I love it when a mansplain smackdown comes together.

Oh my god he keeps going.

Of course he does. A mere woman?! Correcting him!? That can't stand!
- Some men would really rather say "I have the benefit of heighten[sic] pattern recognition" unironically than admit a woman knows better than him 😭
He's unironically doing the "crispened potato snacks" bit.

Lol that Bill guy doubled down, and also hides his posts. Wow.

Also, labels himself "the demigod of digital debauchery". What a guy.

Someone needs to send his HDD to the feds, something tells me...
Yeah, that was an epic smackdown of the too-confident techbrodude poseur, wasn't it?
Also, labels himself “the demigod of digital debauchery”.
There's no way this guy doesn't have a whole harem of real dolls dressed up as Greek mythological figures.

I love how many men popped into mansplain mansplaining! Quality.

Self-awareness goes brrrr

Methinks someone doesn't know what "mansplaining" is.
Here, let me break down why that's a mansplain:
The man made a technical statement about what Signal was planning, talking with unearned (as it turns out) authority.
A woman negated said statement saying that the opposite was true.
The man, instead of maybe backing down and double-checking his facts, doubled-down instead on his incorrect statement, speaking with a certainty that rivals an LLMbecile's hallucinations.
The woman reveals that she is actually the authority and that the man's entire fronting was bullshit.
That's the mansplain. Someone who doesn't know shit corrected a woman who literally knows for certain without at any point considering that, perhaps, the woman is right.
Because when are women ever right?
Now fuck off the channel.
- Someone who doesn't know shit corrected a woman who literally knows for certain without at any point considering that, perhaps, the woman is right.
  Wouldn't he need to have reason to believe (say, by being told she's Signal's president) that she knows for certain before this makes sense? A "no" wouldn't convince anyone without that crucial bit of context I think, setting aside the insufferability of this guy.
  Now fuck off the channel.
  I'll probably eat some mod action at this rate, but that's a small price to pay to win an internet argument.
  Edit: Holy fuck I take that back.
- I'm not gonna interact directly with their comment, but I think it's worth mentioning that a lot of definitions include some reference to assuming she doesn't know what she's talking about. One definition is "the act of a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, or oversimplified manner, often assuming she lacks knowledge about the topic".
  So the person above suggesting that he was never told who she was is not realizing that it's still mansplaining even before he finds out. I'm not saying you should have to believe everything a woman says, but the fact he just assumed she was as ignorant as he was and didn't stop to reflect on that, look into it, or at least ask a follow up question about her experience is part of the problem.
  This article has a chart and you can see that if you're not sure of a woman's background it's probably going to end up that you were mansplaining: https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20180727-mansplaining-explained-in-one-chart
- (Yo so I know I'm not supposed to be commenting but can I just ask a quick question? Won't make a habit of it but this kinda blew my mind.)
  Wait, so does mansplaining require the man to be incorrect? I (for about a year) dated a woman who used to accuse me of mansplaining every time I would be excitedly ADHDsplaining a niche interest, and now I'm kiiinda super self-conscious about talking about...well anything, unless I know the other person has a decent idea of the subject already.
  So...was she using it right, or wrong and she's just a jerk who wanted to hurt me?
  I'd believe it, she did threaten to shoot me (like, not for a good reason that would be legal, for spending my own money on comics that I could afford), so it wouldn't be too out of character. But as a result I may have misunderstood this term for oohhh about 7yr now... Like I said I know I'm not supposed to comment and I'm sorry but can you elaborate on the meaning/appropriate application?
Hey none of your business, thanks for your interest in our community! We are women only so please don't comment again, thanks for understanding
She could also be lying, she is a CEO after all.
- Hi macaw! We're a women's only community so please don't comment again. Thanks ❤️
- We heard you the first time, fanboi.
Also I'd be rich if i had a nickel for every time a company exec said they weren't going to do a thing and then soon thereafter announced that they are going to do that thing
- Hey Beacon! Thanks for contributing but we're women only, so please don't comment again. 🥰
- That's the best you can bring to the table, techfanboidude?
  Weaksauce.
  Beef up your game.

Yeah, because there is no way a CEO would lie?

Sure as eggs is eggs, techfanboi sees women saying things he doesn't like and he ignores all boundaries, all rules, because his opinion is just SO IMPORTANT.
And replies with such a lame "rejoinder" he makes all men look idiotic by association.
Now fuck off out of the channel.
It would be reasonable to not believe an exec's statements when it comes to enshittification. But this guy talks as if he knows what he was talking about. If he did know what he was talking about, then he would have known who Meredith Whittaker was. And if he did, and thought she was lying, he would have said as much. Besides, it doesn't seem as though this guy would consider adding AI to be enshittification anyway.

Yes, he's an ass. Is he mansplaining? No. Try not to kneejerk, ok?

He's telling the PRESIDENT OF SIGNAL what Signal is "really doing".
That's mansplaining, full-on.
- I have been persuaded that I'm wrong. This is not, in fact, mansplaining.
  It turns out that unless it comes from the Mannsplein region of southern Germany, near the Swiss border, it is not "mansplaining". It's just "sparkling misogyny".