- Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey has issued a Statement on his personal.handle justifying why he banned President Donald Trump on his social media platform
- Some Americans supported the ban of President Trump’s Twitter account, while others believed Jack Dorsey went too far
Following the ban, the Twitter CEO explained why he had to do what he did as shares of Twitter fell after the ban of the American president.
“Just 5 CEO’s control your social voice and can mute you for saying something they don’t like.
- Jack Dorsey (Twitter)
- Susan Wojcicki (YouTube)
- Jeff Bezos (Amazon)
- Sundar Pichai (Google)
- Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook)
“Time to break up big tech monopoly.” Said @HegKong on Twitter
Social media platforms have their rules and terms which users sometimes violate knowingly or indeliberately.
Jack Dorsey’s full Statement on President Donald Trump’s ban on his platform reads:
I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?
I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.
That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.
Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.
The check and accountability on this power has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is one small part of the larger public conversation happening across the internet. If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service.
This concept was challenged last week when a number of foundational internet tool providers also decided not to host what they found dangerous. I do not believe this was coordinated. More likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were emboldened by the actions of others.
This moment in time might call for this dynamic, but over the long term it will be destructive to the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet. A company making a business decision to moderate itself is different from a government removing access, yet can feel much the same.
Yes, we all need to look critically at inconsistencies of our policy and enforcement. Yes, we need to look at how our service might incentivize distraction and harm. Yes, we need more transparency in our moderation operations. All this can’t erode a free and open global internet.
A Twitter user with the handle, @NoiseCammie posted the photo below to challenge the Twitter CEO on his double standards regarding banning the outgoing president of United States:
Snapchat has also joined the list of social media platforms that have banned President Trump.
“In the interest of public safety, and based on his attempts to spread misinformation, hate speech, and incite violence, which are clear violations of our guidelines, we have made the decision to permanently terminate his account.” Snapchat stated.