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

Re: Nazis have no value to society

[BlueStrat]

Fascism and socialism or social-democratic-ism are not the same thing in any respect nor did the Nazis practice socialism.

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all top-down, command-and-control, redistributionist, collectivist, authoritarian ideologies that place little value on individual freedom over the interests of the collective. "Everything within the State, nothing outside the State." applies equally to all three. In none of them does the individual have "rights", only privileges allowed by the State that can be revoked anytime for any reason.

It's like Catholics, Protestants, and Methodists each accusing the others of not being Christian. They are all Christians that differ only on relatively minor points of doctrine. It's the same with Fascism, Socialism (and it's sub-variants like "Democratic Socialism" which is an oxymoron) and Communism.

Rather than "Left" and "Right" we should be discussing an "Up" and "Down", "Up" being larger government with the commensurate loss of individual liberty, and "Down" which is smaller, less powerful government with a commensurately larger amount of individual liberty.

With a less powerful government "Left" and "Right" would not matter as much nor affect individual liberty as drastically.

Get "Down" baby, and get free!

Strat