By The FirstTwitter CEO Elon Musk and journalist Michael Shellenberger have released the latest batch of internal documents and communications from Twitter. The latest tranche of documents show a company in chaos following the January 6 riot, and executive’s ad hoc justification for banning President Donald Trump from the platform.
“For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump,” Shellenberger writes. “But after the events of Jan 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO [Jack Dorsey] grows.”
You can read Shellenberger’s full investigation below. If you’re just catching up, check out The First’s coverage of Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of the Twitter Files.
On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 10, 2022
– create justifications to ban Trump
– seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders
– express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban
This #TwitterFiles is reported with @lwoodhouse
Part 2, where @bariweiss shows how senior Twitter execs created secret blacklists to “de-amplify” disfavored Twitter users, not just specific tweets;https://t.co/ilWqjXitxq
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 10, 2022
For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 10, 2022
“Blocking a world leader from Twitter,” it wrote in 2018, “would hide important info… [and] hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”https://t.co/qaqklHOHjc
Dorsey was on vacation in French Polynesia the week of January 4-8, 2021. He phoned into meetings but also delegated much of the handling of the situation to senior execs @yoyoel , Twitter’s Global Head of Trust and Safety, and @vijaya Head of Legal, Policy, & Trust.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 10, 2022
In 2017, Roth tweeted that there were “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.”
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 10, 2022
In April 2022, Roth told a colleague that his goal “is to drive change in the world,” which is why he decided not to become an academic. pic.twitter.com/1Bi7fNHfWP
Around 11:30 am PT, Roth DMs his colleagues with news that he is excited to share.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
“GUESS WHAT,” he writes. “Jack just approved repeat offender for civic integrity.”
The new approach would create a system where five violations ("strikes") would result in permanent suspension. pic.twitter.com/F1KYqd1Xea
The colleague wants to know if the decision means Trump can finally be banned. The person asks, "does the incitement to violence aspect change that calculus?”
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
Roth says it doesn't. "Trump continues to just have his one strike" (remaining). pic.twitter.com/Qyi1sJNa0w
On J8, Twitter says its ban is based on "specifically how [Trump's tweets] are being received & interpreted."
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
But in 2019, Twitter said it did "not attempt to determine all potential interpretations of the content or its intent.” https://t.co/2jW1s5pH4W pic.twitter.com/8gZwIDtyUQ
"This might be an unpopular opinion but one off ad hoc decisions like this that don’t appear rooted in policy are imho a slippery slope… This now appears to be a fiat by an online platform CEO with a global presence that can gatekeep speech for the entire world…" pic.twitter.com/4pedmgY8pa
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
Recall from #TwitterFiles2 by @bariweiss that, according to Twitter staff, "We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do."https://t.co/rDs5VZdaCt
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
Roth immediately DMs a colleague to ask that they add "stopthesteal" & [QAnon conspiracy term] "kraken" to a blacklist of terms to be deamplified.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
Roth's colleague objects that blacklisting "stopthesteal" risks "deamplifying counterspeech" that validates the election. pic.twitter.com/G02gGeicUW
But it turns out that even blacklisting "kraken" is less straightforward than they thought. That's because kraken, in addition to being a QAnon conspiracy theory based on the mythical Norwegian sea monster, is also the name of a cryptocurrency exchange, and was thus "allowlisted" pic.twitter.com/KGnPJUGHY5
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
What if a user dislikes Trump *and* objects to Twitter's censorship? The tweet still gets deleted. But since the *intention* is not to deny the election result, no punishing strike is applied.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
"if there are instances where the intent is unclear please feel free to raise" pic.twitter.com/8bdG6b38ej
What happens next is essential to understanding how Twitter justified banning Trump.
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
Sales exec: "are we dropping the public interest [policy] now…"
Roth, six hours later: "In this specific case, we're changing our public interest approach for his account…" pic.twitter.com/XRUFil2npI
Roth pushes for a permanent suspension of Rep. Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh)”
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
It's a kind of test case for the rationale for banning Trump.
“I’m trying to talk [Twitter’s] safety [team] into… removal as a conspiracy that incites violence.” pic.twitter.com/ZQP6u1zevy
That evening, a Twitter engineer DMs to Roth to say, "I feel a lot of debates around exceptions stem from the fact that Trump’s account is not technically different from anybody else’ and yet treated differently due to his personal status, without corresponding _Twitter rules_.." pic.twitter.com/R04TlfdVvK
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
The evening of January 7, the same junior employee who expressed an "unpopular opinion" about "ad hoc decisions… that don’t appear rooted in policy," speaks up one last time before the end of the day.https://t.co/DKyQmDhQvB
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
The employee notes, later in the day, "And Will Oremus noticed the inconsistency too…," linking to an article for OneZero at Medium called, "Facebook Chucked Its Own Rulebook to Ban Trump."https://t.co/JmafTfbUqV
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
"… and places the responsibility for that power on their own shoulders… So they hide behind an ever-changing rulebook, alternately pointing to it when it’s convenient and shoving it under the nearest rug when it isn’t.”https://t.co/JmafTeURoV
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
“Facebook’s suspension of Trump now puts Twitter in an awkward position. If Trump does indeed return to Twitter, the pressure on Twitter will ramp up to find a pretext on which to ban him as well.”
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) December 11, 2022
Indeed. And as @bariweiss will show tomorrow, that’s exactly what happened.
/END
READ MORE: CONFIRMED: Docs Show FBI Was Heavily Involved With Twitter During the 2020 Election
Sign up now!
More Like This
IT BEGINS: Full Jury is Selected and Sworn In for Trump’s NYC Trial
A full jury has been vetted, selected, and sworn in for Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York City. From Fox News: Judge Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, instructed jurors ahead of the weekend not to discuss or to research anything relating to the former president’s case. Merchan said opening arguments will …
ELECTION INTERFERENCE: Prosecutors Ask Judge to Fine Trump $1,000 for Each Social Media Post
Prosecutors in Manhattan asked the judge presiding over Donald Trump’s alleged ‘hush money’ trial to fine the former president $3,000 for violating his court-mandated gag order. From The Hill: The Manhattan district attorney’s office on Monday sought to fine former President Trump over his inflammatory social media posts and remarks about his criminal hush money …