Jack It In, Dorsey

I joined Twitter in 2009. I’d like to think it wasn’t really worth taking part in it up until that point, but I know what those first few years of my presence there were like – not pretty. For most of the last nine years, the most infuriating thing about Jack Dorsey was his incredibly cool handle. What I wouldn’t do for a handle like @josh. It was a simpler time.

This week, though, something happened.

It started when Apple stepped forward and announced that Alex Jones – and his podcasts – would be banned from their service.

“Apple does not tolerate hate speech,” a spokesperson told Buzzfeed.

Facebook hastily followed suit, announcing at 3am that Jones had been banned for “repeated violations of community standards.”

Spotify banned him for “hate content.” YouTube banned him for “repeatedly” violating their community guidelines. Then, when Jones fled to Vimeo in a last-ditch attempt to keep his show on the air, they banned him too. Even Pinterest and LinkedIn got involved.

Through it all, there was one glaring omission. One platform did nothing. One platform didn’t follow the crowd. One platform refused to join the stand against abuse and discrimination.

Twitter.

In his defence, Jack isn’t explicitly supporting or endorsing the far-right. Far from it. However, in trying to remain neutral, he has come down firmly on their side.

Through inaction, he is complicit. 

Rather than take bold action, Jack released a statement. It appeared as a vague, desperate attempt to excuse himself from making any real decisions. It resulted in him inadvertently becoming a friend of the ‘alt-right’.

So much so that, as of August 13, Jack is considered an ally by Alex Jones in his struggle for the right to be racist on the internet. And he’s in good company, standing alongside the likes of Laura Ingraham, who this week announced that “demographic changes” in America are a “national emergency”, and Tucker Carlson, who claimed that Mexico is more successful than Russia at election-interfering because they’re “packing our electorate.”

I’m sure he’s very proud.

His statement is fascinating. It drifts from shifting the blame to someone – anyone - else, to broad non-apologies for not doing enough in the last half-decade. Because there’s so much for me to criticise, let’s go through Jack’s statement piece by piece.

You can read the full, uninterrupted thread here.

 “We didn’t suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many…”

That’s an understatement. 

It’s not just “hard” - it’s impossible to understand and frankly unconscionable that as every other major global social platform bans a white supremacist, Jack feels the need to defend that same white supremacist.

I find memes that remain popular for far too long “hard.” 

I find not being able to edit a tweet after it’s been published “hard.”

I find seeing tweets with videos of that god-awful girl who can’t eat quietly “hard.”

I find the refusal to ban a racist who specifically targets - among many others - the parents of dead kids, simply unforgivable.

“…but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules.”

First of all, if Alex Jones hasn’t “violated” your precious rules, I have some news that may shock you: your rules aren’t fit for purpose.

Noah Pozna was seven years old when he was gunned down at school. His parents suffered the most unimaginable horror. Since the massacre at Sandy Hook, they’ve been forced to move home seven times. Seven times. They now live hundreds of miles from their son’s grave. All because of a conspiracy-driven vendetta led by Alex Jones.

Your rules are in place to “protect the experience and safety” of users. 

Ask Noah’s parents if they feel safe. I dare you.

“We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified.”

By “artificially amplified”, he means ‘retweeted by bots.’

Shifting the problem of white supremacy on his platform onto the prevalence of bots wouldn’t be so insulting if he also didn’t repeatedly fail in his attempts to deal with them. 

If you’re going to blame something else, at least blame something you’re successfully fixing.

PR 101, mate.

“Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past.”

You can’t explain stupid, Jack.

“We’re fixing that.”

How? How are you “fixing that”?

He’s not actually saying anything here. He says “we’re fixing that” in the same way I say “maybe tomorrow” when I look at all the work I have to do.

Give us a timeline. Give us an action plan. Give us some information on what “fixing that” actually entails and how you’re going to succeed. Don’t ‘Brexit Means Brexit’ us.

“We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term…”

He’s blinded by his own media presence.

Sure, removing Jones will only keep him in the headlines for a day, but this isn’t about him. This is about his users. His customers. Removing Jones will do so much more than just make them feel good. It will make them feel safe. 

Imagine Twitter without a major source of fake news, hate, and troll-targeting.

“…and adding to new conspiracy theories.”

This is especially vexing/funny because he hasn’t responded to the conspiracy theories already prevalent on his platform.

Sandy Hook. Pizzagate. Seth Rich.

By suddenly pretending to care about the plague of conspiracy theories on the internet, he’s pinning the blame on us. Why are conspiracy theories that could appear if Twitter bans alt-right accounts worse than conspiracy theories from alt-right accounts directed at the vulnerable?

I’ll tell you why – because when they’re directed at the vulnerable, they’re not affecting Twitter’s profits or Jack’s ego.

“If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure…”

That “outside pressure” is your user base.

You use “we” here but what you really mean is you and your colleagues. You’re trying to make it seem like a great idea to ignore your user base – a user base that is screaming at you to do something.

We want you to “react” to what’s going on around you.

Please react.

“…rather than straightforward principles we enforce…”

Here’s a “straightforward principle” for you: don’t make excuses for fascists.

Enforce that.

“…(and evolve) impartially…”

Impartiality is a myth. Those who choose silence, choose the status quo.

Listen to Desmond Tutu: “if you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

 “…regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that’s constructed by our personal views…”

Isn’t a platform “constructed” by the ideas of its users – users who are tired and angry that they are effectively being no-platformed by bigots – a good thing?

“…that can swing in any direction. That’s not us. Accounts like Jones’ can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors…”

Lie. Say lie.

“Unsubstantiated rumors” is another euphemism that can be thrown into the trash with “alternative facts”.

Jones uses your platform to spread fake news, and you have the nerve to act surprised when Congress and Parliament want you to answer questions about Russian interference via Twitter.

“…so it’s critical journalists document, validate and refuse such information directly so people can form their own opinions.”

Yes, I know this is my mess, but why do I have to clean it up?

Journalists can’t wage this war alone, Jack. They’ve got a lot going on. Your platform is used to propagate fake news and you allow the demonization of mainstream journalists. 

You have a duty.

Also, people have formed “their own opinions.” They’ve decided you’re spineless and will do everything you can not to stand up to white supremacism. I can’t think why.

“This is what serves the public conversation best.”

Ha.

Then, his work complete, Jack linked to a blog post written by Vice President of Trust and Safety, Del Harvey. I’m not sure if she knows her title is ironic.

The post was, like Jack’s tweet thread, empty of any substance. She has come up with a really neat name for their response to hate, though – the ‘Living Document’.

You can read that here.

I’m certain Jack isn’t a bad person. He, like poor billionaire Mark Zuckerberg, has found himself in a position whereby he will get a hell of a lot of hate for whatever action he takes.

Not taking action isn’t a choice, though.

@Jack just needs to decide which side he wants to be on.