Search
Close this search box.

Twitter CEO Says Banning Trump Was Right Decision But Sets Dangerous Precedent


In a tweet storm today, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey addressed last week’s ban of Donald Trump from the platform – and paused to hail Bitcoin’s ability to enable decentralized control.

Trump was booted from the social network in the aftermath of last week’s US Capitol attacks after Twitter deemed his tweets likely to incite further violence.

The following is his full statement:

“I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?

“I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.”

“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.

“Having to take these actions fragment the public conversation. They divide us. They limit the potential for clarification, redemption, and learning. And sets a precedent I feel is dangerous: the power an individual or corporation has over a part of the global public conversation.

“The check and accountability on this power has always been the fact that a service like Twitter is one small part of the larger public conversation happening across the internet. If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service.

“This concept was challenged last week when a number of foundational internet tool providers also decided not to host what they found dangerous. I do not believe this was coordinated. More likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were emboldened by the actions of others.

“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.

“Yes, we all need to look critically at inconsistencies of our policy and enforcement. Yes, we need to look at how our service might incentivize distraction and harm. Yes, we need more transparency in our moderation operations. All this can’t erode a free and open global internet.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)



6 Responses

  1. What an idiotic statement. There is no demonstrable difference between Twitter’s ban and various platforms/stores banning Parler. Jackie, if you really believe what you’re saying, invite @realdonaldtrump back on Twitter.

  2. >>> “If folks do not agree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply go to another internet service.”

    You mean like Parlor whom you deliberately got other companies to shut down after you were losing business to them?

Leave a Reply


Popular Posts