Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Jack Dorsey: Twitter Doesn’t Influence Elections, Admits No Policy Against Holocaust Denial

Jack Dorsey: Twitter Doesn’t Influence Elections, Admits No Policy Against Holocaust Denial

Ted Cruz: “Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report, and what the American people are allowed to hear?”

https://twitter.com/CalebJHull/status/1321479011449688075

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO) asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey what happens if someone on the platform denies the Holocaust ever happened.

Dorsey admitted the company does not “have a policy against that type of misleading information.”

Then Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) tore into Dorsey for blocking The New York Post over Hunter Biden’s laptop reports

Cruz: ‘Who the Hell Elected You?’

Cruz ripped into Dorsey:

“Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report, and what the American people are allowed to hear?” thundered the Texas Republican at the social-media mogul. “Why do you persist in behaving as a Democratic super PAC, silencing views to the contrary of your political beliefs?”

The conversation turned to Twitter blocking The New York Post‘s account and censoring its bombshell reports about Hunter Biden’s laptop even though the information did not come from a hack.

“Why did Twitter make the decision to censor the New York Post?” he asked.

Replied Dorsey, “We have a hacked materials policy … limiting the spread of materials that are hacked. We didn’t want Twitter to be a distributor of hacked materials. We found that the New York Post, because it showed the direct materials … [and] it was unclear how those were obtained, that it fell under this policy.”

As Cruz pointed out, The Post clearly noted in its reporting that the trove of emails and other personal materials were obtained from a laptop that formerly belonged to Biden, and was abandoned at a Delaware electronics repair shop, becoming the owner’s property under store policy and agreed to in writing by Biden.

Dorsey admitted the error, but Cruz pointed out the newspaper cannot get into their account. Dorsey responded that the publication can if it logs in and deletes the tweets about Biden.

But then The New York Post can repost its articles about Biden. I’m so confused:

“They weren’t hiding what they claimed to be the source,” Cruz said. “Is it your position that Twitter, when you can’t tell the source, blocks press stories?”

Protested Dorsey, “No, not at all. Our team made a fast decision.”

He also noted that policy has since been amended to avoid a similar situation.

But Cruz then pressed on why The Post’s Twitter account remains blocked, two weeks after the ban was rescinded.

“They have to log into their account, which they can do at this minute, delete the original tweet, which fell under our original enforcement actions, and they can tweet the exact same material, the exact same article and it would go through,” Dorsey said.

Cruz noted the obvious (emphasis mine):

Cruz also drew a sharp distinction between Twitter striking down a fringe social-media voice and a major news outlet.

“Let’s be clear: The New York Post isn’t just some random guy tweeting. The New York Post has the fourth-highest circulation of any newspaper in America. The New York Post is 200-years-old. The New York Post was founded by Alexander Hamilton,” he said. “And your position is that you can sit in Silicon Valley and that you can tell them what stories they can publish, and you can tell the American people what reporting they can hear, is that right?

“The media must genuflect and obey your dictates if they wish to be able to communicate with readers, is that right?”

Dorsey repeated that The Post is welcome to return — if they delete the original Hunter Biden messages.

“We’re not blocking The Post…,” he said, before being cut off by Cruz.

“Can the New York Post post on their Twitter account?” pressed the lawmaker.

“If they go into their account…,” began Dorsey.

“No, is your answer to that,” cut in Cruz. “Unless they genuflect and agree with your dictates.”

Holocaust Denial

So let me get this straight.

Twitter will censor President Donald Trump’s tweets as misinformation and lock The New York Post‘s account over Hunter Biden’s laptop, but doesn’t have a policy about the Holocaust?

How can you have a “misleading information” policy that does not include documented historical events, especially catastrophic and atrocious ones like the Holocaust?

If you don’t have a misleading information policy that doesn’t include the Holocaust then maybe you shouldn’t have one at all.

These people still want us to think they are fair and unbiased.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

No, they don’t want us to think they’re unbiased — they simply don’t care what we think.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to McGehee. | October 28, 2020 at 4:17 pm

    Very interesting……

    In Senate Testimony, Jack Dorsey Commits Perjury

    Ted Cruz interrogated Jack Dorsey over Twitter’s censorship of the New York Post story, while “gleefully” allowing “journalists” to illegally spread Trump’s alleged tax returns on Twitter.

    Dorsey lied and claimed there was partisan bias in that decision. But that’s hard to prove, and that’s the lie they all tell fifty times a day. (And then they wonder why we’re not bothered if Trump exaggerates the truth.)

    Dorsey went on to falsely claim that Twitter was now permitting users to post the story.

    Ted Cruz just tested that claim, and finds that Dorsey is lying. Again.

    In a provable way.

    http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=391013

    JusticeDelivered in reply to McGehee. | October 28, 2020 at 4:24 pm

    Dorsey is a POS in need of an attitude adjustment.

He straight up lied multiple times.

Dorsey claimed that anybody could tweet the story now.

Cruz PROVED he lied by pulling up twitter and demonstrating that you CANNOT tweet the story without being censored.

So Dorsey lied to Congress, a felony.

So when is the RINO piece of shit Barr going to get off his ass and do something about it?

All talk.

All talk.

Just a show for the rubes.

He’ll get a medal unless Trump gets reelected despite the best efforts of the propaganda machinery of Big Tech and MSM dancing to the socialist tune played by the puppeteers behind Biden.
The only chance his blatant criminal lying to Congress will be prosecuted is to keep the Republic.

“Twitter doesn’t influence elections” The question is not whether they have been successful or not, the question is have they tried to influence elections. And the answer is they have.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to UserP. | October 28, 2020 at 4:22 pm

    He must have a history in school administration or incestuous connections to…. the way he talks double-lies…..

Colonel Travis | October 28, 2020 at 3:55 pm

Dorsey looks like a damn man-goat. His brain is what you’d expect from that combo.

Just went to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary and looked up the word, WEASEL.

And right there was a picture of that evasive, sanctimonious S.O.B., Jack Dorsey. Who knew?

The First Epistle of Peter in the New Testament says, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”

Watching Dorsey let me know that Peter was right. Pure evil.

These people MUST be stopped … sooner rather than later.

Why do they only seek to be safe for the people they like, but making it safe for people they do not like is verboten?

And oh by the way, that’s exactly why Twitter is DEMANDING that the New York Post delete the story themselves.

They’re LYING and claiming that the Post just needs to delete it and then they can post it again.

They are LYING because the links are all still being forbidden.

They’re trying to force the NYP to delete it and then they will never be allowed to post it again until after the election.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 28, 2020 at 4:19 pm

Twitter will even lie about this and censor it I’m sure.

Joe Biden:

“I Am Kamala’s Running Mate. Y’all Think I’m Kidding Don’t You?”

https://www.weaselzippers.us/458246-joe-biden-i-am-kamalas-running-mate-yall-think-im-kidding-dont-you/

The future of discourse in our society was on display during the hearing. We will be forced to kneel to the oligarchs or be driven off the ‘battlefield of ideas’.

Go vote. Round up like minded citizens. Bring them to the polls. Go vote!!!

This was an embarrassment.

No, not of Dorsey. Of Cruz. Although Dorsey missed an excellent opportunity to bitch slap Cruz’ frankly disturbing showboating.

“Mr. Dorsey, who the hell elected you and put you in charge of what the media are allowed to report, and what the American people are allowed to hear?”

“Senator, I am not in charge of any of those things. I am, however, in charge of what things are allowed to be posted on Twitter, a private company incorporated in the United States of America and thereby enjoying all the benefits of the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Those Amendments grant Twitter the inalienable right to post or allow others to post whatever we like on our web site, for any reason or no reason at all. Those Amendments also grant Twitter the inalienable right to refrain from posting, or allowing others to post, anything we like for any reason or no reason at all.

Senator, you *were* elected to decide which Americans are allowed the protections of the First and Fifth Amendments, and which are not. I suggest that if you believe that Twitter like any other private corporation is not entitled to those protections, that you amend the Constitution. That is in your power. It is not in mine.”

    Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | October 28, 2020 at 5:29 pm

    Exactly. So many people on the right, who not so long ago celebrated citizens United, seem awfully quick to repudiate it

      daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | October 28, 2020 at 5:42 pm

      Clearly we need some kind of doctrine, about fairness, that would require private companies who operate web sites to grant equal exposure to all political ideologies.

      Clearly.

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | October 28, 2020 at 8:30 pm

      The First Amendment doesn’t grant “platform protection.” That’s a privilege, granted by Congress. Remove Twitter’s immediately.

        daniel_ream in reply to henrybowman. | October 28, 2020 at 10:37 pm

        Why do people on a legal blog feel the need to make up entirely fictitious things about the law? Like, it’s the law. It’s publicly accessible. Anybody can go look it up and see what it says.

          Um, that’s just stupid. People read and comment on all sorts of blogs about all sorts of topics, that doesn’t make them experts in the field. This is a “legal” blog, but in what universe do you expect all commnenters to be lawyers? When you go to a gaming site or a gardening site or whatever, do you expect everyone commenting to be professional gamers, gardeners, whatever? Of course not. Save your condescending BS for a place that will accept it.

          That said, I did find something very intriguing in your comment:

          Those Amendments grant Twitter the inalienable right to post or allow others to post whatever we like on our web site, for any reason or no reason at all. Those Amendments also grant Twitter the inalienable right to refrain from posting, or allowing others to post, anything we like for any reason or no reason at all.

          So, when you say “we” at Twitter and “our” web site (Twitter), you mean . . . you have a mouse in your pocket? Or what?

          Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | October 29, 2020 at 1:25 am

          Fuzzy, read his comment again. What you cited is in quotes. It’s what Daniel thinks Dorsey should have said to Cruz. So “we” in that sentence is Twitter.

          Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | October 29, 2020 at 10:18 am

          Also, Fuzzy, you don’t have to be a lawyer to look up section 230 and see what it says. Its language is not obscure. I think people commenting on a legal blog can be expected to be able to do that.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | October 28, 2020 at 10:39 pm

        The first amendment guarantees Twitter’s freedom to decide what it will allow on its servers and what it will not. That is absolute, and Congress cannot interfere with it in any way.

        That very likely includes immunity from liability for content it didn’t create and does not know for a fact to be illegal. Section 230 is just a backup measure.

          Good point. What would you suggest as a solution for the way Twitter is actively suppressing (even completely silencing) conservative voices? I completely agree with your point here, but there has to be some way to resolve this issue of Twitter (and other Big Tech companies) actively silencing only conservatives (the right, Trumpsters, whatever you want to call it). Or do we just shrug and . . . what? I think we on the right are great at recognizing problems but are pretty slow at solving them.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2020 at 1:19 am

          The only solution consistent with the first amendment is to acknowledge that they are arms of the Democrat Party, just like the major newspapers and TV networks, and stop using their services.

          Let Trump stop Tweeting and start Parleying, and let Cruz and all Republicans do it, and people will follow them.

          Facebook and Twitter are no stronger and no more invincable than Myspace used to be. Where is it now? Remember when everyone was on Livejournal?

          “The first amendment guarantees Twitter’s freedom to decide what it will allow on its servers and what it will not. That is absolute, and Congress cannot interfere with it in any way.”

          Hmm. So you’re saying that the FCC’s regulation of the “public airways” is unconstitutional?

          I’m no lawyer, but my guess is the way to approach this is through the antitrust laws. Twitter, Facebook and Google have defacto monopolies over their particular realms…and they’ve done this by ruthlessly crushing (or buying out) the competition. Break them up.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2020 at 10:29 am

          The FCC’s regulation of the public airwaus rests entirely, and I do mean entirely, on the fact that the broadcast spectrum is public, it legally belongs to the federal government, and you need a license to use it. Since the number of licenses available is limited, the FCC can put conditions on them.

          None of the companies we are discussing use any limited or public resource, so they don’t need any kind of license, and they’re completely protected by the first amendment. Remember we are talking about what they will host on their servers, that they paid for and that belong entirely to them. And you think the government can somehow force them to host speech they don’t like?! That is evil and un-American, and even if there were no other solution it woukd still be wrong. If we’re going to do that why shouldn’t the left take over? They’re better at tyranny.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | October 29, 2020 at 10:33 am

          No, they don’t have monopolies. Nothing prevents anyone else from competing with them.

          In any case it’s strange to see conservatives touting the antitrust laws, which are a prine example of “progressive” legislation based entirely on the left’s hatred and envy of John D. Rockefeller for daring to be successful.

Well then, if making editorial decisions on what to allow to be published do they still deserve the protections afforded by section 230?

    daniel_ream in reply to TPHobbit. | October 28, 2020 at 5:40 pm

    Yes.

    For ******’s sake, that is the entire purpose of s.230.

    You guys, really, really want to flush liberty down the crapper all because a private company won’t let you use their computers for free, don’t you?

    Milhouse in reply to TPHobbit. | October 28, 2020 at 7:27 pm

    They’re not acting like a newspaper, which reads all content submitted and chooses which ones to publish. They’re acting like a bookshop, which by default carries all submissions without reading them, but refuses to carry certain books that it has read and finds objectionable.

    Section 230 was probably unnecessary, since the Prodigy decision would probably have been reversed eventually, but congress didn’t want to risk it.

Osama bin Dorsey.

Nose rings are always a huge disqualifier for me.

Anyone who claims section 230 was premised on an expectation of political neutrality is lying. Congress could have put that in, but didn’t.

Justice Thomas’s comments in the Malwarebytes case are mostly correct, but irrelevant to this topic. It’s true that the courts have read more into section 230 than is there. But he’s wrong when he complains that a provider could censor content in a racist way. It’s undisputed that bookshops can do so, and congress intended to make it clear that ICSes were in the same category.

Someone said that Dorsey committed perjury. Was he under oath? Sworn in before testimony? Just curious. My opinion, he should have been.

“Dorsey admitted the error, but Cruz pointed out the newspaper cannot get into their account. Dorsey responded that the publication can if it logs in and deletes the tweets about Biden.”

They can’t log in until they delete the tweet and they can’t delete the tweet until they log in? Is this the Twitter version of Catch-22?

    Their access is limited by Twitter, so they can remove tweets but can’t post/do anything at all beyond that. This happens frequently on conservative accounts: you log in and then get a message that you must delete this or these tweet/s to unlock your account. All functionality except deleting posts is removed. I hope this helps.

You remember back when your kids were young and you were trying to teach them how to act? When they did something wrong and you said “don’t do that”. They did it again and you said “hey, don’t do that”. They did it again and you raised your voice “I told you not to do that”. When it happened again and you yelled “HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU NOT TO DO THAT?”. Then they did it again and you’d finally had enough and grounded them, or restricted their screen time, or put them in time out (or spanked their butts if you’re my age)…and they FINALLY stopped doing it.

I’m not impressed by senators blustering and pontificating and bloviating. Until they actually DO SOMETHING to hold these people accountable, it’s nothing more than political grandstanding and means nothing.

I’ll be impressed with Ted Cruz when he stops sounding tough and starts taking some concrete action.

Taliban Jack, what a turd.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend