Listen to a reading of this article:
Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has resigned as CEO of the company, leading anyone who's been paying close attention to the rise of Silicon Valley internet censorship to voice concerns that the platform's relatively lenient attitude toward speech compared to other major social media services may be drawing to a close.
"Hard not to see this as bad news," tweeted Glenn Greenwald in response to Dorsey's announcement. "I don't think it's been fully appreciated that on key SV issues - including decentralization, transparency and free speech - @Jack has been far better than most, and way more responsive to critiques. We'll see what happens but it seems not great."
"Anyone who harbors concerns that social media have already grown too intolerant of dissenting opinions—too inclined to silence viewpoints that depart from liberal orthodoxy—should be worried about Dorsey leaving," writes Reason's Robby Soave. "That's because the long-serving CEO has occasionally articulated an ideological commitment to the principles of free speech; of all the tech industry pioneers who have been hauled before Congress to answer absurd questions, he was by far the most hostile to the idea that the government should serve as the internet's speech police."
Dorsey's resignation comes the year after it was reported that his removal was being pursued by virulent neoconservative billionaire Paul Singer, whose Elliott Management Corp had just purchased a significant share of the company.
Twitter has been far from perfect when it comes to refraining from interfering with free expression on its platform; it just banned multiple accounts supporting the governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea against US-backed militants on what appears to be no legitimate basis mere hours ago after censoring trends in Ethiopia earlier this month, and has a longstanding pattern of censoring the speech of empire-targeted populations.
Still, Twitter has been a free speech paradise compared to other major platforms like Facebook or YouTube, largely because unlike those outlets it doesn't tend to participate in the large-scale algorithmic suppression of unauthorized perspectives and the artificial uplifting of authorized ones.
And we are seeing some indication that that may be one of the changes we'll see in the platform going forward. Twitter users are sharing around a 2020 quote by Dorsey's replacement Parag Agrawal (emphasis added):
"Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There's a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention. And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content and that sort of, is, is, a struggle that we're working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we're building, how we direct people's attention is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory."
A lot of the commentary we are seeing on this paragraph tends to focus on the bit at the beginning about having no commitment to free speech, and not nearly enough attention is going to the latter half. Agrawal's notion that it is Twitter's place to "recommend content" and implement "recommendation systems" sounds far too similar to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki's comments earlier this year when she admitted at a World Economic Forum summit that the platform had been elevating mainstream news sources on important political issues and hiding "borderline" content.
"When we deal with information, we want to make sure that the sources that we're recommending are authoritative news, medical science, et cetera," Wojcicki said. "And we also have created a category of more borderline content where sometimes we'll see people looking at content that's lower quality and borderline. And so we want to be careful about not over-recommending that. So that's a content that stays on the platform but is not something that we're going to recommend. And so our algorithms have definitely evolved in terms of handling all these different content types."
This is a kind of censorship that Twitter has been relatively free from, and it is by far the worst kind. While you will routinely see Twitter posts going viral from people with peripheral political perspectives like communism or antiwar activism, you will virtually never see this occur on outlets like Facebook or Youtube because their algorithms are stacked in favor of "authoritative sources" like The New York Times and CNN which hardly ever give voice to such perspectives.
So we could soon be looking at a Twitter where communists, anarchists, conspiracy analysts, Covid skeptics, antiwar activists, supporters of empire-targeted governments, and other perspectives considered "borderline" by Silicon Valley narrative managers could receive very little visibility on people's feeds, while authorized opinion-havers like blue-checkmark reporters from mainstream media outlets are given greater amplification.
This is the most pernicious form of internet censorship because unlike permanent bans it goes unseen and unacknowledged, and if you point out that your account isn't getting the kind of traction it used to you can be dismissed as just paranoid and told that your content probably just hasn't been as good lately. On a platform like Twitter where high-profile influencers tend to congregate to share ideas and information, this can lead to a dynamic where unauthorized thought becomes far more marginalized than it previously was.
It should be obvious to everyone that humanity is headed down a dark path if worldwide public speech is regulated by monopolistic oligarchs with a vested interest in preserving the status quo and a steadily increasing alignment with government institutions. If every platform people flock to in large numbers becomes subjected to iron-fisted establishment narrative management, it will greatly hinder humanity's efforts to become a conscious species that has a truth-based relationship with the world.
My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
This is why I like Substack where we can see independent reporters and thinkers like Taibbi, Greenwald and others build increasingly huge audiences. The MSM is afraid of Substack.
I support Greenwald’s Substack-Rumble combination. That has the ability to make the MSM matrix take a new body blow.
People should just get their news from a constellation of Substack and Rumble pages. Let’s hope they keep getting more honest and original thinkers on board so we can watch the MSM/ Social media Tower of Babel crumble, forever.
I do remember Jack telling Congress something like "We don't want to be the arbiters of truth" and, as I recall, sounding kind of irritated that they were expecting that from him. Not that I ever stanned the guy or anything, but compared to how sycophantic Zuckerberg was in his responses to Congress, that was refreshing.
And so of course he had to go, and to be replaced by this fuckwit who thinks certain speech deserves to be heard or read more than others.
He doesn't even bother trying the usual argument of "You wouldn't want neo-Nazis or election-interfering Russian agents* to have large audiences, would you? Because that's all I'm saying, that we'll be marginalizing those people and that good people don't have to worry."
Nope, it's just "We need to recommend certain stuff, not recommend other stuff, and that's how it'll be. If you don't like it then write your representative in Congress, I'm SURE they'll listen to your concerns very seriously." *snickering*
I don't always see eye to eye with you on China since I do think that country has problems, including too much censorship. But America is proving more and more and more that it is in no position to criticize. Because sure, maybe this is happening due to internal pressure for Dorsey to resign instead of external, but external pressure HAS been repeatedly applied by the US government, and now they're getting their wish. And while it's impossible to know and may even be a little out there, I wouldn't be surprised if the government helped this Paul Singer twat gain as much of a stake in the company as he has somehow...
* Just for the record, I don't believe in RussiaGate at all. But they fear monger as much about Russians and America getting a taste of its own medicine re. election interference as they do anything else.