Bari Weiss takes over with the Twitter Files. The journalist, who collaborates with Matt Taibbi in the disclosure of these documents, published Monday, December 12 the following revelations on the underside of the suspension of Donald Trump’s Twitter account. In this fifth part, she retraces the moments following the decision by Twitter executives to permanently suspend the account of the former President of the United States, confirming, as explained by Matt Taibbi and Michael Shellenberger in parts 3 and 4, the exceptional way in which the leaders of the social network broke their own standards to give in to internal and external pressure.
As Michael ShellenbergerBari Weiss revealed that the decision to ban Donald Trump was not unanimous among Twitter employees, although the latter were overwhelmingly in favor of this decision. “Perhaps because I am from China, I deeply understand how censorship can destroy public conversation”, wrote an employee on January 7. Bari Weiss, however, makes it known that “Many employees on Slack channels were upset that Trump hadn’t been banned sooner.”
In his threadthe journalist in turn recalls that Twitter has “withstood internal and external pressure for years” to suspend the account of the American businessman. She recalled the same reasons mentioned by the social network in a tweet from 2018according to which “blocking a world leader would block important information… and hinder needed discussion around his words and actions.”
The two tweets from “discord”
Nevertheless, the pressure, especially internal, was growing. “After January 6 (Capitol events, editor’s note), Twitter employees organized to ask their leaders to ban Trump”writes Bari Weiss. “We need to do the right thing and ban this account”reads a screenshot of an employee. “It’s pretty obvious that he (Trump, editor’s note) will try to incite without breaking the rules”estimated another.
As a reminder, the revelations made by Michael Shellenberger demonstrated how the leaders of Twitter, in particular Roth Yoel and VIjaya Gadde, “struggled with the rules” and the policies of the platform in order to be able to justify the banishment of Trump. In addition to extrapolations in the interpretation of her tweets, this “Supreme Court of Moderation” decided to adopt a recidivism system. On the morning of January 8, 2021, Donald Trump “only had one shot left” before a fifth offense and a permanent ban.
That morning, the outgoing president tweeted twice, recalls Bari Weiss. In the first, Donald Trump paid tribute to his constituents, from “Great American Patriots” and in the second, he announced his non-participation in Joe Biden’s installation ceremony on January 20, 2021.
Twitter employees’ push to ban Trump
That same day, in the afternoon, internal pressure from Twitter employees escalated as their position was publicized. the Washington Post published an open letter signed by more than 300 Twitter employees, addressed to then-CEO Jack Dorsey, demanding Trump’s ban. “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-elect Biden rightly called an insurgency” (Assault by Trump supporters against the Capitol, editor’s note).
Michael Shellenberger recalled in part 4 that the “majority of Twitter employees were progressive” and oriented towards the American left, i.e. the Democrats.
Establishing a recidivism system exclusively to justify banning Trump, and changing Twitter’s approach to the concept of public interest didn’t seem like enough to pronounce “The verdict” that same January 8. Screenshots of conversations between Twitter employees, shared by Bari Weiss in his threadthus show the way in which the last two tweets of Trump were interpreted in a very specific sense.
“But the team assessing the tweets quickly concluded that Trump had *not* violated Twitter policies. I think we would have a hard time saying that it is incitement (to violence, editor’s note)”wrote a staff member. “It’s pretty clear that he’s saying ‘American patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) as of Wednesday.”we still read among the messages of Slack.
Another employee expressed his opinion: “I don’t see the incitement angle here.” “I also don’t see any clear or coded incitement in DTJ’s (Donald Trump Jr.) tweet.”wrote Anika Navaroli, head of policy at Twitter. “I will answer on the channel [Slack dédié aux] elections and I will say that our team assessed the tweet and found no violations”she says.
Bari Weiss also reveals that “Twitter’s security team has decided that Trump’s (second) tweet is also not a violation.” “Clearly not a violation. It’s just to say that he is not attending the inauguration”, the moderation team wrote at the time.
In the same threadthe collaborator of the new boss of Twitter insists on “l’exception” Trump. Elle evoked cases of other heads of state and political leaders, whose tweets, which sometimes incited violence or even war, have, in some cases, not even been deleted and their accounts have not been disturbed. She mentions the case of the Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who described Israel as “cancerous and malignant tumor”or tweets from Malaysian, Indian, Nigerian or Ethiopian officials. “But Twitter executives banned Trump, even though key staffers concluded that Trump hadn’t incited violence, not even in a coded way.”she continues.
“Leader of a terrorist group”
This does not convince Vijaya Gadde, head of political affairs, however. “Just 90 minutes after Twitter employees determined that Trump’s tweets did not violate the platform’s policy, Vijaya Gadde asked if it could in fact be a “coded incitement to more violence””writes Weiss.
Social network employees “suggest that Trump’s tweet may have violated Twitter’s policy of glorifying violence,” by interpreting the phrase ‘American patriots’ as referring to rioters”continues the journalist, who explains that “things escalate from there”. screenshots thus show that employees have come to “consider him as the leader of a terrorist group responsible for violence/deaths comparable to the Christchurch shooter or Hitler and based on this and all of his tweets, he should be ‘de-platformed'”,
In the meantime, Twitter employees in favor of his banishment did not take off, the same source still tells us. And a meeting with CEO Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadde, during which these two leaders explain the reasons why Trump has not yet been banned, does not quell their anger.
Bari Weiss also reveals that Jack Dorsey “asked for simpler language to explain Trump’s suspension”. An hour later, the sentence falls. Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension “because of the risk of further incitement to violence”.
The messages unveiled demonstrate the congratulations and “the state of ecstasy“, to use the words of the journalist, in which the employees were. Parag Agrawal, Dorsey’s successor, expressed misgivings about the decision. “I think a few of us should think about the effects of Trump’s ban (…) centralized content moderation has now reached a breaking point”he said.
In the sequel to his threadthe journalist confirms the words of her collaborator, Matt Taibbi, who had affirmed, in part 4 of the Twitter Files, that the leaders of Twitter were prepared “to prohibit [de la plateforme] future presidents and the White Houses – maybe even Joe Biden”. Above all, it reveals the intention, rather “the eagerness” employees at “address ‘medical misinformation’ as soon as possible”.
After recalling the reactions of several leaders, including Emmanuel Macron or Angela Merkel, to the banishment of Trump, Bari Weiss believes that “Twitter’s efforts to censor Hunter Biden’s laptop information, blacklist unfavorable views and ban a president” cause concern because “it is about the power of a handful of people in a private enterprise to influence public discourse and democracy”.