This article will be updated as story develops…
Twitter CEO Elon Musk and independent journalist Michael Shellenberger have released another installment of internal files from Twitter with this latest batch highlighting the chaos within the company on the day after the January 6 Capitol Hill riot.
“The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7,” author Shellenberger posted Saturday night to begin a larger thread. “As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban.”
“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 This #TwitterFiles is reported with @lwoodhouse,” the first post read.
FILE – In this Thursday, Dec. 31, 2020, file photo, President Donald Trump arrives on the South Lawn of the White House, in Washington.
(AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)
Shellenberger’s thread starts off by showing how Twitter employees had previously resisted calls to ban Trump from the platform but then outlined how they went about pushing for just that as calls to ban Trump intensified.
Shellenberger referenced public calls from former First Lady Michelle Obama and many other prominent figures calling for Trump’s ban on January 7.
The next post stated that Twitter’s CEO at the time, Jack Dorsey, was on vacation and delegated much of the responsibility to senior executives, including Former Twitter Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth, who Shellenberger points out were “overwhelmingly progressive.”
(Patrick Pluel/Pool/AFP via Getty Images/Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
“In 2017, Roth tweeted that there were ‘ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE,'” Shellenberger wrote. “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.”
The thread goes on to say that Dorsey sent an email to employees on January 7th telling them they need to “remain consistent” with policies “including the right of users to return to Twitter after temporary suspension.”
After that email, a screenshot shows Roth reassuring an employee that “people who care about this…aren’t happy with where we are.”
“Around 11:30 am PT, Roth DMs his colleagues with news that he is excited to share,” Shellenberger tweeted. “‘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.”
“Progress!” a member of Roth’s team says back which Shellenberger writes “makes clear that they had been pushing” Dorsey for “greater restrictions on the speech Twitter allows around elections.”
A colleague then asks Roth if this decision means that Trump can be banned given that Trump had one “remaining strike.”
“Does the incitement to violence aspect change that calculus?” The employee wrote to which Roth responded that it does not and Trump continues to have one strike remaining.
“This is for everything else,” Roth said.
Shellenberger then wrote that Roth’s colleague’s query “heavily foreshadows what will happen the following day.”
“On January 8, Twitter announces a permanent ban on Trump due to the ‘risk of further incitement of violence,’” Shellenberger wrote.
“On J8, Twitter says its ban is based on ‘specifically how [Trump’s tweets] are being received & interpreted,'” Shellenberger continues. “But in 2019, Twitter said it did ‘not attempt to determine all potential interpretations of the content or its intent.’”
Shellenberger wrote that the “only” message from a Twitter employee expressing serious concern about potential free speech ramifications of banning Trump came from a junior level employee who said it’s a “slippery slope” to make “one-off ad hoc” decisions that “don’t appear rooted in policy.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Shellenberger provided examples of Twitter employees using the term “one off” in Slack discussions which he says “reveals significant employee discretion over when and whether to apply warning labels on tweets and ‘strikes’ on users.”
“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,” Shellenberger’s thread added.
“Roth immediately DMs a colleague to ask that they add ‘stopthesteal’ & [QAnon conspiracy term] ‘kraken’ to a blacklist of terms to be deamplified. Roth’s colleague objects that blacklisting ‘stopthesteal’ risks ‘deamplifying counterspeech’ that validates the election,” Shellenberger wrote.
“Indeed, notes Roth’s colleague, ‘a quick search of top stop the steal tweets and they’re counterspeech,'” Shellenberger’s thread continued. “But they quickly come up with a solution: ‘deamplify accounts with stopthesteal in the name/profile’ since ‘those are not affiliated with counterspeech.'”
Shellenberger also highlighted how Twitter employees struggled deciding whether to punish users who posted screenshots of Trump’s deleted January 6th tweets with one saying that “we should bounce these tweets with a strike given the screen shot violates the policy” and another saying “they are criticising Trump, so I am bit hesitant with applying strike to this user.”
“What if a user dislikes Trump *and* objects to Twitter’s censorship?” The thread continued. “The tweet still gets deleted. But since the *intention* is not to deny the election result, no punishing strike is applied. ‘if there are instances where the intent is unclear please feel free to raise.’”
