Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey Explains President Trump’s Ban

Ever since he became president of the United States, there has been chatter amongst people about the rhetoric and falsehoods President Donald Trump has spread through his Twitter account. But the calls for action against him reached a fever pitch after he incited his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol to try to stop the business of counting the electoral college votes that resulted in his losing the presidency.

Twitter was the first social media company to take drastic action against Trump after giving him countless warnings about what he posts, specifically about election fraud.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey took to the popular social media platform to give an explanation for the action taken against President Trump.

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?

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021

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.

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021

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) January 14, 2021

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.

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021

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.

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021

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.

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021

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) January 14, 2021

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.

— jack (@jack) January 14, 2021