Inside Twitter's Long, Slow Struggle To Police Bad Actors (wsj.com)

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey has personally weighed in on high-profile decisions, frustrating some employees. An anonymous reader shares a report: When Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey testifies before Congress this week, he'll likely be asked about an issue that has been hovering over the company: Just who decides whether a user gets kicked off the site? To some Twitter users -- and even some employees -- it is a mystery. In policing content on the site and punishing bad actors, Twitter relies primarily on its users to report abuses and has a consistent set of policies so that decisions aren't made by just one person, its executives say. Yet, in some cases, Mr. Dorsey has weighed in on content decisions at the last minute or after they were made, sometimes resulting in changes and frustrating other executives and employees [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source], according to people familiar with the matter. Understanding Mr. Dorsey's role in making content decisions is crucial, as Twitter tries to become more transparent to its 335 million users, as well as lawmakers about how it polices toxic content on its site.

Last month, after Twitter's controversial decision to allow far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones to remain on its platform, Mr. Dorsey told one person that he had overruled a decision by his staff to kick Mr. Jones off, according to a person familiar with the discussion. Twitter disputes that account and says Mr. Dorsey wasn't involved in those discussions. Twitter's initial inaction on Mr. Jones, after several other major tech companies banned or limited his content, drew fierce backlash from the public and Twitter's own employees, some of whom tweeted in protest. [...] "Any suggestion that Jack made or overruled any of these decisions is completely and totally false," Twitter's chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, said in a statement. "Our service can only operate fairly if it's run through consistent application of our rules, rather than the personal views of any executive, including our CEO."

Comments

Here's my story.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wound up on some stranger's profile - I forget how - and noticed he'd tweeted something anti-white. I saw that he'd also posted a picture with his son who was white. I called him an anti-white faggot. I didn't make any threats, I just called him a naughty name. Banned forever.

Fuck Twitter. Please give me my account back, faggots.

Just who decides was answered two years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Twitter is being run by the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations led by Qatar's US-Islamic World Forum and Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal's business partners Suhail Rizvi and Jim Berk. Remember when Saudi Arabia arrested Alwaleed bin Talal and cut off relations with Qatar, before General McMaster fired and replaced Trump's entire national security council and then Alwaleed was released and things returned to normal? Ever wonder what that was about?

They were supported by the Rockefeller-aligned MacArthur Foundation who have staff on the boards of Wikipedia and the New York Times.

And hey look, it's the White House announcing a "global research and action network focused on youth-oriented hate speech online" run by the same exact people and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. But hey, it's not the government censoring you online, it's just the President of the United States whose college expenses happen to have been paid by one Alwaleed bin Talal, and his Homeland Security staff, and a front for al-Qaeda. No big deal!

These websites also want to ban conspiracy theories. I wonder why?