Twitter Files 4.0 reveal how executives changed policies to permanently ban Trump

The fourth instalment of Twitter Files shared by Elon Musk reveals how senior executives of the company sought a change in policies and created justification on January 7 for permanently banning Donald Trump from the microblogging platform.

Journalist Michael Shellenberger posted part 4 of Twitter files, exposing how strategies were made at the Twitter office on January 7, a day after which supporters of former U.S. president Donald Trump staged a failed protest at Capitol Hill.

At the start of his Twitter thread, Shellenberger shares an old Twitter public policy post dated January 6, 2018, which reads, “Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets would hide important information people should be able to see and debate. It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

Add WION as a Preferred Source

1. TWITTER FILES, PART 4

The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

As the pressure builds, Twitter executives build the case for a permanent ban

How it started

He explains how Twitter was earlier resistive to calls for banning Trump, however, after the Capitol Hill protest, external and internal pressure to permanently ban Trump grew on Twitter's then-CEO Jack Dorsey.

“Dorsey was on vacation in French Polynesia the week of January 4-8, 2021. He phoned into meetings but also delegated much of the handling of the situation to senior execs @yoyoel, Twitter’s Global Head of Trust and Safety, and @vijaya Head of Legal, Policy, & Trust,” Shellenberger wrote.

Explaining the extremely partisan nature of the Twitter staff, he stated that in 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, & 99% of political donations made by Twitter staff went to Democrats. He also shares one of the tweets of Yoel Roth, one of the then executives of Twitter, claiming that there are “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.”

Changing policies of Twitter

Shellenberger, in his report, states that an email sent by Dorsey to the employees on January 7 saying that there is a need to remain consistent with the policies, which includes users' right to return to Twitter after they are suspended temporarily.

“After, Roth reassures an employee that "people who care about this... aren't happy with where we are (sic),” he further writes. Shellenberger then reveals that Roth sent messages to his colleagues around 11:30 am to share a piece of news, filled with excitement.

In his report, he quotes Roth as saying, “GUESS WHAT. Jack just approved repeat offender for civic integrity. "The new approach would create a system where five violations ("strikes") would result in permanent suspension," Shellenberger writes.

Shellenberger states that messages exchanged between Roth and his colleague makeit clear how Dorsey was forced to place greater restrictions on the speech which is allowed by Twitter during elections.

He explains how they then discuss if Trump can be banned finally, and that “does the incitement to violence aspect change that calculus?” to which “Roth says it doesn't. "Trump continues to just have his one strike" (remaining).”

He emphasises the query regarding "incitement to violence", further highlighting how Twitter had stated that the reason for permanently banning Trump was the "risk of further incitement of violence".

Setting the narrative

Shellenberger says that no concerns were expressed within Twitter over Trump's banning, except by one junior-level employee who had sent a message saying, "this might be an unpopular opinion but one off ad hoc decisions like this that don't appear rooted in policy are imho (in my honest opinion) a slippery slope...This now appears to be a fiat by an online platform CEO with a global presence that can gatekeep speech for the entire world".

Shellenberger explains how employees started understanding the difference between thepolicies of Twitter and their political beliefs which is revealed in the internal communication of Twitter over censoring the #stopthesteal hashtag.

Roth said that the hashtag should be de-amplified and blacklisted but was warned that this will also affect those using the hashtag to make counter-allegations over rigged elections.

WATCH |

Roth after realising that the same hashtag is being used by Democrats to call out Donald Trump and say that the 2020 US Presidential election was held fairly, suggested to “de-amplify accounts with #stopthesteal in the name/profile since those are not affiliated with counterspeech”.

Considering that too many Twitter accounts belonging to Republicans and conservatives were sharing screenshots of tweets from the suspended account of Donald Trump, the employees at Twitter suggested that such handles should be placed under a 12-hour long review.

However, they faced the challenge of distinguishing Democrats from Republicans, as the former party members were also posting tweets to mock Trump.

Shellenberger, in his ‘Twitter Files 4.0’, reveals Roth went on to change Twitter policies so that the banning of Trump’s account can be justified. “In this specific case, we’re changing our public interest approach for his account,” Roth said.