Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says Trump ban means the service has failed
- Reference: 1610609532
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/01/14/twitter_ceo_jack_dorsey_explains_trump_ban/
- Source link:
“I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here,” he opened, before going on to argue that “this was the right decision for Twitter” because the potential for violence to flow from Trump’s tweets was real.
[1]
“Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all,” he [2]tweeted .
Dorsey then said that the ban is ultimately a Twitter problem.
[3]
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. — jack (@jack) [4]January 14, 2021
The CEO went on to argue that when Twitter bans a user, they can just go elsewhere. But he noted that last week’s mass de-platforming events are a new and unsettling phenomenon that challenge accepted notions of online openness.
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. — jack (@jack) [5]January 14, 2021
The reason I have so much passion for [6]#Bitcoin is largely because of the model it demonstrates: a foundational internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by any single individual or entity. This is what the internet wants to be, and over time, more of it will be. — jack (@jack) [7]January 14, 2021
Dorsey reminded readers that in 2019 the company funded an effort to create “an open and decentralized standard for social media” that addresses the spread of disinformation. Twitter hopes to become a user of that tool. But Dorsey said it will take time to build, perhaps because Twitter intends to hire “up to five” people to work on the project.
He ended the thread as follows.
I believe the internet and global public conversation is our best and most relevant method of achieving this. I also recognize it does not feel that way today. Everything we learn in this moment will better our effort, and push us to be what we are: one humanity working together. — jack (@jack) [8]January 14, 2021
Analysis
When social media companies stuff up, they inevitably acknowledge their error, apologise weakly, then make vague promises to do better in future.
Dorsey’s thread scarcely acknowledges that Twitter has for years erred by doing too little to make itself a source of “healthy conversation”. He doesn’t really apologise for that neglect. And he makes exceptionally vague promises about how the company intends to do better in future.
[9]
He’s a little stronger on the issue of free speech, but overall, the thread exposes that Twitter has long tolerated very bad behaviour by some users. And still doesn’t seem to fully grasp the consequences of having done so. ®
Get our [10]Tech Resources
[1] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x250&tile=2&c=2YAAkSGCK8IVBmyiCTo4akwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510770992640001
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x250%7C300x252%7C300x600&tile=3&c=33YAAkSGCK8IVBmyiCTo4akwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510771928010753?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[5] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510776386580482?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[6] https://twitter.com/hashtag/Bitcoin?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[7] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510779033174016?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[8] https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510784620003330?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[9] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_personal_tech/front&sz=300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251&tile=4&c=44YAAkSGCK8IVBmyiCTo4akwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[10] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Dorsey is right!
Which is why Dorsey kept him until the last minute - Trump (despite his messages) have been the best thing to happen to Twitter and brand exposure. Now Trump's lost his power, he's shut-down by Twitter.
The acme of Twitter's failure came when 5 people died.
Screwed the pooch and knows it
I am not a Trump supporter or apologist.
When Twitter where not scaring world leaders by banning and no platforming certain people, groups and movements it was seen as ok.
Now they’ve banned POTUS and the other large social media outfits have done the same, other world leaders, Germany’s Markel as an example, have started to make noises and wonder if they could be banned too.
perhaps if future protest movements want to sway future elections they could seek to ban political leaders or parties and change the social media narrative to their agenda.
Cambridge analytics where derided for finding ways to advertise to specific target groups around elections, imagine what could happen if a popular political party was banned?
What would a uk election look like if social media banned the Labour Party and its supporters?
Social media have shot themselves in the foot by colluding to ban Trump, en mass the way they have.
Twitter is now suggesting a decentralised platform where they can be exempt from central censorship as their platform would be decentralised and able to resist censorship requests from governments and regimes. Not sure how they’d make money on a decentralised platform.
Re: Screwed the pooch and knows it
Trump incited violence.
You seem to be merrily ignoring that massive issue. Like Twitter would randomly ban for any reason.
People died due to Trump. You are ignoring that why?
Re: Screwed the pooch and knows it
I tend to ignore most things Trump, I’m not a great user of social media and I don’t run a social media empire.
The point is by banning POTUS in all his forms they’ve set a precedent that others will hold Twitter to.
Trump is bad and abused his office and used what everyone assumed to be an impartial social media to communicate to his followers who went on, I assume, to commit acts of violence resulting in people dying.
Is it because he used Twitter to encourage others to commit violence that got him banned from the other platforms?
Would he have been banned if he had done that using parler?
Would he have been banned if he had not used social media but press conferences or word of mouth instead?
Should past leaders now be banned for their roles in the deaths of hundreds of thousands around the world in conflicts like Iraq, Afghanistan etc?
I’ve not read the posts by trump and not really interested in reading them, I now don’t have to as Twitter etc have decided censor POTUS from me and everyone else, Non of us get to judge him now because he’s already been judged by social media.
Re: by colluding to ban Trump, en mass
They didn't collude. None of them wanted to make the first move, then trump asked his mob to attack Congress and it was just the reason the companies needed.
Black people sleeping in their beds get killed by the pigs. You're moaning because private companies won't allow trump to incite another rebellion.
Get some fucking perspective.
Re: by colluding to ban Trump, en mass
He isn't banned because he asked the mob to attack congress. He got banned because the effect was disastrous and deadly.
I'm not sure how your perspective works. How are your 2 examples linked - maybe you can provide further detail in your sweary way?
Re: by colluding to ban Trump, en mass
See also, the Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Re: Screwed the pooch and knows it
here is the ACLU's position:
[1]https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension-1560248
(I sometimes agree with the ACLU, especially when it comes to individual rights and privacy)
[1] https://www.newsweek.com/aclu-counsel-warns-unchecked-power-twitter-facebook-after-trump-suspension-1560248
"because of the model it demonstrates:"
The perfect tools for monetizing internet crimes? Just like Twitter, it can be used to create havoc.
Re: "because of the model it demonstrates:"
Or just after " foundational internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by any single individual or entity"
As if the big BTC whales can't sway the value of BTC whenever they wish like any other financial system.
No acknowledgement
For enabling 4 years of utter insanity. They chose profit and promotion over responsibility and accountability, even by only the standards of their own T&C's.
Promote healthy conversation?
Who defines "healthy"? A "normal" person might say that advocating violence is not healthy, but if you believe that "libtards stole the election " then all bets are off.
And how do you "promote" one thing without demoting another? "Stop right there with your cancel culture!".
Twitter, and all social media, have to admit there are some who have no interest in healthy conversation. Or indeed conversation at all. The challenge is how to deal with them. It's unfortunate that nobody thought through the consequences of unrestrained social media before letting the genii out of the bottle.
Re: Promote healthy conversation?
"It's unfortunate that nobody thought through the consequences of unrestrained social media before letting the genii out of the bottle."
Sure we thought about it. We even built it. It's called "Usenet"; you may have heard of it. It was (and is!) a grand experiment ... but it's not exactly what I would call "family friendly" ... and by it's very nature, it cannot be made family friendly. But as an adult toy, used by and for adults, it is perfectly adequate for what it does do well.
As a result of the reality of the Usenet experience, some of us old-guard warned the newbie point&drool WWW set what would happen when they re-invented the wheel, but with an advertising-driven capitalist bent. Would they listen? Hell no. Follow the money, they said. And did. With absolutely zero thought of anything remotely resembling social ramifications.
And here we are. Lovely, ain't it?
Methinks the clouds they are walking on are wearing thin ...
Re: Promote healthy conversation?
That's a good point - societal norms and the law define healthy. If one stands on a street corner and incites a mob against the law, that's different to woke cancel culture which is a result of individuals not liking things they don't want to. So there can be clear definitions of healthy...
"It's unfortunate that nobody thought through the consequences of unrestrained social media before letting the genii out of the bottle."
I personally never thought it would bring out the traits in society that it had...
Security
He didn't once mention how important my security is to him. He has mentioned #Bitcoin and thank God he's taking that seriously, that's the important stuff right there. “this was the right decision for Twitter” - that's nice.
Proper job. lol etc.
I'm not a twitter user
So maybe someone can come up with an example, but I fail to see any use case for twitter users being anonymous. Make users have to put their real name on every tweet and you will almost immediately improve the social conversation on twitter.
There are other forums that anonymity is relevant on, places where whistle blowers can reveal misdeeds, etc. But twitter is just a place for loud mouth people to tell the world what they had for breakfast, or for trolls to have fun.
Remove the anonymity and that healthy social conversation that Jack wants, will be right there. But of course, that will also hurt his user base as all the trolls, bots, and Russian server farms will disappear over night...
Too late
All this worthy hand-wringing is several years too late.
Dorsey (and Fuckerberg) presided over the development of social media into a phenomenon that is destroying people's mental health and eroding the nature of society. And they did it deliberately by developing content-promoting algorithms designed to cause controversy and division, because that made them the most money.
If their graves become occupied during my lifetime, I will dance on them.
Dorsey is right!
"The CEO went on to argue that when Twitter bans a user, they can just go elsewhere."
How true! Telegram subscription went up significantly since Twitter's ban. Keep up a good job, Jack!