Rules were no barrier once Twitter’s internal momentum was building toward its ban of then-President Donald Trump in the aftermath of the Capitol incursion, according to communications unearthed in the “Twitter Files.”
Twitter has a rule that allows for tweets that might otherwise be flagged for punishment to remain available if they are considered to be in the public interest.
As noted by journalist Michael Shellenberger in Saturday’s installment of the “Twitter Files,” Twitter put that rule through a number of contortions in order to ban Trump.
The “Twitter Files” is a project undertaken by new Twitter owner Elon Musk to highlight internal decision-making at Twitter as it related to muzzling opinions and banning Trump.
The messages released by Shellenberger indicate former Twitter Head of Trust and Safety Yoel Roth was a prime mover in the ban and helped steer a course around the rules to achieve his end.
What happens next is essential to understanding how Twitter justified banning Trump.
Sales exec: “are we dropping the public interest [policy] now…”
Roth, six hours later: “In this specific case, we’re changing our public interest approach for his account…” pic.twitter.com/XRUFil2npI
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
Shellenberger posted communications from one Twitter executive questioning what was taking place, and Roth’s reply that anything they could use to ban Trump would be fodder for the process.
Shellenberger focuses on one message, writing, “What happens next is essential to understanding how Twitter justified banning Trump. Sales exec: ‘are we dropping the public interest [policy] now…’ Roth, six hours later: ‘In this specific case, we’re changing our public interest approach for his account…'”
The files accessed by Shellenberger indicate that Roth sought to permanently suspend the account of Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida as a trial balloon for what he was planning for Trump.
Roth pushes for a permanent suspension of Rep. Matt Gaetz even though it “doesn’t quite fit anywhere (duh)”
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
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
Roth later offers his justification for throwing policy out the window.
Roth’s response hints at how Twitter would justify deviating from its longstanding policy. “To put a different spin on it: policy is one part of the system of how Twitter works… we ran into the world changing faster than we were able to either adapt the product or the policy.” pic.twitter.com/wGMvuoS7u3
— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022
“Roth’s response hints at how Twitter would justify deviating from its longstanding policy. ‘To put a different spin on it: policy is one part of the system of how Twitter works… we ran into the world changing faster than we were able to either adapt the product or the policy,'” Shellenberger posted.
In an Op-Ed posted on The Hill, law professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University noted the disturbing reality revealed by the “Twitter Flies.”
Turley noted that comments from President Joe Biden and former President Barack Obama supporting content moderation “show total contempt for the ability of people to make up their own minds on subjects ranging from elections to vaccinations.”
He said the tone of the internal messages was concerning.
“What these files suggest is an utter license to control political speech on social media platforms. Twitter executives often sound like overlords determining what the public should be allowed to read or say. This is hardly surprising, given the constant stroking by many politicians and pundits who say they are saving democracy by limiting free speech,” he wrote.
In releasing the behind-the-scenes messages, “Musk seems to be forcing a reckoning that few in Washington relish — and one which the media can’t continue to ignore, given an expected investigation by a Republican-controlled House,” Turley wrote.
“Political and media figures will be forced to dispense with any pretense of support for free speech in defending censorship, election manipulation, blacklisting and shadow banning.”
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
