@unknown
@redpilldispensr “We’ll decide”…. who the fvck is “we”… ? These people need to be eradicated from our planet
Tweet saying Bill Gates claimed humans won't be needed in the AI era drew mixed reaction: ~20% support, ~43% confront; debate centers on jobs and ethics.
Real-time analysis of public opinion and engagement
What the community is saying — both sides
many replies openly urge that Gates be "started with," "gotten rid of," or even violently eliminated, with language ranging from "arrest him" to explicit calls for extermination —a sustained, hostile backlash.
a large thread of replies frames Gates and other billionaires as plotting to “depopulate” humanity, accusing them of moral corruption, secret cabals, and wanting to cull the population (claims about vaccines, sterilization, and global control recur).
many commenters imagine an AI-led future where humans are unnecessary or obsolete; some fear existential risk and job loss, while a smaller group welcomes less work or a post-labor world.
alongside accusations of malicious intent, many demand investigations, arrests, or public punishment, citing alleged crimes and calling for legal or civic action.
sprinkled among the anger are posts urging resistance to elites, suggestions for economic remedies (e.g., protecting people from job loss), and a few voices expressing practical curiosity about who will manage wealth or ecosystems if humans are sidelined.
replies mix vitriol, sarcasm, fear, and dark humor across multiple languages, producing a charged, accusatory thread that conflates technological anxiety, distrust of elites, and calls for retribution.
Replies are full of insults, expletives and suggestions that Bill Gates should be ostracised or “go first,” with some comments escalating into explicit calls to have him jailed or eliminated.
Many users repeat allegations (Epstein links, pedophilia, population-control motives, vaccine distrust) and frame Gates as an oligarchic threat, often without caveats or evidence.
A large strand objects to perceived elite technocracy — “we’ll decide” is read as authoritarian — and users demand accountability, boycotts or legal consequences for tech/wealthy figures.
Numerous replies insist humans still matter — citing judgment, creativity, parenting and spiritual significance — arguing AI augments rather than replaces people.
Several replies invoke God, scripture and spiritual identity to reject the notion that humans could be expendable, portraying the debate as moral or theological, not just technical.
A minority urge combining AI and human stewardship, proposing augmentation, better support for human livelihoods, or skepticism that AI is an “extinction event.”
Many responses use ridicule (Kermit, farts, “artificial intelligence” jokes) and crude humor to undermine credibility, lighten outrage, or rally like-minded commenters.
Some users challenge the clip/caption accuracy (“that’s not what he said”), ask “who is ‘we’?” and request source/context before accepting the claim.
Most popular replies, ranked by engagement
@redpilldispensr “We’ll decide”…. who the fvck is “we”… ? These people need to be eradicated from our planet
@redpilldispensr I don't want him to decide anything for anyone.
@redpilldispensr That was always the plan. https://t.co/5EmFd44s1l
@redpilldispensr "So we must destroy it," says the despicable pedophile.
@redpilldispensr Guess we won’t be needing you, Bill! Not that we ever did!
@redpilldispensr How is he free to ruin the world and humanity!