At the same time, Dorsey said the ban also reflects “our failure to promote healthy conversation”. (Twitter has spent much of the past two years trying to figure out how to make its platform “healthier.”) He added that he feels that Twitter’s decision has set a “dangerous” precedent that “an individual or company has over part of the public conversation. global. ”
Having to perform these actions fragments the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for enlightenment, redemption and learning. And it sets a precedent that I consider dangerous: the power that an individual or company has over a part of global public conversations.
– jack (@jack) January 14, 2021
Dorsey also dismissed criticism that the company is practicing censorship, writing that “a company that makes a business decision to moderate is different from a government that removes access”. He also made it clear that Twitter has not coordinated with other companies that have also banned or suspended Trump in recent days.
You can read his full comments below:
“I don’t celebrate or feel proud that we have to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning that we would take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical security on and off Twitter. Was that correct? I believe that was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and unsustainable circumstance, which forced us to focus all of our actions on public security. The offline damage resulting from online speech is proven to be real and what drives our policy and enforcement above all else.
That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. Although there are clear and obvious exceptions, I think the ban is our failure to promote healthy conversation. It is a time to reflect on our operations and the environment around us. Having to perform these actions fragments the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for enlightenment, redemption and learning. And it sets a precedent that I consider dangerous: the power that an individual or company has over a part of global public conversations. The verification and accountability of this power has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is a small part of the great public conversation that takes place on the Internet.
If people do not agree with our rules and application, they can simply look for another Internet service. This concept was challenged last week, when several key Internet tool providers also decided not to host what they considered to be dangerous. I do not believe that this has been coordinated. Most likely: the companies drew their own conclusions or were encouraged by the actions of others. This moment in time may require that dynamic, but in the long run it will be destructive to the noble purposes and ideals of the open Internet. A company that makes the business decision to moderate is different from a government that removes access, but may feel the same way. Yes, we all need to critically examine the inconsistencies in our policy and enforcement. Yes, we need to see how our service can encourage distraction and harm. Yes, we need more transparency in our moderation operations. All of this cannot erode a free and open global Internet.
The reason I have such a passion for #Bitcoin is largely because of the model it demonstrates: a fundamental internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by a single individual or entity. This is what the internet wants to be and, in time, more will be. We are trying to do our part by funding an initiative around an open decentralized standard for social media. Our goal is to be a customer of this standard for the public Internet conversation layer. We call this @bluesky.
This will take time to build. We are interviewing and hiring people, looking to start from scratch or contribute to something that already exists. No matter the final direction, we will do this work entirely through public transparency. It is important to recognize that this is a time of great uncertainty and struggle for so many people around the world. Our goal at this point is to disarm as much as we can and ensure that we are all building towards greater common understanding and a more peaceful existence on Earth. I believe that the Internet and global public conversations are our best and most relevant method of achieving this. I also recognize that it doesn’t look like that today. Everything we learn at this time will improve our effort and push us to be what we are: a humanity working together. “