Twitter Files Part 4: Michelle Obama had hand in Trump’s removal

By
Katrina Lusteck
-
Sign up for DML's newsletter

If you paid for a TeamDML Membership and would like to see every article, and see them without the ads, please click here. If you are NOT a member, or if your Membership has expired, and you would like to join TeamDML please click here.

The fourth installment of the “Twitter Files” was released Saturday night. In the latest installment, Twitter owner Elon Musk recruited journalist Michael Shellenberger to continue exposing the censoring that took place at the company before he bought it.

Shellenberger revealed that former First Lady Michelle Obama was part of a group pushing the social media giant to remove former President Donald J. Trump from the platform.

Fox News reported:

Former President Donald Trump was banned from Twitter the day after former first lady Michelle Obama and others demanded the company “permanently” remove him, according to the newest “Twitter Files” installment.

On Saturday, CEO Elon Musk and journalist Michael Shellenberger released the fourth batch of Twitter documents that show internal communications by the company’s executives between Jan. 6-8, 2021, including and shortly after the riot at the Capitol Building.

Among the files, Shellenberger reported “internal and external pressure,” including from the former first lady, fell onto the company calling for Trump to be banned from using Twitter.

“Now is the time for Silicon Valley companies to stop enabling this monstrous behavior—and go even further than they have already by permanently banning this man from their platforms and putting in place policies to prevent their technologies from being used by the nation’s leaders to fuel insurrection,” Obama wrote in a lengthy statement posted to Twitter on Jan. 7.

“And if we have any hope of improving this nation, now is the time for swift and serious consequences for the failure of leadership that led to yesterday’s shame,” she added.

PART 1 – Dec 2 – Journalist Matt Taibbi released details on censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story just prior to the 2020 election.

PART 2 – Dec. 8 – Journalist Bari Weiss published details of how Twitter held back the reach of many conservatives, including Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and even the Twitter account Libs of TikTok.

PART 3 – Dec. 9 – Journalist Matt Taibbi revealed behind-the-scenes details on what led to then-President Donald Trump being kicked off Twitter in January 2020.

PART 4 – Dec. 10 – Journalist Michael Shellenberger outlined the way Twitter executives manipulated the platform’s rules in order to blacklist former President Donald Trump on January 7, 2020.

READ PART 4 BELOW:

The Removal of Donald Trump: January 7

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

On Jan 7, senior Twitter execs:

– create justifications to ban Trump

– seek a change of policy for Trump alone, distinct from other political leaders

– express no concern for the free speech or democracy implications of a ban

This #TwitterFiles is reported with@lwoodhouse

For those catching up, please see:

Part 1, where @mtaibbi documents how senior Twitter executives violated their own policies to prevent the spread of accurate information about Hunter Biden’s laptop;

Part 2, where @bariweiss shows how senior Twitter execs created secret blacklists to “de-amplify” disfavored Twitter users, not just specific tweets;

And Part 3, where @mtaibbi documents how senior Twitter execs censored tweets by Trump in the run-up to the Nov 2020 election while regularly engaging with representatives of U.S. government law enforcement agencies.

For years, Twitter had resisted calls to ban Trump.

“Blocking a world leader from Twitter,” it wrote in 2018, “would hide important info… [and] hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

But after the events of Jan 6, the internal and external pressure on Twitter CEO @jack grows.

Former First Lady @michelleobama, tech journalist @karaswisher, @ADL, high-tech VC@ChrisSacca, and many others, publicly call on Twitter to permanently ban Trump.

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.

As context, it’s important to understand that Twitter’s staff & senior execs were overwhelmingly progressive.

In 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, & 99% of Twitter staff’s political donations went to Democrats.

In 2017, Roth tweeted that there were “ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.”

In April 2022, Roth told a colleague that his goal “is to drive change in the world,” which is why he decided not to become an academic.

On January 7, @Jack emails employees saying Twitter needs to remain consistent in its policies, including the right of users to return to Twitter after a temporary suspension

After, Roth reassures an employee that “people who care about this… aren’t happy with where we are”

Around 11:30 am PT, Roth DMs his colleagues with news that he is excited to share.

“GUESS WHAT,” he writes. “Jack just approved repeat offender for civic integrity.”

The new approach would create a system where five violations (“strikes”) would result in permanent suspension.

“Progress!” exclaims a member of Roth’s Trust and Safety Team.

The exchange between Roth and his colleagues makes clear that they had been pushing
@jack
for greater restrictions on the speech Twitter allows around elections.

The colleague wants to know if the decision means Trump can finally be banned. The person asks, “does the incitement to violence aspect change that calculus?”

Roth says it doesn’t. “Trump continues to just have his one strike” (remaining).

Roth’s colleague’s query about “incitement to violence” heavily foreshadows what will happen the following day.

On January 8, Twitter announces a permanent ban on Trump due to the “risk of further incitement of violence.”

On J8, Twitter says its ban is based on “specifically how [Trump’s tweets] are being received & interpreted.”

But in 2019, Twitter said it did “not attempt to determine all potential interpretations of the content or its intent.”

The *only* serious concern we found expressed within Twitter over the implications for free speech and democracy of banning Trump came from a junior person in the organization. It was tucked away in a lower-level Slack channel known as “site-integrity-auto.”

“This might be an unpopular opinion but one off ad hoc decisions like this that don’t appear rooted in policy are imho 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…”

Twitter employees use the term “one off” frequently in their Slack discussions. Its frequent use reveals significant employee discretion over when and whether to apply warning labels on tweets and “strikes” on users. Here are typical examples.

Recall from #TwitterFiles2 by @bariweiss that, according to Twitter staff, “We control visibility quite a bit. And we control the amplification of your content quite a bit. And normal people do not know how much we do.”

Twitter employees recognize the difference between their own politics & Twitter’s Terms of Service (TOS), but they also engage in complex interpretations of content in order to stamp out prohibited tweets, as a series of exchanges over the “#stopthesteal” hashtag reveal.

Roth immediately DMs a colleague to ask that they add “stopthesteal” & [QAnon conspiracy term] “kraken” to a blacklist of terms to be deamplified.

Roth’s colleague objects that blacklisting “stopthesteal” risks “deamplifying counterspeech” that validates the election.

Indeed, notes Roth’s colleague, “a quick search of top stop the steal tweets and they’re counterspeech”

But they quickly come up with a solution: “deamplify accounts with stopthesteal in the name/profile” since “those are not affiliated with counterspeech”

But it turns out that even blacklisting “kraken” is less straightforward than they thought. That’s because kraken, in addition to being a QAnon conspiracy theory based on the mythical Norwegian sea monster, is also the name of a cryptocurrency exchange, and was thus “allowlisted”

Employees struggle with whether to punish users who share screenshots of Trump’s deleted J6 tweets

“we should bounce these tweets with a strike given the screen shot violates the policy”

“they are criticising Trump, so I am bit hesitant with applying strike to this user”

What if a user dislikes Trump *and* objects to Twitter’s censorship? The tweet still gets deleted. But since the *intention* is not to deny the election result, no punishing strike is applied.

“if there are instances where the intent is unclear please feel free to raise”

What if a user dislikes Trump *and* objects to Twitter’s censorship? The tweet still gets deleted. But since the *intention* is not to deny the election result, no punishing strike is applied.

“if there are instances where the intent is unclear please feel free to raise”

Around noon, a confused senior executive in advertising sales sends a DM to Roth.

Sales exec: “jack says: ‘we will permanently suspend [Trump] if our policies are violated after a 12 hour account lock’… what policies is jack talking about?”

Roth: “*ANY* policy violation”

Around noon, a confused senior executive in advertising sales sends a DM to Roth.

Sales exec: “jack says: ‘we will permanently suspend [Trump] if our policies are violated after a 12 hour account lock’… what policies is jack talking about?”

Roth: “*ANY* policy violation”

What happens next is essential to understanding how Twitter justified banning Trump.

Sales exec: “are we dropping the public interest [policy] now…”

Roth, six hours later: “In this specific case, we’re changing our public interest approach for his account…”

The ad exec is referring to Twitter’s policy of “Public-interest exceptions,” which allows the content of elected officials, even if it violates Twitter rules, “if it directly contributes to understanding or discussion of a matter of public concern”

To get more information about this article, please visit Fox News.

The Dennis Michael Lynch Podcast is available below. Never miss an episode. Subscribe to the show by downloading The DML News App or go to Apple Podcasts.

Sign up for DML's newsletter
Previous articleREAD HERE: Entire thread from Part 2 of the ‘Twitter Files’
Next articleBREAKING: Twitter Files Part 5: The Removal of Trump from Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

CLICK HERE FOR COMMENTS SECTION