Olivia
Online
SadiQ HabiL
@kingqabil
Full Stack Software Development Student(Micronaut) @Microverseinc!
Burao
Joined August 2011
881 Following
86 Followers
246 Posts
@sultanwho Somaliland has been a safe heaven & it will be. In Shaa Allah.
Sultan Welcome to Hargeisa, I hope you'll enjoy🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
@sultanwho Thanks Suldan
Why America and China Both Want THIS Country in Africa
The US and China are in a new geopolitical tug-of-war, but this time over #Somaliland.
What looks like an unrecognized territory in the Horn of Africa is actually a strategic prize that could shape Africa’s future in trade, security, and global alliances.
Analysis by Cyrus Janssen, geopolitical analyst and one of the world’s top social media influencers.
#WashingtonEye
Report from @paultilsley of @FoxNews on @POTUS considering “bold move” of recognizing #Somaliland to give #USA🇺🇸 “a new military and economic foothold in #Africa, counter #China🇨🇳 and #Russia🇷🇺, and strike a blow against Islamist terrorists in the region.” https://t.co/22xQ4LGk80
If you govern yourself better than your neighbors, shouldn’t that count?
Somaliland has done it for 30+ years and still ignored.
Erdoğan demands two states for Cyprus.
Somaliland is told “no statehood.”
Double standards speak louder than words.
#Somaliland #Recognition #Turkey
@971AlSaadi https://t.co/5CiJ7PBTNr
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
@SomaliainUSA @Dahirhasan a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, thank you that is Somaliland argument
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
@MohamedBarawani https://t.co/5iu8oAWEXn
@MohamedBarawani https://t.co/5iu8oAWEXn
@MohamedBarawani https://t.co/5iu8oAWEXn
@MohamedBarawani https://t.co/5iu8oAWEXn
@MohamedBarawani https://t.co/5iu8oAWEXn
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
@BasheOmar1 https://t.co/5iu8oAWEXn
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
@faisalroble19 https://t.co/5iu8oAXcMV
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
@washington_EY https://t.co/5iu8oAXcMV
This is a much more nuanced and insightful argument than the first one. It correctly identifies that the core of the issue is political, not cultural. However, while it moves in the right direction, it still oversimplifies Somaliland's case by reducing it to a simple clan grievance or a reaction to Mogadishu's failures.
Let's break down the argument point by point.
Where the Argument is Correct and Insightful:
1. "There is no difference... on above criteria." This is absolutely true. As established in the first response, ethnicity, religion, and language are unifying factors, not dividing ones. The argument correctly dismisses these as the basis for separation.
2. "The main problem... is Mogadishu." This is a critical and valid point. The historical grievances stem directly from the actions of regimes in Mogadishu:
· The Barre regime's persecution: The bombing of Hargeisa and the genocide against the Isaaq clan in the late 1980s are not just "clan conflict"; they were state-sponsored atrocities that shattered the 1960 union. This created a deep-seated trauma and a collective resolve never to be ruled by Mogadishu again.
· Post-1991 failure: Mogadishu's prolonged period as a failed state, characterized by warlordism and extremism, occurred while Somalilanders were peacefully building a functional government. This divergence in political experience solidified a separate Somaliland identity.
Where the Argument is Incomplete or Misleading:
1. "There is only one difference which is clan..." This is a significant oversimplification. While clan is a fundamental social organizer, Somaliland's claim is not about creating a state for a single clan.
· It is a political project that has (imperfectly but successfully) integrated multiple major clans (Isaaq, Gadabuursi, Ciise, Dulbahante) into a system of governance.
· Its claim is based on the territory of the former British Somaliland protectorate, a defined colonial border recognized by the OAU's charter. This is a legal and historical argument, not just a clan-based one.
2. "Federalism would perfectly suit." This is the core of the counter-argument, but it ignores Somaliland's stated position. Somaliland does not seek autonomy within a Somali federation; it seeks recognition as a sovereign state based on its pre-union independence. They see themselves as dissolving a failed union, not seceding from a state. They argue they are reverting to their original borders.
3. "If every clan gets an independent state, Africa would have 500 states." This is a common and powerful rhetorical point, but it mischaracterizes Somaliland's case. Again, it's not about a clan seceding; it's about a former colony revoking its act of union. The better parallel is not a clan breaking away, but a state like Senegal and The Gambia dissolving their short-lived Senegambia Confederation (1982-1989). They went back to being two separate sovereign states based on their original borders.
The Example: The Dissolution of a Union
The most precise examples that support Somaliland's legalistic argument are the peaceful dissolutions of political unions between distinct entities.
1. The Case of Czechoslovakia (1993) - "The Velvet Divorce"
This is the perfect example that counters the argument that federalism is the only solution.
· The Situation: Czechoslovakia was a single state comprising two major ethnic groups: Czechs and Slovaks. They spoke closely related languages and had no religious divide.
· The Issue: The union was increasingly seen as unsatisfactory. Political and economic tensions grew between the Czech Lands and Slovakia. There was no horrific civil war, just a recognition that the two regions had different priorities and that the union was no longer functioning as desired.
· The Solution: The political leaders of both regions peacefully negotiated the dissolution of the state. On January 1, 1993, they split into two new, internationally recognized sovereign states:
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
iquwowoenqiqos
Seen from Algeria
Guillermo Rauch 
Seen from Singapore
papa cuckold
Seen from Indonesia
moni kaa kaa
Seen from United Kingdom
Buse HİJAB🧕
Seen from Turkey
Claireee
Seen from Malaysia
Pattern$Fitness
Seen from Turkey
Faruk
Seen from Turkey
türbanlı türk ifşa
Seen from Netherlands
Hagen Toons 🔞
Seen from Argentina
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
241.3M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.1M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
113M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.8M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107.1M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
98.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.3M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
91.5M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
89.1M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
83M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
74.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
72M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
70.5M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.8M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
65M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
64.7M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.4M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
62.2M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.8M followers
X
@x
60.8M followers