda. Twitter's actions may have changed the outfome of the election in 2020. That's inexcusable.

The fact that it was at the behest of advertisers is a poor excuse. Many people lost their source of income that year under pressure to get the jab, but maintained their integrity.

I think the problem is, like you said, the shareholders. An organization like Twitter can have no integrity, almost by definition. There are so many competing opinions and influential stakeholders that there is no possible outcome for a difficult decision other than more or less compromise. So for people who have integrity or a clear moral compass, the question becomes whether to stay and exert influence, or leave. Jack was free to do what he personally thought was right, but he likely wouldn't have lasted long.

So I think there was a right answer, but impossible to give without losing all influence. I don't know what Jack would have done as a free agent, but I know generally what I would have done (though I don't know if I would have had the courage).

All that to say, I agree that nostr is not so easily corrupted. But that does not lessen the need for people in difficult situations to courageously refuse to compromise. Brokering compromise in a corrupted system perpetuates the system. Sometimes it's best to dissent in order to testify to the illegitimacy of the system, even at one's own expense. Solzenitzsyn will be my guide if ever I find myself in a similar position.