Report: Twitter CEO Personally Decides Who Gets Banned!
As per a report from the Wall Street Journal, conspiracy theories are in reality conspiracy facts. More precisely, the “shadowbanning”/”blacklisting” business on social media is real. You know “we don’t shadowban”, “we treat everyone fairly”, “there’s no bias” mantra? Well, the story has now changed. Previously, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey openly admitted that Twitter’s employees (the people who suspend/ban/verify your account and enforce the ToS) have a left wing bias, i.e. they’re far from being fair, as in neutral. Hence Twitter itself has a left wing bias. Ergo, conservatives are burned constantly on Twitter. Along with Facebook and YouTube, but the latter companies do not have the guts to admit they’re left wing.
Today’s news is that Jack Dorsey was featured in the Wall Street Journal’s “Inside Twitter’s Long, Slow Struggle to Police Bad Actors” column. The article outlines Twitter’s efforts to mitigate the issue of “bad hombres” or “bad actors” on its platform, and includes the company’s CEO personal involvement into deciding who get blacklisted/shadowbanned or whatever Chinese-style form of censorship. Here’s from the article (of course Jack is portrayed as a hero, he only saves nice people from getting banned, right?):
Last month, after Twitter’s controversial decision to allow conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn’t involved in those discussions.
Twitter’s initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter’s own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest.
A similar chain of events unfolded in November 2016, when the firm’s trust and safety team kicked alt-right provocateur Richard Spencer off the platform, saying he was operating too many accounts. Mr. Dorsey, who wasn’t involved in the initial discussions, told his team that Mr. Spencer should be allowed to keep one account and stay on the site, according to a person directly involved in the discussions.
The article describes ( or fantasizes?) how Jack personally intervened in the decision-making process with regard to which high-profile Twitter account gets banned and things of that nature, thus regularly vexing Twitter employees. According to the article, Twitter decides who gets banned/suspended or whatever based on reports from users, who are basically policing the platform themselves. The decision to ban an account is made after consulting Twitter’s set of policies following mass-reporting, or at least that’s the theory. Now, imagine what happens if a group of well-organized social justice warriors cruise Twitter and report en-masse (eventually using Twitter bots) every conservative they don’t like. And the people who review the reports are leftists too, as per Jack’s own admission. Guess what happens next if you’re Milo or Spencer or whomever.
The same type of procedure for silencing/banning people stands true for flagging YouTube videos and Facebook accounts/posts. A few good men and their army of bot-accounts do the dirty job of silencing dissent on social media, with a little help from the friendly bugmen and women who staff the respective companies.
So, how does this work exactly? You start a “free speech” platform and after everyone’s on-board, you begin changing the rules and bias search results and all that? It’s not just Twitter, it’s Google too, and Facebook, and all the rest saying “no soup for you Trumptard, next!”.