"As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban."
Sorry I missed this last night. I mean, I'm not really sorry. Sometimes I'm not hanging around on line looking for the next thing.
ADDED: Shellenberger's summary:
On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:
- 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
MORE: On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs: - 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
AND:
We're told Jack Dorsey was away on vacation and had "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."But after the events of Jan 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO @jack grows.
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 10, 2022
Former First Lady @michelleobama , tech journalist @karaswisher , @ADL , high-tech VC @ChrisSacca , and many others, publicly call on Twitter to permanently ban Trump. pic.twitter.com/RzNj7WJReg
On January 7, @Jack emails employees saying Twitter needs to remain consistent in its policies, including the right of users to return to Twitter after a temporary suspension
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 10, 2022
After, Roth reassures an employee that "people who care about this... aren't happy with where we are" pic.twitter.com/IfDpEVnOtR
Around 11:30 am PT, Roth DMs his colleagues with news that he is excited to share.
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) 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 (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
Roth says it doesn't. "Trump continues to just have his one strike" (remaining). pic.twitter.com/Qyi1sJNa0w
The *only* serious concern we found expressed within Twitter over the implications for free speech and democracy of banning Trump came from a junior person in the organization. It was tucked away in a lower-level Slack channel known as “site-integrity-auto." pic.twitter.com/6CWiz5MXfu
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
Twitter employees recognize the difference between their own politics & Twitter's Terms of Service (TOS), but they also engage in complex interpretations of content in order to stamp out prohibited tweets, as a series of exchanges over the "#stopthesteal" hashtag reveal. pic.twitter.com/tfZesQNXx8
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
Indeed, notes Roth's colleague, "a quick search of top stop the steal tweets and they’re counterspeech"
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
But they quickly come up with a solution: "deamplify accounts with stopthesteal in the name/profile" since "those are not affiliated with counterspeech" pic.twitter.com/BjVvtAhLtw
>Employees struggle with whether to punish users who share screenshots of Trump's deleted J6 tweets
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
"we should bounce these tweets with a strike given the screen shot violates the policy"
"they are criticising Trump, so I am bit hesitant with applying strike to this user" pic.twitter.com/dhHF2nXsHz
Roth pushes for a permanent suspension of Rep. Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh)”
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) 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
Earlier that day, the employee wrote, "My concern is specifically surrounding the unarticulated logic of the decision by FB. That space fills with the idea (conspiracy theory?) that all... internet moguls... sit around like kings casually deciding what people can and cannot see." pic.twitter.com/KqwSdANBgo
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
पोस्ट्स
२० टिप्पण्या:
It seems the moral calculus within the anti-Trump / Woke brigade didn't even rise to "eye for an eye" morality, let alone anything approaching conventional religious Golden Rule or Silver Rule morality. It was all just infantile "me want, me do" bullying and knee-jerk reactions. They never imagined that anyone would push back or humiliate them. Snowflake education indeed.
* The BLM movement had lots of "mostly peaceful protesters" burning and throwing bricks. Turn a blind eye...'cause reasons.
* Trump had "mostly peaceful protesters" on Jan 6 but...make up rules to eject him because he's so icky. Icky. Icky.
* Twitter turned a blind eye to p0rn and everything related to inappropriate relations with children...'cause reasons.
* Twitter invented ways to censor anyone who presented pointed counterarguments to their actions...'cause reasons.
This generation isn't left wing or revolutionary or totalitarian so much as they proved to be ignorant of basic social principles, unable to handle disagreements, and to have never faced adverse consequences for doing selfish, reckless, and/or downright evil things. The babies were in charge. Now, which baby handles my Bitcoin? I'm gonna be rich, rich, rich. I deserve it. You simply can't lose when a baby is in charge of your money.
https://classroom.synonym.com/what-is-the-difference-between-the-silver-rule-and-the-golden-rule-12080729.html
Yoel Roth is the inevitable and predictable product of Althouse’s feminism and gay obsession. Roth has a “husband.” He has a crappy doctorate in communication, a featherbedding major with no intellectual content. He did his thesis on teeny-bopper porn.
Althouse’s “every kink is a great civil rights issue” can have no other outcome than to produce these creeps.
While I’ve always admired the prof’s professed passion for free speech, she’s caught in a vise. Her political philosophy is a deadly enemy of free speech in practice. It elevates uneducated, crackpot perverts with no apparent skills like Roth to the role of grand censor.
Thes actions were definitely linked to government influence and near simultaneous bans on other platforms.
You’d think #stopthesteal would be trending on Twitter right now.
But no.
Professor PeeWee Herman says..
Sorry I missed this last night. I mean, I'm not really sorry
"Counterspeech."
A word I have never seen or heard before. And apparently some speech is approved speech and other speech is "counterspeech."
Banning Trump is the least interesting part of the 'reveal'. Actions were loud and clear. Nothing revealing. We all knew what twitter was doing. The fun part was watching the leftist try to justify their authoritarian bent.
Lets get back to documenting all the illegal actions of the Intelligence community, directing all these social networks.
The IC was dictating the messaging for the entire nations. Direct 1st Amendment violations.
I don't necessarily have anything practical to suggest, but of course the question arises whether 24/7 social media was ever a good idea. As far as awareness of public issues, and actual debate, is there any improvement over the media of let's say the 1970s: the worst days of "yellow journalism"--partisan hate of the other people, sensational treatment of crime and sex--were arguably behind them, and thee was a sense of weighing pro's and con's. Compared to the 50s there was probably too much porn, and the hopes for things like the War on Poverty were undermined by cynicism, but on the upside there was a certain sophistication about foreign and domestic politics. I come back to the fact that reporters who covered Carter's real and exaggerated weaknesses, knowing this was helping Reagan, probably tended to vote for Carter. No one to speak of at the Watergate hearings was eager to bring down a Pres, Republicans were given control of their own witnesses, and there was a real sense of deliberation and consideration of evidence, almost unthinkable now.
It's a few years ago now but Google was pressed as to whether they alter their algorithms to bring up politically correct search results. It's well known that very few people go past the first page of hits; are they edited? Reluctantly, Google people admitted that they had staff do spot checks or (somewhat) random checks: search Holocaust denial, for example. To their horror, the first page of hits on Holocaust denial was all for denial. So programmers were asked to fix this: make the first page of hits all about how the Holocaust was real, deniers are unlikely to be ignorant so they must be evil, etc.
I identify with Hitler in the Downfall parodies: I'm one who greeted the internet with great hopes and dreams: an outpouring of creativity and collaboration, people all over the world inspiring each other and working as teams to create and curate works that are interesting and beautiful. Thoughtful writers sharing ideas, developing a consensus based on evidence, insight, and careful thought. Hardy har har.
I was on Facebook for many years, but I quit it when it banned President Trump. (I never have been on Twitter.)
I would like to know how many quit Facebook as I did. I am sure that Facebook has estimated the number.
I would like also to see Facebook's internal discussion of its decision to ban Trump.
Have you noticed how all the key executive players in this saga all have the word ”Trust” in their official job titles? @yoyoel, Global Head of Trust and Safety, and @vijaya Head of Legal, Policy, & Trust." That’s the tell.
Probably too obvious to have a Vice President of ‘Yeah, That’s the Ticket’.
"...express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban"
C'mon, man! We are talking @yoyoel, here. This is a guy who is in touch with his inner twerp. If he ruled the world only people who agreed with him would be heard. Everyone else would be dangerous.
"- express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban."
Of course not. I don't know why anyone would think there would be. It was their clubhouse and they controlled who could play in it. No icky girls or Conservatives.
Enigma said...
"It seems the moral calculus within the anti-Trump / Woke brigade didn't even rise to "eye for an eye" morality, let alone anything approaching conventional religious Golden Rule or Silver Rule morality."
But there is also the Platinum Rule - "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
And there is the Iron Rule - "Do unto other before they do unto you."
So many rules to choose from.
I Really Don't See WHAT the big fuss is about.
So the Media are OWNED by the democrats
So the tech giants are OWNED by the democrats
So the FBI/CIA/State are OWNED by the democrats
So dissenting voices are squashed
All THAT just reflects the fact that The People (are Required to) support the democrats
If You speak out against democrat domination.. That Just Shows, that YOU hate our democracy.
And hate speech will land you in prison.
Every one is able to support any position supported by the democrats. THIS is The Definition of freedom
With Donald Trump, I learned early to watch what he did rather than pay much attention to what other people said he did, or what other people said he said. Now the Twitter denouement is instructive, because it reinforces that this is a solid approach in our modern world. We had hundreds of people inferring what was going on within Twitter's bunker, and it turns out they were mostly right. We could see some of the evidence, daily, with the selective censorship and the various stealth nuancing techniques that affected people's ability to express themselves creatively.
Twitter vowed over and over again that they provided an open rules-based forum. That's what they said. What did they do? They refused to provide transparency on rules. They didn't offer proof of rule applications when deleting accounts. The list of deleted accounts showed their politically-biased agenda. They lied about shadowbanning and so on. We could see what they did Now we are finally seeing the bunker-spoken truth. It's nice to have the evidence, but really is was over-whelming enough before, wasn't it?
I never opened a Twitter account based on what I could see that they were doing.
Scratch a leftwinger and a fascist bleeds.
The more I see of the inner deliberations of Twitter demigods like Yoel making up “policy” on whose voice was unwelcome and deserved banishment, the more I think of Anthony Fremont in “The Twilight Zone” who sent into the cornfield anyone who displeased him. But at least with Anthony, people could see what he was doing.
Will somebody ever supply us with a roster of the Digitally Disappeared?
And if their disappearance was done in violation of Twitter’s then-extant TOS, do they have legal recourse? They were wrongly deprived of their right to be heard, and denied the benefit of the bargain to which the parties had agreed.
Thank God for Musk. Otherwise, we'd still have leftists claiming Twitter was a freespeech platform and fairly enforcing its terms of service.
This shows otherwise. It proves it. I wish we knew more about the involvement of the FBI/DNI/DHS officials in banning Trump.
The twitter files also show that Yoel Roth was the one banning people not Dorsey. Yoel Roth was a crazy leftist who thought Trump and his supporters were Nazi pigs and they had no rights. Yoel Roth was the driving force and making and executing the ban. Dorsey was just signing off on what Yoel Roth did. The Indian lawyer doesn't seem to be involved. A figurehead.
I've seen this a lot in other corporations. You have some "team" or "Committee" that has a top level executive who supposedly is runnning the show, when in fact he's off doing something else, and delegates the "teams" operation to a lower level employee. the Big Exec just signs off, and never gets involved EXCEPT when its a very big issue, or there's some odd issue that interests him.
I wonder who hired Yoel Roth, and why was He made chief censor. Technically, Dorsey probably signed him, but I'd bet there was someone on the Board of Directors or some outside interest that pushed him on Jack Dorsey.
This shows otherwise. It proves it. I wish we knew more about the involvement of the FBI/DNI/DHS officials in banning Trump.
I was interested to see Michelle Obama was one proposing permanent ban on Trump. I wonder if she has thoughts of trying to run for president?
Shellenberger mentions twitter investor, Chris Sacca. Sacca is a man of the hard Left, despite being a venture "capitalist" and even appearing as an investor on Shark Tank. Somewhere along the way, Sacca started protecting his tweets, which is too bad, really. If he had been a person on the Right tweeting about people on the Left the way he actually tweeted about people on the Right, I have no doubt he would have been permanently banned from twitter.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा