George Orwell’s observation that “if idea corrupts language, language can likewise corrupt thought” has never been more pertinent than in the wake of this week’s second release of Twitter documents.
Now, papers show Twitter officials hiding “disfavored” ideas as “visibility filtering” and “amplification” limits. Previously, many liberals claimed the social media behemoth engaged in censorship by using the more palatable word “content modification.”
The titles “Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust” (Vijaya Gadde) and “Global Head of Trust & Safety” (Yoel Roth) do not change the fact that Vijaya Gadde and Yoel Roth are among the greatest censors in history.
Nonetheless, the permission for this vast system was obviously issued by Twitter’s leadership. Shadow banning and “visibility screening” are compatible with the practices of former CEO Parag Agrawal, who promised that the company will “focus less on free speech” because “speech is simple on the Internet. Most individuals can speak. Who can be heard is the area where our role is highlighted most.
Now we know that Twitter not only banned dissident voices on topics ranging from COVID to climate change, but also throttled or stifled the traffic of disfavored authors.
Yoel Roth, a Twitter fact-checker, is featured on the cover of the New York Post for the date of May 28, 2020.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor who wrote about how COVID lockdowns will affect children, was among those attacked. He and others were justified in raising these concerns, but Twitter placed him on a “Trends Blacklist” in order to keep his tweets from trending. This list is indicative of the company’s recognition that such tweets might become popular if they were not suppressed.
Some of us have raised concerns about Twitter’s vast censorship apparatus for years, including the formation of a “shadow state” in which firms engage in censorship that the Constitution prohibits the government from doing.
It is remarkable that prominent Democrats have been upfront about exactly this type of corporate manipulation of political speech on social media. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) urged these corporations to implement intelligent algorithms to shield people from their own poor reading decisions.
Even President Joe Biden has advocated for editors to regulate speech and discussions in this manner. Biden remarked, “How do people know the truth without such suppression and manipulation?” ”
Elon Musk addresses Twitter staff shortly after assuming control of the social media company.
Twitter
It is too soon to establish the potential legal ramifications of these files, but there are sure to be several areas of urgent concern to counsel.
First, Elon Musk has hinted that some information may have been purposefully withheld or destroyed despite congressional inquiry. Twitter was advised to anticipate a probe by Congress into these areas.
It is unclear if this content was reportedly erased as part of a routine process or as part of a deliberate effort to conceal evidence of censorship or throttling. In the absence of clear proof, it might be difficult to bring such obstruction allegations to court. In 2005, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of auditing firm Arthur Andersen for destroying records in accordance with a conventional record-management system.
The destruction of records may also be relevant in an investigation to determine whether fraudulent statements were made under oath. Twitter officials denied the existence of such clandestine censorship attempts in public and in front of Congress. Indeed, a recent government filing disclosed an email from 2021 between Twitter officials and Carol Crawford, the digital media administrator at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Crawford desired to block “unapproved viewpoints” on social media, to which Twitter responded, “with our CEO testifying before Congress this week, [it is] difficult.”
During this hearing, social media companies were questioned about my past evidence on private censorship as a means of avoiding the First Amendment. In response, Dorsey stated, “We don’t have a censorship department,” and disputed under oath that there was political ideology-based “shadow banning.”
In 2018, Gadde and Head of Product Kayvon Beykpour confirmed unequivocally, “We do not shadow ban. And we do not shadow ban based on political or ideological beliefs.”
Since Musk took over Twitter, the manner in which Twitter managed the publication of information regarding Hunter Biden ahead of the 2020 election has been a hot topic.
Carolyn Kaster/AP
It turns out that there is no need for a “department” if the entire organization functions as a giant censorship and suppression mechanism. In addition, Dorsey did not mention the Strategic Response Team – Global Escalation Team, or SRT-GET, which operated above what journalist Bari Weiss termed “official ticketing.” This group reportedly consisted of Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust Vijaya Gadde, Global Head of Trust & Safety Yoel Roth, and subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, among others.
Start the day with essential information
The Morning Report provides the most recent news, videos, images, and more.
Third, there is the growing issue of surrogate censorship. The new records indicate that the effort to regulate political discourse extended far beyond the banning or suspension of certain persons. Those well known controversies, such as the banning of LibsofTikTok, now appear to represent the top of a censorship iceberg consisting of covert measures to blacklist, throttle, and suppress unpopular opinions.
There were also “search blacklists” to prevent people from linking to unpopular viewpoints. Those blacklisted may resurrect lawsuits alleging Twitter manipulated public debates and dialogues as a government agency.
Obviously, legal repercussions will continue to be muted by a media and administration that have supported censorship decisively. In the past few years, liberal writers and authorities have made significant concessions in their support for censorship and promotion of blacklists of conservative leaders, including Supreme Court justices.
Musk has compelled folks to take sides in the battle over free expression. The public and freedom of speech are on his side. Not only are record numbers of users signing up, but a recent poll reveals that the majority of Americans “support Elon Musk’s continued efforts to transform Twitter into a more free and transparent platform.”
The populace simply does not accept the liberal narrative. What media personalities formerly termed a “hoax” and a “conspiracy theory” is now in full view of the public.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren
Twitter’s censoring will no longer be concealed by Orwellian euphemisms and upbeat headlines. Once granted the authority by Agrawal to choose “who can be heard,” Twitter executives demonstrated how censorship can lead to an obsessive hunger for speech limits. Sitting in their San Francisco offices, “Trust” officials deemed numerous conservative opinions unworthy of consideration. The “filtering” of free speech rapidly evolved into a determination of whose perspectives merit consideration.
In any case, if you cannot rely on “Trust” professionals, on whom can you rely?
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and professor at the law school at George Washington University.
»Democrats and Twitter lied about censorship«