« The Joe Rogan Experience

#1258 - Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool

2019-03-05 | 🔗
Jack Dorsey is a computer programmer and Internet entrepreneur who is co-founder and CEO of Twitter, and founder and CEO of Square, a mobile payments company. Vijaya Gadde serves as the global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety at Twitter. Tim Pool is an independent journalist. His work can currently be found at http://timcast.com
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Oh hello, friends, this episode, the podcast, is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace is the host of my website, Joe Rogan dot com, and it is an amazing platform where you you can make your own website. I know what you're thinking did I can't I don't know I listen. You know how to do normal things on a computer square space has got it down where a dumb, dumb, like me, can make a beautiful professional website. All you have to do is you? Is there gorgeous user templates and beautiful drag and drop user interface? It's so simple. If you're, not a that's a photograph to an email, do not do that. Ok, do you know how to move files around on your desktop? Okay, you can do it, it's drag and drop. It's all simple. You can turn cool idea into a new website. You could start a business. Maybe you make things right which it's him online, where you can? Each square space website comes
with a free online store and is optimized for mobile right out of the box. They have analytics and help you grow in real time and they have free and secure hosting nothing to patch or upgrade ever and twenty four seven award winning customer support. It's a beautiful platform is it's the reason why Joe Rogan dot com is hosted on square space, and here the best part ready you try for free head to square space, dot com, Slash Joe for a free trial, build that beautiful mother and then, when you're, ready to launch use the offer code, Joe to save ten stand off your first purchase of a website or domain squarespace. I highly recommend them we're also brought to you by the cash app. Ladies and gentlemen know: we've had the cash app as a answer many many times before, but one of things
I want to tell you about this through the cash app. Let me explain with cash. App is, first of all, it's a number one app and finance for a very good reason. It's a wonderful application that is not just finance app the easiest way for you to send and receive money, and you can even use it to buy and sell Bitcoin, but on top of that, the cash app has something of the cash card. Now the cat, the card is the most powerful debit card on the planet, earth and the only one with boosts a money, saving feature that you can't get anywhere else because the cash app invented it. You just select a boost in your cash app swipe your cash card, you save ten percent or more whole foods, shake Shack, Poht, taco, Bell, chick fil, a domino's and coffee shops all across the country. The coffee shop boost takes dollar off at any coffee shop, including Duncan or Starbucks. So you buy five hundred cups of coffee a year. You save five hundred dollars with the cash app. It's very simple download
catch out from the app store the Google play market or your cash card today, and when you download the cash app enter the referral Joe Rogan, all one word: five dollars go to you and five dollars goes to our good friend, Justin Brands, fight for the forgotten charity, which is helping to build wells for the pygmies in the Congo, and we are excited extremely excited to share an update from Justin to date. Through this promotion, cash app and jre listeners have raised over one hundred thousand dollars provide clean drinking water to more than six thousand four hundred people, and you got Honda in Tanzania is beautiful folks on top of that, some of the funds that have helped for the forgotten purchase land for the box. What pygmies in Southwest Uganda, bringing six new water wells to that region with the cash apps help posit image video the production company that actually shoots? My comedy specials will also be document
Justin's efforts so that everyone can experience the journey. I can't be. I I couldn't be more pleased be associated with this company, with what they're doing and more pleased. I'm gonna get choked up here more pleased to be helping Justin, who, I think, is one of the best people I've ever met in my entire life is a beautiful, selfless person gotten malaria three times going over to Africa to to build wells. I just love him to death, and if you listen to vis promotions, we we also were donating money to help Ray Board, we're very happy to announce that Ray Borg has been added to the March 30th UFC Fight in Philadelphia. The cat trap was also doing any money to help with his son's medical bills so down the cash app today and again use the referral code, Joe Rogan, and you will help out a lot of people, including our good friend Justin Brand and his wonderful charity. I love that guy to death. Sorry from getting choked up, I don't mean to sound like a bitch,
we're also brought to you by Butcher box yeah. I don't like a bitch. Let's talk about meat Butcher Box is a fantastic company that sends to you one hundred percent grass FED and finish beef free rein, organic chicken and heritage breed pork, and they said, did you right to your door on dry ice with free shipping anywhere in the lower forty? Eight unbelievable taste? Folks, if you don't like to buy your food from a place where you don't know where it's coming from get it from butcher box. First of all, everything is grass FED and grass finished, it's healthier for you and it taste better these animals their pasture raised the way animals are supposed to live and there's a different flavor to it looks different. They never have any antibiotics, no hormones, no, nothing! Nothing! Added to the meat now outside of Bush
boxes. Type of high quality meat is very hard to find, and if you live in food deserts, it's nearly impossible for those people live in big cities with expensive supermarkets. The prices variety at butcher box are hard to beat, and now they wild alaskan sockeye salmon. Folks, they source there wild anybody, harvest salmon from Bristol Bay Alaska, and it's it's a deep, beautiful red wild, never factory farmed. Now you can get twenty dollars off, plus free ground beef for life. What yes, two of free one hundred percent grass FED ground beef in every order for the light time of your subscription, go butcher box, dot, com, click on the banner and enter the discount code Rogan check out. I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate this company and the kind of service that they provide for people that are having a hard time.
I'm fine, really high quality meat. This your go to source box, dot com again use a discount code Rogan at checkout. You get twenty bucks off and free ground beef for life. Okay, now, oh boy, boy boy to have a show for you today, folks, okay! Well, if you are regular, regular regular, what is that regular listener of this podcast? You know that I did a podcast while back with Jack Dorsey from Twitter, and the response was positive and negative, but the interest of dealing with the negative we decided to have jack back on, but this time with TIM Pool, TIM Pool, an independent journalist and he's been heavily critical of Jack and of Twitter and along with them we brought in Vigia. I don't know how to say her. Last name: J, a d d, e J d- I think it's just I don't sorry Vigia, ah
is she's. Yes, she's the head of their trust and safety committees are correct either way she provided us with some much needed insight as to why people get banned when they get banned. What they're trying to do to alleviate the woes of censorship, give people a path to redemption and you know TIM Pool hard in the paint, so he went hard in the paint. It was a great up, great episode, the podcast, it's a long one along not to do with censorship, the implications of censorship and uh, I'm talking too much as it is. So please welcome TIM Poole Jack Dorsey Envidia experience trying my day Joe Rogan podcast by night. All day life will live. Ladies and gentlemen, two
I have to TIM Timpul. Everybody knows and loves them the job. What is hell and pronounce words injure Fidget Canada, not VJ, VJ, VJ, Getty Gary and your position at Twitter is: I lied, trust and safety, legal and public policy. That's a lot! That's a lot and Jack Dorsey. Ladies gentlemen, first of all, thank you everybody for doing this. It. Thank you. Thank you also on also tension. This tension in the room, those were all loosey goosey. Just a few minutes ago, attention and everyone's like. Oh, this is really happening here. We go um before we get started. We should say because there were some things that people wanted to. Have us talk about, one that the cash app is one the sponsors of the podcast. It's been a sponsor for a long time, and also a giant supporter of my good friend Justin runs fight for the forgotten charity building wells for the pygmies in the Congo. This is very important to me and I'm very happy that you guys
part of that, and you are connected to that. I don't that's it's easy for someone to say that doesn't have an influence on the way we discuss things, but it doesn't. So if it does, I don't know tell you I'm going to mention to just 'cause. I don't want people to come out and freak out later. I actually have like eighty shares in square which isn't really that much, but but it's something it is it is it. So I don't want people to think you know whatever you you're the ceo of Square, I think right. Yeah, there you they are. We on. We have a and the reason why we decided to come together is we had. I thought, a great conversation last time, but there's a lot of people that were upset that there were some issues that we didn't discuss or didn't discuss in depth enough, or they felt that I didn't press you enough. I talked to TIM because you know TIM and I have talked before and he made a video about it and I felt like his criticism was very valid, so we got a phone and we talked about it and I knew immediately within the first few minutes of conversation that he was far more educated about this than I was so I said,
would you be willing to do a podcast and perhaps do a podcast with Jack and he it absolutely so we did a podcast together. It was really well received. People felt like we covered a lot of the issues that they felt like. I didn't bring up, and so then Jack and I discussed it. We said well, let's bring team on and then Vigia on as well that right, yeah, that's a hard one. Sorry I'll get it right. I promise, but so we're today, the you, you know: Sean Baker is he's a doctor who's, a prominent proponent of the carnivore diet. His post was his account was frozen today. I just sent it to Jamie yeah. His count was frozen today because of an image that he had because he's a proponent of the carnivore diet. There's a lot of people to believe that this elimination, diet is very healthy for you and it's no to cure a lot of autoimmune issues with certain people, but some people argue a lot.
We oppose it because they think it's bad for the environment and are you should need me or whatever? The reasons are. This is huge in the the Pickering community yeah yeah. Well, it's the for a lot of people that have autoimmune issues with particular psoriasis and arthritis. This is a lifesaver, it's crazy! It's essentially it's an autoimmune issue so because he a photo of a lion in a ahead eating a looks like a wildebeest or something like that. His account was locked for violating these rules, rules against graphic violence or adult content in profile images. That's seems a little silly and I thought I wanted just mention that right away now, whose decision is something like that like who decides to lock a guys account because it has a nature image? You know natural,
predatory, behavior on this particular case. It's probably an algorithm that detected it and made some sort of an assessment, but as a general rule how we operate as a company as we rely on people to report information to us. So if you look at any tweet and you can kind of pull down on the carrot on the right- and you can say, report the tweet and then you have a bunch of categories you can choose from what you to report I'm. I think this one in particular, though, is probably an algorithm. So how does does he have the ob and to protest that or to ask someone to review it? Absolutely, and I I I'm guessing that people are already reviewing it, but there's a choice to appeal any action, and that would go to a human to make sure that it is actually a violation of the rules or in this case, if it's not that would be removed. Is that a violation of the rules that image? I don't think so. I don't think that that would be what we're trying to capture in terms of graphic images. In an avatar, it's more about violence towards that humans, unless it was some sort of cruelty depicting warehouse or something like that, but
this seems not the intention of the world. Does this hi this? One of the reason why I want to bring some meeting late does is highlight a flaw in the system in that people can target a new visual cause with him he's a he like, I said, he's a doctor and a proponent of this carnivore die, but he's also he ruthless in his condemnation and mocking of vegans. He does it all the time, and so then they get upset at him and they can target posts and just report them and mass, and when do that, then this becomes an issue. I think this does reveal a part of you know the challenges that we face as a global our platform at scale. In this part, I don't I don't know what happened in this case. Are it's hard for me to talk about it, but what I would say is that it doesn't really matter if one person reports it or ten thousand people report it like we're going to review the reports and we're gonna make an assessment and we're never gonna. You know kick someone off the platform,
finally and forever without a person taking a look and making sure that it's an actual violation right, okay, so with them, but the mob reporting behavior has happened. Yeah it does. It happens across the spectrum. I'd have to assume going to be one direction. I can't imagine he would target vegans, but vegans would target him right. Well, he might I mean he doesn't, but but or is he the kind of guys I want to report to vegans and get them banned from twitter? I wanna make fun of them. Is gonna make fun of them yeah they're, going to talk him, trying get removed by exploiting the system that you guys have. It may not be him, though it could also be his followers. It's a really complicated world out there. So you don't limitations of why people might report are different and it's not always under someone for all the kiddies and even be other carnivore diet proponents who are just jerks that don't like him because he's getting all the love people are weird. The the idea, though, is that it, it does kind of highlight a bit of a flaw in that. It's good that someone, you might see something awful someone
someone or something like that, and then you can take that report it and then people can see it and get rid of it and minimize the damage. That's done that a big problem here, and that is the kind of our diet legitimately healthy. Is it a threat to your health, and, if it is, is what is twitter responsibility in controlling that information right? So just to clarify my in my, in my opinion, is if you want to be a point for the of one night, let him but you've got people on Youtube, who are being de ranked for certain beliefs about certain health issues that I don't agree with, and so one of the risks that is, you know we're coming towards a position where people thing some ideas are better than others. Therefore, as a company, we're gonna restrict access to certain information, you mean like anti vaccine, exactly right now, so so I'm, I guess I'm trying to say is at what point. Would you guys wrist someone from sharing in for black false information about vaccines? I could get someone hurt. That is not a violation of twitter's rules. Now I think
I mean I'd, be interested to hear your ideas around this, but our our perspective right now is around this concept of variety perspective. Like are we? Are we encouraging more echo chambers and Phil Bubbles, or we at least showing people all other information that might be counter to what they see and there's there's a bunch of research that would suggest that further, our reviews there's also research that were suggested. It at least gives of consideration about what they're, what they currently believe. So you guys about given the dynamics of our network being completely public were not organized around. These were not organized around topics. We have a little bit more freedom to show more of the spectrum of any one particular issue, and I think that's how we would we would approach it from the start. That said, we haven't really dealt much with misinformation. More broadly across, like these sorts of topics, we've we've focused our efforts on
elections. In what made the election trying to you know use it was a different animal. You know that is it. If someone can really convince you that the earth is flat, if you're gullible, when you watch a forty five minute you to video right now, it's it's kind of a different thing, but I want I wanted to just kind of get into that statement. You made about misinformation and whether or not you'll police it. So I think that the tough part of this is really in love. To have a discussion about this is. Do you really want corporations to police? What's true and not true, absolutely that's a really, really tough position, but you guys there that we try not to do that. We don't want do that when you, when your rules, but the places that we focus on is where we think that people are going to be harmed by this in a direct and tangible way that we feel responsibility to correct. I'm sorry, I'm your rules, him you mean by that name, is gender dead naming in his gender yeah? That's a specific ideology! That's unique to a very small fraction of people in this world that you guys actually ban people for so the way I think of it is it's behavior based, and I know you think of it as Conta,
and we can. We can disagree on this point, but this is about. Why are you doing this to a trans person? Why are you calling them by this name when they've chosen to go by a different name, or why are you adding them in some way? What is your intent and purpose behind that? I don't know. Yeah I mean interrupted in the interest of clarity. I want to do is explain what dead naming means right right. So what that so, a transgender individual changes, their name when they transition a dead name would be their birth name or the name they went by before the transition. So because my mom's probably going going an
the tax, what's a dead name and I will clarify to your role specifically targeted, Miss gender ring and an ending, I believe, that's correct right so years ago we we passed a policy that we call our hateful conduct policy and that prohibits targeting attacking someone based on their belonging and and any number of groups, whether it's because of their religion or their race or their gender or their sexual orientation or gender identity. So it was something that's broad base. Is that you? You can't choose to attack people because of these characteristics, but you do have limits on what characteristics you police right. So you're, not you're, not by banning people work for targeted trend spacing others right. I will we. We have also general abuse and harassment rolls right which, as you can engage in abuse and harassment on the plot yeah, you can designate someone, but you can call them stupid. I'm generally I mean, if you created an account, that only was there to call the same person stupid five thousand times, we'd, probably view that, as you know, target
brass targeted arrest me right. Yes, it's a function of it. It's a function, behavior like him, because people with our system can do this in massive losses. Those are all too many silent. You from pop former to say, like I give up, I don't deal with this thing, I'm I'm out most of this. Not so so we can just get into all of the big examples I mean I love to TIM, but can we just take a step back and and try to levels that what we're trying to do in order to see sure think it's worth? Yes, yes, so as as a as a high level, I personally- and this is my job- to run the policy team. I believe that everyone has a voice and should be able to use it, and I want them to be able to use it online now, where we draw a line, is when people use their voice and use their platform to abuse and harass. Other people to silence them, because I think that that's what we've seen over the years is a number of people who have been silenced online because of the abuse and harassment they've received in the either stop talking or they leave the platform
in its entirety. If you look at free expression and free speech, laws around the world, they're, not absolute they're, not absolute, there's, always limitations on what you can say and it's when you're starting to endanger other people. So so so my question, then, is when I was physically threatened on Twitter. You guys refused to take down the tweet and shut up in Berkeley and someone physically threatened me because they were encouraged to when I was in Venezuela. I was physically threatened by high profile individual ten thousand people tweeting it. You guys do nothing right. So I guess there's the obvious action. Why does it always feel like your policies are going one direction politically? You say it's about behavior several times already, but I've already. I've got tons of examples of that not being the case, and you will always be able to find those examples. Examples where you guys were alerted multiple times and did nothing like when Antifa Doc's, a bunch of law enforcement agents, some of the tweets removed, but since September this tweet is still live with a list of private phone numbers addresses yet Kathy Griffin, she's, fine, the guy who threat
the lives of these kids in Covington inside lock him in school and burn it down. You did nothing, I mean you got to spend it takes to reach down with the band for threatening the lives of kids. Absolutely not. Sir again we have, and I'm I'm happy to talk about all these details. We have our policies that are meant to protect people and they're meant to enable for expression as long as you're not trying to silence somebody else now we take a variety of different enforcement. Mechanisms are on that. Sometimes you get worn to. Sometimes your tweet is forced to be deleted. It's a very rare occasion where we will outright suspense one without any sort of warning or any sort of ability to understand what happened. What did you guys do with Kathy Griffin when she was saying she wanted the names of those young kids
we're in the mag hats at the Covington High school cats out? There is a great example, Joe. So in that particular case you know our docks in policy really focuses on posting private information, which we don't consider names to be private. We consider your home address your home from your home phone number, your mobile phone number, those types of things to be private, so that particular case we took what I think now is probably they very literal interpretation of our policy and said that that was not a doc sing incident. Do you think there was an error? I think that it was short I didn't and given the context of what was going on there, that if I was doing this all over again, I would probably ask my team to look at that through the lens of what was the purpose behind that tweet. And if the purpose was in fact, Thio identify these kids either either them them are abusing harass them, which probably waas, then we should be taking a more expansive view of that policy and including that type of content, especially considering the fact they're minors I mean. I would think that right away, that would be like the approach so
so. This is a trial and error, sort of learn and move on with new information sort of a deal. Absolutely we're going to learn. We're going to make a ton of mistakes were trying to do this with hundreds of millions of accounts all around the world. Numerous languages were going to make mistakes, even if we get better, there will always be mistakes, but we're hoping to learn from those and to make ourselves better and to catch cases like timbs or others where we clearly may have made an error and I'm open to having those discussions. I'm not I'm sorry to Miglior with your specific cases, but I'd love to follow up with you and you only jot down, but we we we try to pull that up. So it's a b, I t dot, L Y, Slash, Anti fun, tweet all lower case. This is also in evolution. Privatization as well one of the things we've come recently as we do we do need. We do need to privatize these efforts, both in terms of policy enforcement. How are thinking about evolving them? One of the things that we want to focus on as number one is physical safety and
lead you immediately to something like doc and now. The only way we take action on a toxin case is if it's reported or not. What we want to move to is to be able to recognize those in real time, at least in the english language, recognize those in real time throwing machine learning out rooms and take the action before it has to be to so we're purely right now on going after after docks cases with our our them, so that we can be active. That also requires a much more rigorous appeals process to correct us when we're wrong, but we think it's tightly scoped enough. It impacts the most important thing, which is someone's physical safety. Once we learn from that, we can really look at the the biggest issue with our system. Right now is all the burden is placed upon the victim. So we only act based on reports. We we don't have a lot of enforcement, especially with with more of the more the more
the takedowns that are run through machine learning and deep learning out. But if something is reported, a human does review it eventually, or are there a series of reports that you never get to? There's there's probably reports. We don't I mean we, we prioritize the queue based on severity and the thing that will mark severity is something like physical safety or private information or not. So generally, we try to get through everything, but we have to prioritize that q even coming on. If, if someone threatened the lives of someone else, you would would you band that account? Would you tell them like, like let's say someone tweeted three times kill these people? I want them dead. The times is that yes, ultraviolet didn't get an abandoned, though, and I don't know why not add up Jamie? That's out, I don't know,
I don't necessarily want to give out specific user names, because they're, not people, just point the finger at me and saying I'm getting these people band, but they're. You know during Covington this guy said multiple times to he wanted, as Father was to go and kill these kids yeah and- and we have to look at that, but we also look in the context because we also have, I think we talked about this a lot in the last part, but we we have gamers on the platform who were saying exactly that to their friends that they're going to meet at the games in the game tonight and without the context of the relationship with that. The context of the conversation that we're having we'll take the exact same action on on them incorrectly, yeah. Absolutely that that I understand, I think, in the case of Covington, though know this user was so high profile. He's a verified use he's got something like twenty thousand followers and it was high by numerous conservative media outlets. Saying wow this guy's it screenshot, it's being shared. I mean you had a Disney producer like saying a picture of a which or with a body being thrown in it same as we wanted to happen. You know
I do know that some of these accounts got lock Disney producer was that well I'll I'll clarify fact check me on that, but that's the basically that conversation I was added as a guide Disney. Was he posted a picture from Fargo of someone being tossed in a wood chipper, and he says I want all these Marga kids. You know done don't like this. You had the guy who specifically said lock them the school burn. It down said a bunch of disparaging things and then said: if you see them fire on that many tweeted that more than once, and that those accounts were at those streets were taken down. Those were violations or rules that I'm pretty sure it's actually illegal. To do that right. It's to to to to tell it to tell your I need and if you will to commit a felony is a crime like right: okay, incitement of ounces or yeah. Yes, right, I'm in many places. I I just have to wonder how it how it like, I understand the context issue, but this is what, with this, what I talk, what were those contacts and scale to, though the time those accounts were action and they may not an action? The way you wanted to that too, but the tweets were forced to be deleted and that counter sure I
a penalty for that. So I understand that what kind of penalty? Well again, as I said earlier Joe, we don't usually automatically suspend accounts with violation, because we want people to learn. We want people to understand what they did wrong and give them an opportunity not to do it again right and it's it's a big thing to kick someone off the platform, and I take that very very seriously so so I want make sure that when someone violates our rules, they understand what happened and they were given an opportunity to. You know, get back on the platform and change their behavior. So in many of these cases, what happens is we will for someone to acknowledge that their tweet violated our rules force them to delete that tweet before they can get back on the platform and in in many cases, if they do it again, we give him a time out which is like seven days when we say look, you done it again through suspension. If you do do out about your mom, so they on exactly and motor, and if you do it again, then you're not it's kind of like you know three strikes sort of like baseball,
and so in some of these cases, that TIM is referencing. I have to imagine cause these tweets were deleted. They are violations of our rules. People are upset that the account came back and was allowed to say other things, but we did take action on those streets they were relations of, and then you have people like my low, who is mean to a person and you delete you banned him permanently, there's a lot more than that, after more than about it, yeah yeah, I'm I'm happy to talk about. My loan actually brought the tweets because so let's, let's preface that by saying the point I want to make sure it's clear- is that you have somebody who actively called for the death of people. I understand the context issue maybes talk about video games, how Texans go and scale. So this is a verify the and this just the complexity in in acting. It's not an excuse. Why we don't do it in particular, and then then there that they're a lot of other examples to get into more, egregious areas that I've prepared. So here we have someone with over two one thousand followers he's verified numerous times insights, his followers to commit a crime against these kids. The action taken against him is the tweets you get to spank you get time out. Then you
people like Alex Jones to be rated a CNN reporter permanently banned. You get Miley Annapolis. He was mean I'm in the band, but that's your impression. That's not what happened. Okay, the details of this one. Yes, please! Let's do this wanted to let's start with Milo. So what was the details of Milo? So Milo had a number of tweets that violet did our rules going back to two thousand and fourteen, but I'm gonna talk about the final three in this very strange concept. He claim to be a Buzzfeed reporter reporter his bio and he's verified account, so that is impersonation. I'm not sure why he did that he did do that. Will Buzzfeed a left wing Bing thing, so he was doing parody potentially, but our priority rules are very specific. That, if you have an account, that's me being is a parody account. You need to say that it is a parody account, so you want these people, everybody who knows Milo would know that is not a buzz feed reporter that people who don't know Milo, will look at that verified account and say:
wasn't verified after while you removed his verification, he violated our rules, clarification, so the viable via the verification, was removed. Because of the Buzzfeed thing I believe so I can. I can come from them, couldn't believe so. He also docked someone. He PA posted private information about an individual, so that was the second one he tweeted to somebody else. If you were child, I'd have dashed your head on a rock and tried again, which we viewed as a threat. Really, that seems like he's saying, like your mom, should have swallowed you. You know it's like you know. I'm saying is like you're a mistake. I think that's a threat. I understand why reasonable people would have different impressions of this, I'm just going through and telling you what they are just. So we have all the facts on the table. I know and debate them and then the that's when we found a bunch of things that he posted that we viewed as incitement of abuse against Leslie Jones there's a bunch of the
but the one that I like to look at, which really convinced me is he posted to doctor tweets that were supposedly by Leslie Jones? They were fake, tweets and the first one said: white people are getting on my nerves like. How can you call yourself human and then the second one said, the God, damn a slur for a jewish person at Sony. Ain't paid me yet damn fix new, better pay up. So this was just a fake tweet that someone had photoshopped to reduce you to face to face tweets, and we know they were faked, because we could still tell from the of the software and then they were faked. Is it can't always tell so it is? It is possible that he didn't know they were faked, that someone sent it to him and he didn't do his due diligence and looking it up and it is possible, but it was pointed out to him that they were fake because he left it on and not only did he leave it on. He said, don't tell me,
he's a mischievous internet. Rascal made them up exclamation point. So this in the car, a bunch of other things he was saying towards Leslie Jones on Twitter. I and my team felt that this was taken as a whole. Incitement harassment against her wasn't there another issue with multiple accounts that were connected to him. There were a bunch of other issues on the background, but these are the three primary things that we looked at in terms of the other things that were in the background weren't. They multiple accounts that were connected to him, like. I think that I'm not sure about that. So I think it was more that we found him to be engaging in coordinated, behavior and inciting people to to attack Jones. Now, with a case like him. No I'm just going to be honest, but I'm listening to those or listening to
those tweets. Are they don't sound that bad? They certainly don't sound as bad as calling for the death of a child who's wearing a maggot had thrown into a woodchipper the fact that that guy still out there tweet and yet Milos, not Milos initial. The whole thing stemmed stem from other than the Buzzfeed thing step from his legitimate criticism of a film and he's, you know, he's a satirist. He was mocking this film. The daxing incident wasn't related Danzig in. Why don't we? But we all agree that Doc sing is something that's what our should take out. A hundred percent ran. It yet is friend people in real life, and I take an enormous amount of responsibility for that, because I fear daily for the things that are happening on the platform that are translating into the real world. So Milo is a contentious figure and there's certainly think can pull up that. I wouldn't agree with anything he did there. I I think those are horrible. I think Joe about some really good points, but what about Chuck Johnson I was struck Johnson Band, I don't have those details and training to Chuck
Johnson said that he was preparing something to take out their derailment Casson and in that you're in a journalistic context. People take this to mean he was gonna, do a dossier or some kind of hit piece on the right. It probably band, and my understanding- and it's been a long time since I've read this. There was some leaked emails. I think from Dick A where he said. Maybe it wasn't that I want to drag dick. I don't know who it was exactly. They said. I don't care just get rid of him and he was off so you have and again maybe there's some hidden context there I don't know, but on this earth that's the concern is that this is always leaning towards the left. I would absolutely is, and I'm I'm not even getting started. I can understand why you feel that way. I don't think that's true. I think we look at each individual instance of violations. There are rules and try to make the ass case that we can, but I'm not trying- and I do think Joe just Thio just to say I do think. We've failed in a couple of ways and I want to admit that
ok number one we haven't done enough education about water rules are 'cause. A lot of people violate our rules and they don't even know it like some of the statistics that we've looked at like for a lot of first time, users of the platform, if they violate the rule once almost two slash three of them never violate the rules again. So we're not talking about like a bunch of people accidentally like if they know what the rules are. Most people can avoid it in most people when they feel the sting of a violation they go. Okay, I don't want to lose my rights to post exactly and they're and they're able to do it. So we have a lot of work to do on education, so people really understand what the rules are in the first place. The other thing we have to do to address these allegations that we're doing this from a biased perspective is to be really clear about what types of behavior are caught by our rules on what types or not and to be transparent within the product. So when a particular tweet is found to be in violation of our rules being very, very clear, like this sweet was found, be in violation of this particular world, and that's all work that we're doing is. We think the combination of education and transparency is
really important, particularly for an open platform like Twitter, it's it's just part of who we are and we have to build into the product. I appreciate that your particular thoughts, though, on those examples that he described when you talking about someone saying we should throw these children into a wood, chipper verses, Chuck Joe Constant saying he should take this guy. He wants to prepare a dossier to take child or how do you say it? Is it something like I'm gonna take out here and it has and with he said, I'm preparing to take out there. Some, like that, I can't preparing. I know I can understand it could be misconstrued as he was trying to assassinate him. You could you could misconstrue it that, but not a direct threat, but at the other one's a direct threat, one guy is banned for life, the other guy and still post, and we can I'm happy to follow up. I was don't have all the Chuck Jones and it's not about one thing that it's about a pattern and practice of violating, and we don't. We don't want to kick someone off for one thing, but if there's a pattern and practice like there was for Milo, we are gonna have to take action at some point, because we can't sit back and let people be abusing her house and silent
on the plot. Well, so so one really important thing that needs to be stated is that twitter, by definition, is a biased platform in favor of the left period. Does not not a question. I understand you might have your own interpretation, but it's very simple. Conservatives do I agree with you on the definition of miss gender. If you have a rule in place that specifically adheres to the left ideology, you by fault, are enforcing rules from a biased perspective. Lets him. There are a lot of people on the left who don't agree with how we're doing our job either for sure and those. I think that we don't take enough action on have you arrested and we left far too much behavior go anything radical example, though I mean what he's talking about. I mean terms of generalities, the the the in general things lean far more left. Would you agree that I don't know what that means, but in this particular case it's how the speech is being used. This is a new vector of attack that people have felt that I don't want to be on this platform anymore, because I'm being harassed and abused, and I need to get the hell out of people grass and abuse me all day and night. You don't do anything about that. I might my notification
how many a lot at ninety nine you have a worse than I do. I mean you got to Stanley more followers and I don't click on over tab anymore, because it's basically just harassment- and I even when so, is a really funny anecdote. I was covering a story in Berkeley and someone said: if you see him him like it was it was I'm paraphrasing. They said. Basically, just let me take my stuff steal from me and Twitter told me after review was not a violation of their policy. Somebody made an illusion to me being a homosexual and I reported that instantly gone so when so for me, I'm looking I'm like well, of course. Of course, Twitter is going to enforce the social justice aspect of their policy immediately, in my opinion, probably because you guys have pr constraints and you're probably nervous about that, but when someone actually threatens me with a crime and insights their fathers to do it, nothing got done, I'm not the only
who feels that way. Tim, that's a mistake. If someone acts in that manner and threatens to hurt you that's a violation of our rules right. Maybe there was a mistake there and I'm happy to go and correct that, and we can do it offline, so we don't fear any sort of reprisal against you. That's a mistake. That's not an agenda on my part or in the the team's with this we don't mail. Any pr constraints is not so why did you ban Alex Jones? You can get in that? You want absolutely ready for sure all. Oh I've been ready for. Well, let me say this. The reason I bring him up is that Oliver Darcy one of the lead report is covering Alex Jones and his content said on CNN that it was only after media pressure. Did the social networks take action? So that's why I bring up the glee because it in in sort of implies, you are under p r constraints to get rid of him. I think if you look at the p r,
that's what I went through in that incident. It wouldn't be that we've looked good and I think you have and that's not at all why we took action service. We get. You have to look at the the full context in the spectrum here, because one of the things I happened over a weekend is what Alex mentioned on your on your podcast from he was removed from the Itunes podcast record. That was the that was the Lynch PIN for him because it it it drove all the traffic to what he said. Basically is our immediately after that we saw our peer companies. Facebook Spotify Youtube, also take action. We did not. We did not because we, when we looked at our service and we looked at the reports on their service, we did not find anything in violation of our rules. Then we got into a situation where suddenly, a bunch of people were reporting content on our platform, including CNN,
who wrote an article about all the things that might violate our rooms, rules that we looked into and we gave him one of the of the warnings and then we can get into the actual details, but yeah we did not follow. We we resisted just being like a domino with our peers because it wasn't consistent with our rules and the contract we put in before our customers. So what was it that major banham? So there were three separate incidents that came to our attention after the fact. Ah, that were reported to spied by different users out there was a a and a video that was up loaded that showed a child's being violently thrown to the ground and crying that was the first one. This second one was a video that we viewed as incitement of violence. I can read it to you, it's a sure, a little it's a little bit of a transcript, but
but now it's time to act on the enemy before they do a false flag. I know the Justice Department's crippled with a bunch of followers and cowards, but there's groups are grand juries there is you called for it it's time for medically, economically and judiciously and legally and criminally to move against these people? It's got to be done now, get together. The people, you know, aren't traitors, aren't cowards, aren't helping their frickin bats, hedging their frickin bats. Like all these other assholes do in. Let's go, let's do it, so people need to have their and there's a bunch of other stuff, but at the end, so people need to have their battle rifles ready and everything ready at their bedsides and you've got to be ready because the media so disciplined in their deception. So this is your you're saying that this is a call to violence against the media. That's what it sounded like to us at the time and there been a number of incidents of violence against the media. And again I take my responsibility for what happens on the platform and how that translates off platform very seriously and that felt like it was an incitement to violence. If he
only to the incitement to violence would have been fine if he only if that only tweeted, that Trans saying get about a your battle rifles ready, you wouldn't have deleted his account again context matters to him right about one thing, so we have to look at the entire context of what's going on, so I'm asking was that was that agree just enough for you to say that alone that wasn't done wasn't there was one number two right right so then I guess the question is: what was the video context of the kid being thrown to the ground? Was it news worthy we are we are visited. I think so in depicting violence against the child is not something that we would allow on the platform. Even if it's news contact, if it was there are certain types of situations where, if you were reporting on you know war zone and and things that might be happening, we would put a interstitial on that type of content, that's graphic or violent, but we didn't feel that that was the contact. Well, there's a video that's been going around that was going around few for five weeks ago, the one where the the girls were yelling at that big giant guy and the guy punched that girl in the face- and she was like eleven years old. I saw that multiple times on Twitter, that was one of
most violent. Things are seen this giant man punched this eleven year old girl in the face, and that was was that removed from Twitter. I don't know I I would have to go see if anyone reported it to us E. I think one of the issues here is to is you know you do you want to get to the third one, so the third strike um the week we looked at was a verbal altercation that Alex got into with a journalist and in that altercation there, which was uploaded to Twitter a number of statements using eyes of the rat even more evil. Looking person he's just scum you're a virus to a and freedom smelling like a possum that climbed out of the rear end of a dead cow. You look like a possum that got caught some really really nasty stuff. In my view, there was a bunch of that's a little really that's hilarious pattern in practice, but it was a terrible altercation that was posted on her, so so we took. The
totality of this had been warned that we have rules against abuse and harassment of individuals. We saw this pattern and practice. One strike two strike three strikes and we made a decision and so that last one was on periscope. Is that what it was that he broadcast through? I? It was originally on periscope, but it was also reposted from multiple related accounts on twitter. So we can. We can agree with you when you say these things. Like you know, Alex said this sounds like a threat. He was berating this person awful things, but ultimately your judgment is the contact. You say we have to pay attention to context, trusting that you made the right decision. Well, I'm I'm giving you as much fact as I I can give you here, and I think that this is the real hard part of content moderation at scale on global platforms. It's not easy and I don't think Jack or I would tell you that it's easy, it's a preposterous volume. You guys have to deal with and that's one of things things that I wanted to get into with Jack when I first had him on, because when my thought- and
I wasn't as concerned about the censorship as many people, my main concern was: what is it like to art? This thing, that's kind of for fun and then all of sudden it becomes the premier platform for free speech on the planet earth. So it just it is that, but it's also a platform, that's used to abuse and harass ally people and in use in ways that none of us wanted to be yours, but unless it happens, does so and I think it's an enormously complicated challenge for any company to do content, moderation at scale and that's something that we are sitting down thinking about. How do we take this forward in presence here, because this is the dozens go yeah? But so, let's, let's together contacts that we we've heard what you said, why? What Alex Jones? It was bad. Now we can look at it. This way. Oliver Darcy, who has on numerous occasions, insulted conservatives recently on CNN, called them gullible. Being sold red meat by grifters repeatedly covers a story. I'm gonna do a quotes because I think
sent he's allowed to cover these stories. He keeps going after Alex Jones. He keeps digging through his history. Then he goes on tv and says we got a band. Then L Jones confronts him in a very aggressive and mean way, and that's your justification for four or I should say I invert the time line. Basically, you have someone who's relentlessly digging through stuff insulting you calling you names, sifting through your history, trying to anything they can to get you terminated going on tv, even writing, numerous stories, you confront them and say you're evil and you say a bunch of really off. I mean things and then you ban him right, and then you post that information and all over the right. But you have a journalist who recently went on tv and said: CPAC is a bunch of gullible conservatives being fed red meat by grifters. You can tell this skies not got honest and not as agenda. So what you have it to me. It looks like the conservatives to an extent, probably will try and mass flag people on the left, but from a
ideological standpoint you have the actual. You know whatever people want to call it. A sect of Arian left that believe. Free speech is a problem that have little please shut up in Berkeley, burning, free speech signs and then you concern lives, who are tweeting, mean things and the concern those are less likely in bed. I think it's fair to point out less likely to try to get someone else band because they like playing off them and the left is, is targeting the so you end up having disproportionate lot of assumptions and what you're saying- and I don't know what basis you're saying those things that I mean. You have conservatives demanding free speech and you have liberals. I should say liberals, you have what people refer to as the regressive left calling for the restrictions on speech. You have these, I I don't know what those terms mean. To be honest with you, we have people on all sides of the spectrum who believe in free speech and I'm I. I believe that to be the case, so your platform restricts speech. Our platform promotes speech unless people violate our rules and in a specific direction
in any direction, but uncle I don't want to see his name. The guy who calls for death, gets suspension, the guy who insinuates that gets a permanent ban, but TIM misinterpreting. What I'm saying and I feel like you're doing it deliberately it's not about one particular thing. It's about a pattern and practice of violating of violating you have a pattern and practice of banning. Only one faction of recently published an article where they looked at twenty two high profile banning from two thousand and fifteen and found twenty one of them were only on one side of the cultural debate. But I don't look at the political spectrum of people when I'm looking at their right. You, you have a high. Yes, they are your biased and your your targeting specific individuals, because your rule support this perspective. Now I don't well. Can you be clear, though, in in like what rules support that person, specifically the the easiest one is Miss generating right, because that so clearly ideological. If you ask a conservative, what is Miss misgendering they'll say: if someone is biologically male and you call them, you know, should
a menu all the machine. That's miss gender. As a conservative view, the the the progressive view is inverted. So now you actually have in your policies a a rule. Against the conservative perspective, I have a rule against the abuse and harassment of trans people on our platform. That's what my rules we just give contacts in the background as to know why that is, and I brought some some research. So we obviously a lot of feedback. So we don't make these rules in a vacuum. Just to be clear. We have a a of people all around the world to give us contacts and the types of behavior they're, seeing how that translates into real world harm and they give us feedback, and they tell us like you- should consider different types of rules. Different types of perspectives, different like, for example, when we try to enforce hateful conduct in a are hateful conduct policy in a particular country. We're not gonna, know all the slur words. The
are used to target people of a particular race or particular religion. So we're going to rely on a building out a team of experts all around the world who are gonna, help us enforce our rules. So in the particular case of Miss Jenna ring I'm just trying to pull up of the studies that we looked at, but we looked at the American Association of Pediatrics and looked at the number of transgender youths that were committing suicide. It's an astronomical! I'm sorry can't find it right now in front of me. It's a really really high statistic. That's like ten times with the normal suicide rate is of normal teenagers and we looked at the causes of what that was happening in a lot of. It was not just violence towards those individuals, but it was bullying behavior and what was what were those bullying behaviors that were contributing to that and that's why we made this rule because we thought- and we believe that those types of behaviors
were happening on our platform and we wanted to stop it now. There are exceptions to this rule. We don't- and this is all of this- isn't about like public figures and there's always gonna be public figures that you're gonna want to talk about, and that's that's fine, but this is about. Are you doing something with the intention of abusing and harassing a trans person the platform and are they viewing it that way and reporting it to us so that we take action? So so I we'll just state I actually agreed with the rule on from my point of view, I I agree that bowling and harassing trance peoples in in in higher entirely wrong. I disagree with that, but I do want to make sure it's clear to everybody who's listening. My point is simply that you know Ben Shapiro went on a talk, show and absolutely refused and that's his check. You know and he's one of the big podcasts in the world. So if you have all of his millions upon millions of followers who are looking at this rule saying this goes against my view of the world, and it is literally sixty plus one million in this country. You
do you have a rule, that's ideologically bent, and and it's it's true you. What did you do the research you believe this? Well, then, you have Ben Shapiro who did his wrist research and doesn't leave, and I relied on the American Association of Pediatrics and ah you, human rights so another and I'm sure he has his sources to for when he gives his name. As the point is a, but if you don't just wonder if they have that context I mean and that's where we have also for its its its laws. Just explaining the. Why? Behind a lot of our rivals, in reasons I I would agree- and I think it's fine, you do research and you found this to be true, but we can't simply say maybe Ben Shapiro and the other conservatives who feel as we don't know we have to we. We can't you know the point I make is it's: it's simply whether you believe it. What, whether you justified or not, is not the point. The point is you: do you do have this role? That rule is at odds with conservatives period? Well, I think I I think that you're you're generalizing, but I think it is really important, as Jack said, to the why, behind these things,
the? Why is to protect people from abuse and harassment? On our part, though, I understand, but you essentially created a protected class. If this is the case, because, despite these studies and what you know, the studies are showing there's a gigantic suicide amongst Trans people period. It's a forty percent, it's it's outrageously, outrageous! Now, whether that is because of gender dysphoria with us because of the complications from sexual surgery, sexual transition surgery, whether it's because of bullying weather, because of this awful feeling of being born in the wrong gender, whether that all that is yet to be determined. The fact that they've shown that there's is large amount of trans people that are committing suicide. I don't necessarily think that that makes that makes sense in terms of people from someone's perspective. Like a Ben Shapiro saying, if you are biologically female, if you were born with a double
x chromosome, you will never be x y. If he said. Is that that's that's a vial of your policy and this is you're, creating a protected class to beat be fair targeted if it's targeted at or door targetting. Look like this so far expressed that opinion so would be totally entitled to express that opinion. If he's doing a manner, that's targeted at an individual repeatedly repeated repeatedly and saying that okay, but what about? Well? That's where the intent you know. What's going on with Martina Navratilova right now, Martina Navratilova, my my cancer last economic yeah, I never wrote, I don't think I've ever seen it Martina Navratilova, tell Ova! Is it tell over up anyway, Epic World class, but Legend tennis player, who happens to be a lesbian, is being harassed just because she says that she doesn't believe that train his women being someone who is biologically male, who transitions to a female should be able to compete in sports against biological feet.
This is something that I agree with is something I have personally experience. It's a tremendous amount of harassment because I stood when there was a woman who who a trans woman who is fighting biological females in mixed martial arts. Fights and destroying these women- and I was saying saying you- do just watch this and tell me this- doesn't look crazy to well you well. My point is you should be express yourself in if you say that you believe someone is biologically male, even though they are dented is a female. That's a perspective that should be valid mean that this is someone's someone's. This is first of all, it's biologically correct, so we have a problem in that if you're standards and your policies are not bio, logically accurate, then you're dealing with an ideological. You know I'm an ideological policy, and it just because I mean I don't I don't want to target
trans people. I don't want to harass them. I certainly don't call anybody whatever they want me. If you want to change your name to a woman's name and identifies a woman. I am one hundred percent cool with that, but by saying I don't think that you should be able to compete as a woman. This opens me up for harassment and I never reported any of it. I just don't pay attention to it, but going into you like Megan Murphy, for instance right you can call the target harassed if Megan Murphy, who is a for those that are don't, don't, know, she's out radical feminists who refuses to use the Trans gender pronouns. If she's in an argument with a trans person over whether or not they should be allowed in sports or in biologically female spaces, and she refuses to use their pronoun because of her ideology, you'll be on them again. It depends on the context on the platform and it's so and what not banned permanently. Thank you get one she was banned permanently, but with what she was about. What happened to that? She was more land because, once or not to me what? What? What did she actually do?
My understanding and I don't have the tweet by tweet the way that I did for the there's, but my understanding is that she was warned multiple times for misgendering, an individual that she was in an argument with in this. It is actually bringing a lawsuit against her in Canada as well. So it is, you have an argument between two people. Can I have a rule that enforces only one side of the ideology and you've banned only one of those people. We have a rule that attempts to address what we have perceived to be instances, abuse abuse, harassment, harassment. She was allergy, it is an ideology, but if she's saying a man is never a woman, if that's what she's saying and then biologically she's correct, we obviously have a debate here. This is not a clear cut. This is something like you say: water is wet. You know this is dry it's. This is not like something you can prove. This is something where you you have to acknowledge that there is it an understanding that if someone is a Trans person, we all
agree to consider them a woman and to think of them as a woman to talk to the address them with their preferred name and their preferred pronouns, but biologically this is not accurate. So we have we have divide here. We have a divided the conservative estimation of what's happening and then the definition- that's the liberal definition of it. I think that's right Joe, and I think what I'm trying to say is that it's not that you can't have those few points at that, if you're taking those viewpoints and you're targeting and at that at a specific person in a way that reflects your intent to abuse and what, if it's, in the context of the conversation, what is she saying that I don't think that trans women should be allowed in these female spaces to decisions for women, and then this person's arguing- and she says a woman- is by the female. You are never going to be a woman. She responded with men, aren't women, though, and that was her first in the series of events, that's what got of the suspension and the warning. That was
one of many tweets. That was part of providing context, and that was actually the second second actually strike is my understanding the? Why is that a strike yeah? Why is that a struct? But again like it's the context of I don't I don't have all the trees are running. There were like ten or twelve tweets going back and forth, and my understanding is that, in the context of all of those, she was Miss entering a particular person, not that she was holding a who a mother person that wasn't it. I don't know it was so I don't you're having you having an individual who is debating a high profile individual in our community and she's expressed sing, her her ideology of, and you have opted to ban one of those ideologies. It's within the context of this conversation. This is this is what is being debated, whether or not someone is in fact a woman when they born a male. I understand that this is controversial. I
I do I especially to a radical feminist. I understand. Why is why people would not agree with the role, but that being said, it is a rule on our platform and once you're warned about the will to repeatedly post the same content is also going to be a vital one of our rules, but the this this seems like a good example of an ideologically based rule. If you're, if she's saying that a man is never a woman, though that is not in that context, harassment that is a very specific opinion that she had. That happens to be biologically accurate. Now I don't know, I don't agree with targeting harassment on anybody, and I I targeted harassment on Trans people work or straight people or whatever I don't. I don't agree with it. I don't think you should do it. It's just it's not something I want to do, but in this
context what she saying is not just her her expression, but it's accurate. I think an important point is if I tweeted to you, JO, JO, you are not a hamster that clearly not a violation of the rules. However, there are identifies a hamster. Well, no, it wouldn't be clear. I know people who have specifically begun using begun of animals to avoid getting avoid off the platform for breaking the rules. The rules, certain individuals just did now use certain small woodland creatures in place. Slurs, so they're not really, and it's fine, but there are people who consider themselves trans species. Now, I'm not trying to belittle the Trans community by no means, I'm just trying to point now that you have a specific rule for one set of people and they're at they're, so they're people who have
body dysphoria. You don't have rules on that they're people who have actually amputated their own arms. You don't have rules on that. You have a very specific rule set and in more importantly, in the context of a targeted conversation, I can say a whole bunch of things that would never be considered a rule break, but that one is which is ideologically driven. Yeah, thank you for the feedback. I mean we're we're again always learning and trying to understand different people's perspectives, and all I'll say is that our intent is not to police ideology. Our intent is to police behaviors that we view is abuse, movement, harassment, and I hear your point of view and it's something that I'll definitely discuss with my team and even in this case it was. It wasn't just um a going against this particular rule, but also things that were more ban. Evasive as well, including taking a screenshot of the
tweet reposting at which is a concert or terms are well. That sounds like a it's more the actions. It sounded like a protest against your role, but to stand you the them for it, but people can protest anyone of our rules. We can't we can't like let them do that. No right, any I'm, not I'm not a great. I I understand you're saying, but I just want to make sure I point out. She was clearly doing it as an effort to push back on what she viewed as an ideologically driven role. Well, this is the problem is. This is a real debate in the LGBT community. This is a debate where there is a division and there's a division between people that think that trans women are evading biological female spaces and making decisions that don't benefit these biological females, this gender, whatever you want to call them. This is an actual bay and it's a a debate amongst progressive people amongst left wing people. It's a debate amongst amongst this is I mean I would imagine. The the majority of people in the lbgt community are in fact on the left, and this is one example of that, so you have a protect
class. That's having an argument with a woman who feels like there, a nine ideological bent to this conversation. That is not not only not accurate, but not fair, and she feels like it's not fair for biological women. The same is Martina well I'll. Uh. Take this to its logical conclusion. I got sent a screenshot from somebody, and maybe it's fake. I think it was real. They were having it with someone on Twitter and responded with dude comma. You don't know about a block and they got a suspension. A lockout and delete the tweet, because the individual, using a cartoon avatar with the eight with with the name with apparently was SAM reported inside, that I'm transgender he's calling you dude and the do in the end that twitter user actually got a suspension for it. So I can understand mistakes happen, but when you have a rule, that's like that. There's colloquial terms that are like man come on. Don't say that dude is like we say like like, like I asked you guys when you were were going to photo in front of this thing. I said guys, but I
included you and I didn't. I wasn't offended you and I will have reported you for it. Thank you yeah. It's it's tricky, but in this case of Megan Murphy, that's her name right, yeah yeah! I did that doesn't make any sense to me that scene she should be allowed to express herself in in this. Is this is not being she's not being mean by saying a man is never a woman. This is a perspective that that is signed, typically accurate, and that's it's part of the problem. I think I I I I just want to run to beating a dead horse. I think I wanna we wanted to it's a really important thing to go over all the nuances of this particular subject, because I think that one in particular highlights this idea of where the problems lie in having a protected class and but I think, should be compassionate. We have a lot of protected classes. Gender race, nationality, like these are the protective glass
for white people. It is it when you say gender or race when it was not all protected category. So you can't attack someone for their belonging to a particular race or part secular religion, but you can mock white people ad nauseam, it's not a problem, it doesn't get, it doesn't get removed. I'm not talking about mocking I'm talking about abusing and harassing, but I mean, if you mark a black person. In the same way, it would be considered argh racism um again it's about targeted harassment on the platform, but well that's what is targeted harassment I mean, but when you're ok, we'll give you have what is racism? Is racism only mean there's this progressive perspective of racism? That is only symbol if you're from more powerful class only punching down, that's the only racism. I don't think that makes any sense. I think racism is looking at someone that, from whatever whatever race and decide, hiding that they are in fact less or less worthy or less value
double whatever it is that that takes place across the platform against white people. Now, I'm not saying white people need to be protected. I know it's easier, being a white person in America, the fact, but it's hypocritical to have a policy that only distinguishes you can make fun of white people all day long. But if you decide to make fun of asian folks or you know, fill in the blank that is racist, but making fun of white people isn't and it doesn't get removed. There are tons, look about Sarah from the New York Times. That's well! I can actually explain that one please do! That was that my minus is that you guys started banning people officially under these policies around two thousand and fifteen and most all the tweets she made was prior to that, and so you didn't enforce. The old tweets are hateful conduct policy, Joe just to be clear, is, is across the board, meaning like it doesn't just protect women and protects men, and women protects all races. It doesn't matter, and this is how the law is set up in the United States right. You can't discriminate against white men. You can't discriminate against Blackman, like
those are the laws right like that's the structure it is it doesn't. It doesn't take into consideration power. Some one says something about white people and marks white people on Twitter. What do you do about that? If it's targeted harassment targeted at a person, so just white people in general? If you say something about white people in general? It's on an issue that well I mean we focus on target harassment, which is behavior that has targeted against an individual who belongs to that class. Okay, because if you try to police every opinion that people have about different races or religions, like obviously that's a very different story, so this is about. If you target that to somebody who belongs to that class and that's reported to us, that is a violation of our rules, and so in the Sarah Jeong case. Ah lot, we did see many tweets of that nature, that we're focused on people who were white or men, and our rules in this area came into effect in two
two fifteen, which was our hateful conduct policy, and a lot of those tweets were from a time period where those rules weren't enough and in her defense she was actually supposedly responding to people that have you don't believe, come on over three years and she's tweeting blanket statements about yeah, sure sure, but so I will say to obviously I've done it on my one point. So in that case there were tweets from before the rules went into effect in tweets from after the rules went into effect and we did take action on the tweets from after the rules went into she's, also pretty young, but right so I want to point yeah sure, yeah, so we're talking about something that might have happened eight years ago right right, twenty it was like twenty eleven thirty yeah, but I do want to point this out before coming on obviously did not. I did it in a lot of research. I searched for slurs against white people, black people, that he knows, and I found copious just just tons and tons of them. Now they don't go back up most of what I found it go back to Fox. It does seem like you guys, are doing your best, but there is also-
and it targets- White People- black people, jewish people everywhere- and I can I can I can. I can understand that you guys you gotten hundreds of millions, but let's, let's, let's, let's try another subject. Just just address that point- and I think Jack talked about this a little bit like this- is where right now we have a system that relies on people to report it to us, which is a huge burden on people and especially if you're uh happen to be a high profile person and TIM. You would you would understand this you're not going to sit there and report every tweet and Joe you'll understand this, like it's not worth your time, you're not gonna, go through a tweet tweet as people respond to you and report. It people tell us this all the time. This is where we have to are getting better at identifying when this is happening and taking action on it without waiting for somebody to tell us that using an algorithm, though, do you not miss context? I mean it seems to me that there's a lot of people that say things in humor. You know they they were or slurs within particular communities, which is perfectly reasonable right right. So, yes, there is a
danger of the is missing context, and that's why we we really want go carefully into this, and this is why we scoped it down, first and foremost, to Ing which is at least first it's our number one goal: protecting physical safety like making sure that no I'm done online will impact someone's physical safety on offline on our platform in in this case. The second is that there are pattern around docks and none are much easier to see without having the context there are. There are some exceptions, of course, because you could docks someone's public. You know representatives, public office, phone number and email address and the over the might catch that not have the context that this is a US representative, and this information is already public. So actually this just it highlights how insanely difficult it is to monitor all of these posts. Then what is the volume like? What? What are we dealing with a? How many do you guys get a day, hundreds of millions of posts a day
and how many human beings are manually? Reviewing any of these things, I don't have that. That number a lot a lot thousand hundreds of thousands, how many employees you guys, how we have a four thousand employees around the world. That's it yeah, four thousand, four, that the reason that's crazy, but stop and think about that four thousand people that are monitoring hundreds of millions of tweets and we have. We have a. We have a small team, who's monitoring tweets and some of them are buy us. Some of them are contractors throughout throughout the world. So four thousand ploys total four thousand employees who are engineers who are designers, who are lawyers, so the number of people actually moderate tweets is probably less than one thousand well. The reason we don't give out specific okay is we need to scale these dynamically right. If we see a particular event within a within country, we might hire a hundred more people on contract to deal with. It
may not be full time in and and with us the entire time with they. They have the ability to take down tweets. They have, they have the so as we get reports, it goes into a queue and those are ranked by severity, and then we have people who look at our rules and look at the look at the tweets, unlike the behavior in the context around it, and they have the ability to go down that enforcement spectrum of Digitas about one make people log in read why it's a violation over tweet and delete it to temporary suspensions and, finally, a permanent suspension, which is the absolute last resort, which we ultimately do not want to do. We want to make sure that our rules are also guided towards in some devising Maur healthy conversation and more more participation. So so let me ask you the rules you have are not based in: U S law! Right? U S. Law doesn't recognize restrictions on hate speech, it's considered free speech. So if you want to send in a street corner and all the crazy things in the world you're allowed to on your platform, twitter
you're not allowed to. So even in that sense alone, your rules do have an ideology behind them. I don't completely disagree. I think you know, I don't want harassment, but the reason I bring this up is getting into discussion about democratic health of a nation, so I think it's. It can't be disputed. This point that Twitter is extra only powerful in influencing elections. You know, I'm pretty sure you guys published recently a bunch of tweets from foreign actors that were trying to meddle in elections, so even you as a company, recognized that foreign entities are trying to manipulate people using this platform. So I is a few things I want to ask me on this, but if would it be important than to just as a at a certain point twitter become so powerful in influencing elections and giving access? Even the president's tweets that you should allow people to use the platform based under the norms of US law? First, amendment free speech right to expression on the platform. This is becoming too much of it becoming too powerful in our elections are, are taking place. So even if
you are saying well hate speech is our ruling. A lot of people agree with it. If it any zero dot, one person disagrees they're still in American, who has a right to this. You know to access to the public discourse and you've essentially monopolized that and not completely, but for the as part. So isn't there some responsibility on you to guarantee at a certain extent, less regulation happen right, like look if you, if you nice, foreign governments, are manipulating our elections, then shouldn't you guarantee the right to an American to access this platform to be involved in the electoral process. I'm not sure. I see that the the tie between those things were. I will address one of your points, which was out we're not we're a platform that serves the world, so we're a global at seventy. Five percent of the users
twitter outside of the United States right right right, so we don't apply laws of just one country when we're thinking about it. We think about how do you have a global standard that can meet the threshold of as many countries as possible because we want all the people in the world both participate in a recession and and and also meet elections like the indian election coming up as well right and I'm I'm I'm my understanding, as you are also accused of being biased against conservatives in India. Recently there's a report on that as well as you held up a sign that said something offensive about the brahmin yeah. So in that sense, even in other countries, you're accused of the same things that you're being accused of by american conservatives. I think that the situations are very, very different um and I don't think that that the ideologies in player the same at all also the reason I bring that we clarify. That is not aware of the case. I I'm not sure what you
talking about, but we we did have our vice president. Public policy testify in front of indian Parliament ah a couple weeks ago, and he was they were really focused on election integrity and safety and abuse and harassment of women and political figures in the light. So so MIKE Mike my concern, I guess, is I I recognize your globe, your company, that serves the world, but as an American, I have the concern that the democracy I live in the Democratic Republic, I'm sorry, the democratic functions are healthy. One of the biggest threats is russian in Russia, IRAN, China, they're, trying to meddle in our elections using your platform and it's effective so much so that you've actually come out and removed. Many people, you know Covington was apparently started by a company in Brazil. You, the Covington Ski Andl, where this fake news goes. Viral, was report by C n and that it was if it was a dummy account, they were trying to prop it up and they were pushing out this out of context information. So they do this, the user platform to do it. You've now got a platform that is so powerful in our american discourse that foreign governments are
using. It as weapons against us and you've taken a stance against the the laws of United States. I don't mean like against. Like a law, I mean you have rules go beyond the scope of the US, which will restrict american citizens from being able to participate. Meanwhile, foreign actors free to do so so long as they play by your rules, so our elections are being threatened by the fact that if there's an american citizen who says, I not believe in your general policy and you ban them- that person has been removed from public discourse on twitter, but they don't get banned for saying they don't agree with it. The demand for short, specific violating it by targeting an individual, let's say in protest and individual repeatedly says. No, I refuse user pronouns in, like Meghan, Murphy's casing she's Canadian, so I don't want to use her specifically. The point to make is at a certain level, there are
going to be american citizens who have been removed from this public discourse, which has become so absurdly powerful foreign governments weaponize it because you have different rules than the american country has so just to be clear. My understanding and I'm not expert on all the platforms that foreign governments use multiple multiple different ways: Thio interfere in elections is not limited to our platform, nor is it limited to social media, but the president is on the order of the is on a lot of different platforms, as is the White House. I think it's fair to point out. The media coverage of his twitter account is insane and they they we run news stories every time he tweets that and certainly undeniable. I don't I'm just pointing out that there are a number of different avenues that, or this and individuals have choices and how to use the platform is tonight have other platforms, but he uses twitter as exclusively, and what I'm trying to bring is that, if twitter refuses to acknowledge this problem, you are facing regulation. I don't I don't know if you care about that, but at a certain point which which problem, if, if you're, going to
strict american citizens from participating, a platform or even the president speaks and and it's essential, you have a private, privately owned public space. If I could use an analogy that would be most apt and you've set rules that are not recognized by the US, in fact, when it came to a Supreme court hearing, this hate speech is not a violation. It's actually protected free speech. So there's an actual odds. There might be someone who says I refuse to live by any other means than what the Supreme Court is set down. That means I have a right to hate speech. You will ban them that mean platform is so powerful. It's it's being used to manipulate elections, and you have rules not recognized by the government to remove american citizens from the discourse. So, as a private platform, you become too powerful to not be regulated. If you refuse to allow people free speech, but I'm I'm trying to pick apart the connection I I think
so. Yes, we we do have an issue with foreign entities and misinformation, and- and this is a extremely complicated issue which were just beginning to understand and grasp and and take action on. I don't think that issue is solved Pure Lee, by not being more aggressive on something else that is taking people off the platform entirely as well, which is abuse and harassment like it's a cost benefit analysis. Ultimately, our rules are designed again, and you know they don't always manifest this way in the outcomes, but in terms of what we're trying to do save his opportunity for every single person to be able to speak freely on the platform, and that's that's absolutely not true you would you would on a lights, allied speech. So free speech is not on your platform. I'd I'd,
I said speaking hello, everyone. They create the opportunity for everyone to speak on our our service extra money, they've all right as it takes retrain in in part of that. The recognition that we're taking action on is that when some people encounter particular conduct that we see them wanting to remove themselves from the platform completely, which goes against the principle of enabling everyone to speaker giving people the opportunity to speak or act. So rules are focused on the the opportunities presented and we have particular outcomes to make sure that those opportunities are sort. Look awesome. Let's, let's separate the first thought that the point I made about foreign governments was just to explain the the the power that your platform hold so happy, weaponized separate that that now, when Antifa shows up to Berkeley and bashes like I would have with a bike lock that is suppressing his speech right, that's a fact of physical violence. However, when anti fall links, hands and blocks the door so that no one can go to an event that is also
legally allowed right. So what you're is that, if someone is engaging in behavior such as going on twitter and shouting someone down rip relentlessly, that's something external to what happens in in in the world under the US government? I am allowed to scream very close to you and not let you speak in public, but on twitter. You don't allow that so there's a dramatic difference between what twitter thinks is. Okay and what the US government thinks is: okay, our democracy functions and twitter functions. The issue I'm pointing out is that we know twitter is becoming extremely important in how our public discourse is occurring, how our cultural culture is developing and who even gets elected. So if you have rules that are based on a global policy, that means american citizens who are abiding by all of the laws of our country are being restricted from engaging in public discourse because you've monopolized it. Can I counter that, though, because these foreign governments are restricted by the same rules, so they've delete those same rules, they will be, they will be removed. So if they play within those rules, they can participate in the discourse
if they are just trying to manipulate our elections. On the other hand, if people that are on the platform played those rules, they can also counteract unless their ideology goes in line with US law is legally allowed, as opposed to what you allow. So foreign governments can absolutely keep making new account and keep biting and keep manipulating. They can even post things viral and then get banned and not care, but a private american citizen can say here's my opinion. I refused to back down I series you'll ban him, so we can see that at a certain point you have a twitter is slowly gaining, in my opinion, too much control from your personal theology based on what you've researched. What you think is right over american discourse, if you, if twitter- and this again in my opinion, I'm not a lawmaker, but I would have to assume if twitter views to say in the United States, you are
to say what is legally acceptable period. Then lawmakers only choice will be to enforce regulation on your company actually time. I spent quite a bit of time talking to lawmakers as part of my role had a public policy. Um spent a lot of time in D C, I wouldn't say that Jack and I have both spent a lot of time in D C and I think, from the perspective of lawmakers, are they across the spectrum are also in favor of policing, abuse and harassment online and bowling online? Well, it's those are things that people care about because a fact their children, if they affect their communities and a fact individuals, and so I don't think that and as a as a private american business, we can have different standards than what and american government owned corporation. Our american government would have to answer those are two different things: American, But- and I understand your point about the influence and I'm not denying that. Certainly twitter is an influential platform, but like
anything, whether it's the american law or the rules of twitter or the rules of Facebook or rules of any platform, there are rules and those rules have to be, although it is an whether to follow those rules and to continue to participate in a civic dialogue, choice to choice do that absolutely you've, monopolized public discourse, greenery and- and you say my way or the highway, we have a lot time. We haven't monopolize that there are many different avenues for people to continue to have a voice. There are many different platforms that offer that we are largely influential when I'm not trying to take away from that and we're a very important one. You don't need to be the most important. It's just that you are extremely important and that's and it's a compliment. Twitter has become extremely powerful, but at a certain point you should not have the right to control what people are allowed to say no private or look I'm a social liberal. I think, should regulate you guys, because you are elected officials running your system. The way you see fit against the wishes of a democratic republic- and there are people who just
agree with you- were being excised from public discourse because of your ideology that terrifies me and we could take it one step further, a time just just so. I understand so. Are you suggesting that we don't have any policies around abuse and harassment on the platform? I'm I understand what it is you're saying, because I'm not I'm not sure, I'm following you, you don't think we have any rules about abuse harassment, so even that the threats that you were use that law. But you mentioned a number of threats that you received, and you are quite frustrated that we hadn't taken action element. You think we shouldn't have rules that I'm frustrated because of the hip Chrissy of when I, when I see I see the flow of one direction and then what I see are republican politicians who, in my opinion, you're just too ignorant to understand what the hell's going on around them, and I see people burning signs that say, free speech. I see you openly saying we recognize the power of our platform and we're not going to abide by american norms. I see manipulation of twitter for, in violation of our elections, I see democratic operative
in Alabama waging a false flag campaign using fake russian accounts and the the guy who runs that company has not been banned from your platform. Even after it's been written by the New York Times. He was doing this, so we know that not only are people manipulating your platform, you have rules that remove honest american citizens with bad opinions who have a right to engage in public discourse, and it's like you now is it, but you like having the power, I'm I'm not quite sure it was going to get back to my point. So you believe that twitter should not have any rules about abuse and harassment or any sort of hate speech on the platform. That's your personal! That's that's! That's a extremely October, I don't know. Maybe too simplistic the point I'm trying to make is, but but if you you're you're asking us to comply with the US law, that would criminalize potential speech and put people in jail for and you're asking us to enforce those those turner drunk. What well I mean if you insight death, you will yeah it's a crime, you can go, you can go to jail for that. So at the very least, you could you, but when you when you, if you want a platform with medical,
we don't ban them. I say what's really weird and then you have people on your platform who say a bad naughty word. You do ban them. I say all. That's really weird. I mean I've seen people get banned for tweeting, an end to you, I and what they're trying to do when they tweet letters at you Jack, but they get suspended for and they get a threat. You know like you can't, let's talk about learn to cope with it. We we we would you mean by that, so so so so so what do I do? They are people who know that they can to be a single letter and the next person knows why letter to tweet, you see, I'm so you'll see one user will say and the next years will put an eye at the next user. Really, yes, and so they get suspended for doing so eat and- and these are these are the people who are trying to push the buttons on the rules right. They get suspended for the absolute so because I think see, but but here's here's the thing. I think I think your team understands what they're doing. However, he didn't really day dress territory of someone, someone accidentally tweet and and, and you assume, they're trying to engage in a harassment campaign, which is why your eyes it. Let's talk about, learn to code, but we do. We do look at coordination of it
of we're, not we're, not direct messages. I don't know about messages, but on direct messages. We don't retract, don't read them unless someone reports a direct message to us that they have received, and so you read their direct message that they send to you. So if, if you have a direct message and someone says something terrible and then like you receive a death threat and your report that to us thank you, then we would read it cause you've ported it to. I do. Does anyone in the company of axis direct messages other than that, I'm only in the context again of reviewing, for that? Is that they're not accessible? Not to my knowledge, don't know what you mean like we're, not responsible we're not reading them. Is it possible that some one could go into TIM's direct messages and just read his direct messages? I don't think so, TIM, it's an n and I write and I and Jamie Wright Sergey. Can you go into our direct messages and say: hey, let's fuck with Jack and
well we're gonna write this stuff out and we're going to do it and, let's, let's see if they they ban us, you can't read that I don't think so. So if that's the case, I don't know if there was a concerted effort in LA and I think what he's saying is like if we, if we do see those train of applies, and that is that is coordination. You know what people are doing. The question is, how do you prove it? Well, I think beyond the end, you know the first person with the letter you can prove he did it, but everybody else you kind of can, but I don't think we would well look. I can say I've been sent numerous screenshots shots, people screenshots can be fed, recognize it, but I I've seen people actually tweet and then I've seen the tweet follow right after one one letter. Yes, someone tweeted at you, someone decently high, provide a big youtuber treated in an at you, and I got like a twelve hour suspension. It is yeah. Let's talk about, learn to code right and and why are people being suspended for tech? Putting hashtag learn to code? Would we did some research on this? Yes, sir, I did some research on
so there was a situation- and I guess about a month ago or so, where a number of journalists were receiving a variety of tweets um, some containing ah learned to code, some containing a bunch of other coded language that was wishes of harm. These were thousands and thousands of tweets being directed at a handful of journalists, and we did some research and what we found was a number of the accounts that were in aging in this behavior, which is tweeting at the journalist with this either learn to code, or things like day of the rope and other coded line, which I were actually ban. Evasion accounts. That means accounts that had been previously suspended, and we also learned that there was a targeted campaign being organized off our platform to abuse and harass these. That's not true. Does he see here's the thing, an activist to works for NBC Road to that story? And then log did you. You issued an official statement and then even the
her in chief of the daily caller, got a suspension for tweeting learn to code of the day at the daily show. So I we have never talked to anybody from NBC about this issue. So but there are no so they report it don't miss, sent me they report it. If the narrative goes far and wide amongst your circles, then all of a sudden you're seeing high profile conservatives tweeting a joke getting suspensions. So again, some of these tweets actually contained um death threats, wishes of harm other coded language that we have seen to mean um
death, two journalists. So it wasn't about just the learn to code. It was about the context that we were doing. I'm not sure if that's just not true, the editor in chief of the daily caller was suspended for tweeting nothing, but hash tag learn to code search TIM. Can I can I finish dressing. We were looking at the contacts and what was happening is there a journalist receiving hundreds of tweets, some had death threats, some had wishes of harm, some just learn to code, and in that particular context we made a decision. We consider this this type of behavior but dog piling, which is when all is an individuals, are getting tough ends and tons of tweets at them. They feel very abused. Your harassed on the platform. We pause this because they're super confusing for people who don't know the context. The learned code thing is in response to people saying that people that are losing their jobs, like coal miners and truck drivers and thing like that could learn to code. This was it was almost like ingest, initially or if it was and ingest. Initially, it was so poorly thought out as a suggestion.
The people started, marking it right correct. So that is correct. The first stories that came out were simply like: can minors learn to code it right? Okay, liners right and the old man Dell Hash tag line to code is just a meme. It's not an necessarily a conservative one that you will see more conservatives you think it was. People are using it to mock how stupid the idea of taking the person who's on educators in their fifties. Who should our learn some new form of location and then someone says, learn to code, and so then other people when they're losing their job or when something's happening people would learn to code. Because it's a me well not right, not even necessarily I would. I would just characterize, learn to code as a meme that represents the elitism of modern journalists and how they target certain communities with disdain. Okay, so so it took to to make that point to their people who have been since ended for tweeting, something like I'm not too happy with how you know buzz. We reported the story. Hashtag learn to code right. Making representation of these people are snooty elites who live in ivory towers, but but but again
you know this is a meme that has nothing to do with harassment, but you know it's. Some people might be harassing somebody in my tweet it. Why would we expect to see even still today, I'm still getting messages from people shot saying I've been suspended for using hashtag and the editor in chief of the daily caller right? He he he he quit. He took he what we did. A video from the daily show with hashtag learn to code, and he got a suspension for it. So why? Why learn to code? Why is that alone, so Gregis? And I don't think it is so egregious so it just something that got stuck in an algorithm. No
was the s again a specific set of issues that we were saying targeting a very specific set of journalists, and it wasn't just the learn to code. It was a couple of things going on a lot of the accounts. Tweeting learned account were banned invaders, which means okay, easily been suspended. A lot of the accounts had other language in them are of tweets at other language, like Dave the Break day of the rope oven ready. These are all coded meanings for violence against people right and so, and the people who are receiving this for receiving hundreds of these and what appeared to us to be a coordinated harassment, camping, and so we were trying to understand the context of what was going on and take action on then, is again. I don't know Joe
so if you've ever been the target of a dog piling event on twitter, but it is not particularly fun when thousands of people or hundreds of people are tweeting at you and saying things, and that's can be viewed as a form of harassment. It's not about the individual tweet. It is about the volume of things that are being directed, and I understand, and so in that particular case we made the judgment call and it is a judgment, call um to take down the tweets that were responding directly to these journalists that were saying learned to code, even if they didn't have a wish of harm specifically attached them because of what we viewed as coordinated attempt to harass them and again, like I was saying some of other signals and coded language, and we were worried that learned to code was taking on a different meaning understanding in that particular context, so, but in and of itself, so it still seems like there's alternative meanings to learn to code. It still could be you,
as TIM was saying, to mark a little. You know elite snooty actress to pass. Yes, I agree with you, so it's not really about the context of what was happening in that situation and all those other things I think in a very different situation. We would not take action on that. Okay, but does not seem like you're you're, throwing a blanket over a very small issue. I learn to code in itself is very small. The blanket is cast over racism. The blanket is cast over this all the other horrible things that are attached to it, but the heart all things that are attached to the real issue, this learn to code thing, is kind of a legitimate protest in people saying that these miners should learn to code. That's kind of preposterous. The first articles weren't mean it was just it learn to code kind of identified. You have these journalists who are so far removed from Middle America that they think you can take a fifty year old man, who's never used a computer before and put him in a
the stories, I think were legitimate, yes, but the the eight the point more so it is. It was a meme, the hash tag at the idea of learn to code condenses this idea and it's easy to communicate, especially when you have one hundred and eighty characters that there is a class individual. This country, I think you mentioned on SAM Harris at the left, these left liberal. I only follow each other yeah in the in the run up to the twenty fifth and twenty six elections yeah, and so it I mean I see. I still believe that to be true, I've worked in his offices. It has changed that they've done a study on the visualization and and now there is a lot more cross pollination, but we did what we saw was of folks who are reporting on the left in the spectrum mainly followed folks on left and folks on the right, followed everyone. What you were talking about earlier, that there's these bubbles, there's bubbles bubbles and we've helped create them and maintain them. So here's what
happening in this is one of the big problems that people have with this store, particularly particularly, you have a left wing activists who works for NBC News. I'm not accusing you of having read the article he right, he he's. He spends like a day lobbying to Twitter, saying God you have to do this year to make these changes the next day. He writes a story saying that four Chan is organize in these. These. These harassment campaigns and death threats and well four Chan was doing threads about it. You can't accuse fortunes and we were talking about because I read it was talking about it too, as was twitter. So then, the next day he after publishes article now he's getting threats and then twitter issues, a statement saying we will take action and to make matters worse. When I'm living a writer for the rap got a statement from one of your spokespeople saying. Yes, we are banning people for saying, learn to code, a bunch of journalists came out and then lied idea. Why saying this is not true. This is fake news. Then a second statement was published by Twitter saying it's part of a harassment campaign, and so then the mainstream narrative becomes oh there only
and people who are part of a freshman campaign, but you've, you literally see legitimate high profile individuals getting suspensions for for joining in on the joke out there from there for sure, probably mistakes in there. I don't think that any of us are claiming that we got this on percent right and probably our team having a lack of contacts into actually what's happening as well and- and we would fully admit we probably were way too aggressive when we first saw this as well. So I made mistakes. It did. I hope this clarifies, then you situations like this, where you can see you know this journalist, I'm not gonna name him, but he routinely has very like left wing. I don't use overtly esoteric words but words, but intersectional dogmatic points of view right. So this is so like intersectional, feminism is considered a small ideology. It people refer to these groups as the regressive left or the identity. Arian left these air. Basically people who hold views that a person is judged based on the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. So you have the right way:
version which is like the all right. The left wing version which is like intersectional feminism is is, is how simple for two so you'll see people say things like you know when it went typically when they rag on white men or when they say like white feminism. These desert signals that they hold these particular views and they become more pervasive. So what ends up happening? Is you have a journalist who clearly holds these views? Don't want calm a journalist, he writes it stream extremely biased and out of context story. Twitter takes action in response, it's seemingly in response. Then we can look what happens with Darcy at CNN. He says you know. The people at the back are are gullible eating red meat from rafters, among other things, disparaging comments about the right and he's the one who's primarily advocating for the removal of certain individuals who you then remove, and then, when Kathy Griffin calls for sing, that's fine. When this guy calls for the death of these kids, he gets it. He gets a slap on the wrist and I look, I understand the context matters but grains of sand make a heat and eventually have all of these stories piling up and people are asking you
white only flows in one direction like that. I got to be honest. I'd imagine that calling for the death three times of any individuals, a Bana, ble offense, even without a warning, just get rid of him, but it didn't happen right. We see, we see these. You know people say men aren't women though, and they get a suspension. We see people say the editor in chief of the daily caller. Maybe the best example: hashtag learn to code quote the daily show. He gets a suspension. This threatening death and inciting death is a sponge into it. It feels like it's only going in one direction yeah. I think we have a lot of work to do to explain more clearly when we're taking action and why and certainly looking into any mistakes we may have made an in those particular situation which you guys agree that in intact. I think we can all agree this. I would hope you agree: tacked tends to lean left tech companies. I mean Facebook, Twitter, Google. I would be willing to bet that a conservative running a social network would not have a hate speech policy. I mean you look at gap and you look at my
and mine's, not even right there not right wing at all. They just they just staunchly support free speech, and I I don't think gab is necessarily. I don't think the owners necessarily right wing either. I don't know much about him. I think he's like a I I I don't want to donuts yes, but for either I don't know, I don't know enough yeah. I know that there, when you read what they write their just staunchly committed to free speech, but they you know, stop Doc's they will. They will do that things to stop targeted harassment and doc and things along those lines, sometimes slowly, admittedly, admittedly, but they want they just want an open platform. What my point is is that I think a lot of people that are the right feel disenfranchised by these platforms they use on a daily basis. I don't know what the percentage are. The percentages are in terms of the number of people, conservative that used twitter versus the number of people that are liberal, but I would imagine it's probably pretty close. Isn't it?
I don't know the numbers, I don't know because we don't ask people for their we'd definitely have to and for all, okay, just on what we're saying or because so, let's not even go there, but then, but the the people that run whether it's Google or twitter or Facebook. Any of these platforms Youtube for sure, powerful, leaning towards the left. When we all agree to that. Well, we don't your employees, but my guess is that many employees in tech companies are probably liberal, really fascinating. But I also think I mean you point out all the companies you mention are in exactly the same region as well yeah the wrong one. Do you know we do have the challenge of some minor cultural thinking? Yes well, but we and we you know. I have said publicly that you know. Yes, we will have more of a liberal bias within our company,
so this to CNN right, but that doesn't mean that we put that in our rules but hold on windows. Ten, because I'm getting at is that at some point in time things have to get down to a human being, looking reviewing a cases and if you guys are so left wing in your your half in the area that you live in and all these things things are almost naturally going to and left. If is that fair to say if if we were really looking at the content, but a lot of this, your work is based on the behaviors, all the things that we've been so discussing in terms of the context of the actual content itself, I got. I got them what the rules are accepting his gender in policy right. So your your rules do reflect your your all. Right, go to middle in you know, go to Middle America and going out of conservative town they're not going to agree with you. Your rules are based on your bubble in San Francisco or whatever city, I'm
from Middle America. I'm from Saint Louis Missouri- and I a I hear the point I'd. I definitely hear the point in terms of like us putting this rule. Fourth, but we have to balance that with the fact that people are driven away from our platform. I hear you and they may not disagree. They may not agree with me on that my folks from Missouri, but I think they would see some valid are and what we're trying to do to again increase the opportunity for as many people as possible to talk. That's, that's it. It's not driving the not that you're speaking to where you stop what what community is isn't deserving of protection. Are conservatives not deserving of protection for their opinions, but I want t o on individuals and increasing the absolute number of people who have opportunity to speak on the platform in the first place. So then do you need a rule for a body dysphoria. Do you need a rule for other kin right now? You see, I'm asking you you, you have a specific, I see what you're asking but like and- and this came from a call and research- and there there's there's disagree
as to whether this is the right outcome or not, and this is the right policy and yes, our bias does influence looking in this direction and our bias does take um. Our biases influence us putting a rule like this in place, but it is with the understanding of Crete as much opportunity as possible, for as many people speak based on the actual data that we see right of people leaving the platform because of experiences I have. Why did your research stop there? It hasn't stopped we'd we'd, our our rules aren't set in in my eight something that just stop. Listen doesn't involve we're going to constantly question we're going to get feedback from people on every end of the spectrum of any particular issue and make changes accordingly. Stop and to your credit, I really do appreciate that the fact that you're very open about that you have made mistakes and that you're continuing to learn and grow and that your company is reviewing these things and trying to figure out what
way to go, and I think we all need to pay attention to the fact that this is a completely new road. This road did not exist. Fifteen years, we there was nothing there. That is the tremendous responsibility for any kind. Any company, any group of human beings to be in control of public discourse on a scale dented in human history, and that's why we're dealing with here. There's is not a small thing and I know people that been banned to them. This is this is a of ideology. This is a matter of this is a matter that there's a lot of eight being going on here and this one of the reasons why I wanted to bring you on because TIM, because you know so much about so many of these cases and so much because you are a journalist and you're you're, very aware of the implications and all the problems that have been that. Maybe we have slipped through my fingers, so I I do want to make one thing really clear, though I have a tremendous amount of respect and trust for you when you say you want to solve this problem simply because you're sitting here right now and these all these other companies aren't right. I Jackie went on SAM Harris. You are on get with get sad and that says to me a good faith
effort to try and figure out how to do things right that, like so as as much as I I'll apologize for getting kind of angry and and being emotional, be I don't see us angry look. We also haven't been great at explaining our intent and there's that there's a few things going on. One as Joe indicated, centralized global policy as scale is almost impossible and we realize is different. Service's, have different answers, this red it has a community based policy where each topic, each subreddit, has its own policy and- and you know, there's there's some benefit to that. So that's problem number one. We know that this very binary off were on platform. Is that right and it doesn't scale- and it also me goes against our key initiative of wanting to promote more healthier conversation. I I just don't think that's what you're doing I in,
and I hear you I hear you but like so we're not done we're, not we're not done we're, not finished with our work, and we need to the reason I'm going on all these podcasts and having these conversations and ideally vicious eating out there more often as well, because we don't see enough in here enough for her. We need. I have these conversations, so we can learn. We can we can get the feedback and also pay attention to where the technology is going before the podcast. We talked a little bit about and I talked about it on this earth. Our previous podcast and also SAM's technology today is enabling content to live forever in a way that was not possible before you can say that everything on the turn lives forever, but that's not it generally, not true, because any host or any connection can take it down the block chain changes all that it can actually exist forever permanently, without anyone being able to touch it government company individual- and that is a reality- that we need to pay attention to and really stand our value and, I believe,
a lot of our value in in the future. Not today, again, we have a ton, so we have a ton of work, is to take a strong stance of like we are going to be a company that, given this entire corpus of conversation in content within the world, we're going to work to promote healthy public conversation. That's what we want! That's what we want to do and if you disagree with it. You should be able to turn it off and you should be access anything that you want, as you would with you in it, but those are technologies that are just in the formative stages and presenting new opportunities to companies like ours and and there's a ton of challenges with them in a ton of things that we've discussed over the past hour that it doesn't solve and maybe exacerbates it Ashley around things like election inference, interference and some of the regulatory concerns of your brain. So there's a few issues right, your definition of what is or isn't healthy right, yes, yes, and and- and we want that to be public like we-
I want that we're going. We we have four indicators right now that we're working on with an external lab want other labs to. We want to give it up open source, make sure that booking comment on it that people can help us to find it. Will you that interpretation on our own algorithms and then push it, but that has to be open that has to be transparent? Are we there today? Absolutely not we're not there. This this course of action to me looks like a Fahrenheit four, fifty one future where everything is so offensive. Everything must be restricted. I see that's the path. I see that you're on you won't have a healthy conversation. You want to maximize the amount of people. That means you got to cut off all the tall grass and level everything out. So if, if, if, if you decided that this one will need to be enforced because certain things are offensive, no, but can can I explain what what health at least means to us in this category? So we talked a little bit about this on the previous podcast, but we we have four indicators that were trying to define and try to understand if there's actually something there. One
shared attention is a conversation generally shared around the same objects or is it desperate so like as we're having conversation, the four of us are having conversation. Are we all focused on the same thing or is Joe on his phone, which you were earlier like whatever is going on, because more shared attention will will lead to healthier conversation number two who is shared reality? Not whether something is factual, but are we sharing the same facts? Is the earth round? Is a world class, so we we are men. Women are meant. Yes, we can tell what facts are we sharing and what facts are we not showing what percentage of the conversation? So that's that's. A second indicator is receptivity. Are the participants receptive to debate and to civility and two expressing their opinion, and even if it is something that my
be hurtful or are people receptive to at least look at and be empathetic and look at? What's behind that we, this is the one we have the most measurement around today. We can Herman and predict when someone might walk away from a twitter conversation because they feel it's toxic. I just ignore them all. Basically so, and we see we see that in our data right, so you and there's some conversations that you get into, and you and you you know persist. Finally, is Friday of perspective? Are we are we actually seeing the full spectrum of any topic that's being talked about and in these are not meant to be taken as individual parts, but in unison how they play together and we've written these out. We haven't gotten far enough in actually defining what they look like and what they mean, and we certainly haven't gotten good enough
understanding when we deploy solution like being able to follow hashtag. Does that impact variety of perspective to the positive? Does it impact shared reality to the negative whatnot? So this is how we're thinking about it and, as we think more about that that influences our product influences, our enforcement and influences are positive. What you're describing sounds wildly different to what twitter is right, so you're you have a goal for where you want to get with those those metrics. So I could. But what confuses me, then, when you, when it when we talk about someone like Meghan Murphy, who sure she violated your rules, but in the text of a conversation you know you recognize, people sometimes get hit with each other. If how you know how do you do? It is a healthy conversation when no one is being negative. What if what if people are going at each other being mean and insulting, where Miss Jen during them? I think it's a question of what thresholds you allow and
and the more control we can give people to vary the spectrum on what they want to see. That feels right to me, I mean Joe and in your your podcast did exactly this thing, you're hosting a conversation you had both of your guests who started talking over each other. You pause a conversation. You said, let's not get combat. If someone said I'm not being combative, you said you're all talking over each other and and there's a dynamic that the conversation then shifted to that got to some deeper points. Right could have just said. Let that happen, and and and let it go and and that's fine too it's it's it's up to who is viewing and experiencing that conversation, and I agree with you. It is completely far off from where we are today. We've not only have had we had to address a lot of these issues that we're talking about this table, but we've also had to turn the company around from a business point stamp.
We have, we had to fix all of our infrastructure, that's over ten years old and we had to go through to layoffs because the company was too large. So we we have to prioritize our efforts and I you know any other way to do. This, then be really specific about our intentions are aspirations and the intent and the I behind our actions and not everyone's going. I agree with it in the in the particular moment, so I so I will buy one of our point this out before I make my next statement. I just real quick. It seems that the technology is moving faster than the culture so yeah. I I do recognize your you guys on a rock and a hard place. How do you get to a point where you can have that open source crypto? You know blockchain technology that allows freedom of speech. At the same time, the technology exists. Twitter has been replicated numerous times in different ways: Mastodon for instance. What's disconcerting to me, is you know, and maybe you have research on this, which is why you've taken the decision to have? But when you ban someone because they've said you know about opinions, Miss Jj entering
well they're not going to go away they're going to try and find anywhere they can speak. So what effectively happens is you're taking all of the people from a from a wide range of the most to the president, algae murderers, all the way to pot smokers and you put in the same room with each other and you're saying you're, not welcome here. Well, what happens you take someone who smokes pot and put in prison with a bunch of gang bangers and murderous they fall into that I, so I totally get the point and I'm hyper aware of our action. Sending more and more things into the dark. Well, this is something that I wanted to discuss. This is really important in this vein of thinking. What about roads to redemption? What about someone like Meghan Murphy Letter about someone anyone Alex Jones Milo is? Is it can we find a path for people to get back to the platform for good or for bad like it or not? There is one video platform that people give a shit about and that's Youtube. You get kicked off a Youtube, you're doomed! That's just reality. You can go.
Is wonderful! There's a lot of great video platforms out there. They have a fucking, tiny fraction of views. It Youtube does reality the same thing for twitter, whether or not what other platforms exist is that's inconsequential. The the vast majority of people are on Twitter, the vast majority of people that are blatant, making. You know posts about the news and breaking information. They do it on twitter. What can be set up and have you guys given consideration to some sort of a path to redemption? Yeah there's is redemption and there's rehabilitation? Okay, you know we, we haven't done a great job at having a cohesive stance on rehabilitation and redemption. We have it in part, so the the whole focus behind the temporary suspensions is to at least give people pause and think about why.
They violated or why and how they violated our particular rules right signed up for when they came in through a terms of service right, whether you agree with him or not like this is the agreement that we have with you know. I'm says just thinking this, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but it would be kind of hilarious if you guys had an option like a mode of twitter, an angry mode like fuck, I'm anger right now, so I'm going to type some things and it says: hey dude. Why don't just think about this? We're going to hold for you in the queue and we do that people do that, and people do that in their drops, but and I'm sure they do, I'm sure they do, but it would be funny if you had an angry mode yeah, but like any you guy ice, I notice you guys using a lot of curse. Words, and you say a lot about things. We're gonna put you in anger mode, so think about this. The to make several clicks. If you want to post this and- and there is research, he suggests that people expressing that actually tends to minimize more violent physical. For sure everyone says that with emails, if you're,
if you're in the middle, the night, someone sends you an email and you find it insulting you ready to type an email and then go to sleep. Wake up in the morning, like I'm gonna, say something you know, that's how I wind up it interacting with these people, but what? What do you think be done for people like, let's say, Megan Murphy, because she seems one of the it's as easy to see her perspective as any? What do you think could be done for her? I think I think you're right. I think that I would love to get to a point where we think of suspensions is temporary and she's out for life right now.
That's the only option that we've built into our rules, but we have every capability of changing, not, and that's something that I want. My team to focus on is thinking about, as Jack said, not just coming back after some time down period, but also like what more can and should we be doing within the product itself, early on to educate people about the role. So one of the things that we're working on as a very, very simplified version of the twitter rules. That's two pages, not twenty. I've made sure that my lawyers don't write it and it's written in this plain English as we can. We try to put examples in there and like really taking the time to educate people, and I got people aren't always going to agree with those rules, and we have to address that too, but at least simplifying it and educating people so that they don't even get to that stage, but once they do understanding that they're gonna be different. Contacts in people's
lives different times, they're going to stay and do things that they may not agree with, and they don't deserve to be permanently suspended forever from a platform like twitter agreeing. So how do you get to it? So we? This is something that actually just had a meeting on this earlier this week with our executive team um, and you know identifying kind of some of the principles by which we would want to think about um. You know time bounding suspension, so it's work. We have to do it and we're gonna figure it out and I'm not gonna tell you it's coming out right away, but it's on it's on a road map. It's something we want to do. Why? Don't you set up a jury system when someone, but something inside of you, have you having to worry about it? There would be no accusation of bias if one hundred thousand users were randomly selected to determine, because they're still does this yeah John about idea and we've learned is still, does you please explain that we so periscope has a um moderation jury, so we flag on the machine, learning, algorithms and
cases reports particular replies. We send them to a small jury of folks to ask this against. Our are sir. Is this something that you believe should be in the channel or not? Do you know sign up to be on the jury? No, it's it's random, so you randomly chosen and you decide whether or not you want to spit and it's it's good. It has some laws that has some some gaming aspects to it as well, but like we do have a lot of experiments that were testing and like we wanna build confidence in like it's actually driving the outcomes that we think are are useful. Um and periscope is a good playground for us across many regards. I think, ultimately, one of the greater philosophical challenges is that you're, a massively powerful corporation, you have international investors, I believe, is a saudi
zones, what six percent of twitter. So when I is that true, I just wanna make sure it's well we're a publicly traded corporations. Anybody can buy stock, but that doesn't mean they have influence on day today. Well, I think, depending on which political faction you ask, they say money is info. That's right! Some, I'm not gonna say that the saudi prince, who invested in twitter, goodness again I've only it's been awhile. Since I read these stories is like showing up your meetings and throwing his weight around, but it's certainly a plan on doing that, but, but you know for it from I, I'm not going to trust you right this guy who's through thrown over a billion dollars. I think into twitter. Twitter has once on our elections, foreign governments, foreign government actors, have steak and twitter. Where worries me, then, when you base your rules on your personal decisions on an unelected group of people, you have such tremendous. Our in this monopoly on public discourse in near monopoly, like he was saying, is you some platforms of twitter has no real competition, so I just have to hope and trust you have the best interests at heart, but you at the end the day it's it's authoritarian. No one chose you to be in charge of this. I understand you mentioned. You discovered twitter, but here I am looking at you know. Both of you have
tremendous power over whether or not someone can get elected. You can used to ban someone and tell me all day and night. You have a reason for doing it. I just have to trust you, that's terrifying, there's, no proof, there's no proof Alex Jones at any of these things other than things posted right. I understand that. That's actually what I was on the phone with to Alex's texting me saying that he never did anything to endanger any child and he was disputing what people are saying about a video of a child getting harmed, and so do we just trust, unelected, a cough. Okay, I mean you can, with stream extremely wealthy individuals, saudi princes, you know it's a publicly traded company who knows where the infant is coming from. Your rules are pleasant based on a global policy and I'm sitting here watching wow. These people, who were never chosen in this position, have too much power. Over my my my my my politics, I think that's why it's so important that we take the time to build transparency into what we're doing and that's part of what we're trying to do is not just in being here and talking to you guys, but also building it into the product. It's
south. I think one of the things that I really loved about a new product watch. What we've done is to disable any sort of ranking and the home time line. If you want- and you don't have to see our algorithms that play anymore, these are the kinds of things that we're thinking about. How do we give power back to the people using our service so that they can see what they want to see and I can purchase by the way they want to participate, and this is a long when I get there we're not there yet. But this is how we're thinking about it. Then you can imagine where that goes. I mean in interest one switch and turning all the algorithms off. But what what did I do? What is that look like so didn't deserve? The conversations were having in the company whether they be good. Ideas are bad ideas. We we haven't determined that just yet, but we we we definitely look at. I definitely understand the mistrust that people have in our company in myself, in the corporate structure, in all the
variables that are associated with it, including who chooses to buy on the public market who chooses not to I get all of it, and I grew up on the internet. I'm a believer in the internet principle, and I want to do everything in my power to make sure that we are consistent with those ideals. At the same, I want to make sure that every single person and do everything in my power has the opportunity to participate. I had a question then, for your policy as a pertains to say Saudi Arabia right. Do you enforce the same hate speech rules on Saudi Arabia? Our our rules are global, enforce them against everyone. So, even in countries where it's criminal to be LGBT, you will still banned someone for for saying something to ging, to or saying something to that to that effect like let's say Saudi Arabia, setting someone's to it to death, for I don't call it so you have a specific. Let's call it IRAN because I believe that's the big focus right now with Trump Administration, IRAN, it's my understanding is still punishable by death. I could be wrong, but it is criminal. If
someone then directly targets one of these individuals will you ban them? I mean: do you guys function in IRAN? I think we're blocked and run yes, I figured yeah but there, but there are some countries where, for instance, Michelle Malkin recently got really angry, because she we've noticed that she violated blasphemy laws in Pakistan right. So you do follow some laws in some countries, but it's not of. I would like to ask a question asking as we Pakistan, it's very clearly a different culture. They don't agree with your rules. We we do have a per country take down, meaning that content might be non visible within the country but visible throughout the rest of the world, but so it wasn't just add on to what Jack saying we actually are very very transparent about that. So we publish our transparency report every six months, the details, every single request that we get from every government around the world and the content that they ask us to remove, and we post that to an independent third party site. So you could go right now and look and see every single request that comes from the pakistani government and what content they are trying to remove from Pakistan.
I've I've seen a lot of conservatives get angry about this and it's kind of confusing confusing. I'm like that's a really good thing. I would want to know if, yes, I want to kill me blasphemy laws, posting pictures of Muhammad. So it's a part time. Are they angry about our transparency reporter? There is to call there's a perception that you send. That notice is like a threat against them for violating blasphemy laws, whereas it's very clearly just letting you know. Government has taken action against you, which it saying that the government has restricted access to that content in that country and the reason we tell the users are top people. That that's happened is because a lot of them may want to file their own suit against the government, or a lot of them may be in danger if they happen to be under that particular governments jurisdiction, and they may want to take action to protect themselves if they know that the government is looking at the content in their accounts. So we don't always know we don't we send the
noticed everybody. We don't always know where you are or what country you live in, and so we just on that notice as like to try to be as transparent as possible that the main point I was trying to get to is your policies support a community, but there may be laws in a certain country that does not support that community and criminal right. So you actions are now directly opposed to the culture of another of the country. I guess the the the point to make is that if you enforce your values- which are it you a not even the majority of this country, if you're, you know, consider self, more liberal, leaning in your half of United States but you're forcing those rules on the rest of the world that use the service, it's sort of forcing other cultures to adhere to yours, a lot of. Ah, a lot of our rules are based in more of the. U N declaration doesn't just purely us. Doesn't the? U N declaration guarantee the right of all people through any medium to express their opinion,
and why did also has it also has? It also has conditions around particular speech inciting violence, um and some of the some of the aspects that we speak to us well and it protectors of categories, whether it's religion, race, gender, sexual orientation. Those are also also protected under the? U N covenant to protect human rights without a pause, a number of more things to talk about dog the work. I wanted to just saying that, and I got a bunch of other things that you know, because it is. The thing is a bunch of other issues having to do with bias and censorship, and I feel like we've kind of like beaten that horse relatively, but I think that a horse is good to be in. It's also good to address why the worse is getting beaten and why why it exists in the first place, and I I I I but I really I want to say this again. I really appreciate the fact that you guys are so open and that you're willing to come on here and talk about this, because you don't have to this. Is your
decision and specially you jack after we had that first conversation and the blowback was so hard. You wanted to come in if this, and I think this is so important to give people of a true understanding of what your intentions are versus. What perceptions are yeah then, and thank you for hosting this gown and look at I did hi. I think it's also important that the company is not just me read yeah. I have people in the company who are really good at this and are making some really tough decisions and having tough conversations and and getting pushed back and getting feedback, and they have the best intentions I, and so what so, let's I'll get back into the meat of things to get to be in that horse yeah, I I don't know if you have any date on my check of wall was recently banned. Do you have that? I believe who is check wall uh? Don't describe me as a conservative personality, but he's very,
very controversial for like fake news or thing. I don't know too much about him, so I don't want to accuse him of things. They don't know who he is, but he was in something where we tried accusing Mueller Muller of like sexual assaults, and it turned out to be like just completely fake ridiculous. This is the gentleman that was in the USA today, article where he's made it that he was going to. He had to use tactics in the past to influence the election, and he will continue to do so using all those channels. Yes, and when we saw that report our team looked at his account, we noticed there were multiple accounts tied to his accounts of fake accounts that he had created, that discussing political issues and pretending to be other people, I'm trying to find that out. We would have phone numbers linking accounts together or email addresses and some cases I p addresses other types of metadata that are associated with account. So we can link those accounts together and we'll double counts in and of itself is not
a violation of our rules and some people have their. You know: work working account arsenal count as when you're deliberately pretending to be someone else and manipulating a consultation about a political issue, and those are exactly the stick. The types of things that we saw, the Russians do, for example, in the twenty sixteen election, so it was that playbook and that type of activity that we saw about Jacob Wall and that's why his accounts were suspended. Did you investigate Jonathan Morgan? I don't know who. That is why the that's that's the question. Why I I don't? I don't know who that is, but that's that's right. It may be that someone at Twitter investigated him. I personally don't include that. So one of one of the issues that I think is really important. It too is you should know who he is. He is more important than Jacob Wallace, but for some reason you know about this conservative guy, not the Democrat who were who helped metal in that yeah election election so doesn't according to the sheer volume that they have to pay attention to right right right, but it's it's about grains of sand making heap in the
of direction where we can see Jacob Wall has said, he's done that so you're like we're gonna investigate we ban him. It was recently reported and covered by numerous outlets that a group called new knowledge was meddling in the Alabama election by creating fake russian accounts to manipulate national media into believing that Roy Moore was propped up by the Russians. Facebook banned him and as well as for other people, but Twitter, didn't he still the accounts that were engaged in the behavior. I I do remember. I said that I do remember signing this division at him. That's worse! That way, so you didn't band the guy doing it, but you banned the people like so so in the case of Jacob, while we were able to directly attribute through email addresses and phone numbers, his direct connection to the accounts that were created to manipulate the election, if we're not able to tie that direct connection on our platform or law enforcement, doesn't give us information to tie attribution, we won't
take action and it's not because of political ideology. It's because we want to be damn sure before we take action on it, so someone could use a vpn, perhaps and maybe additional email accounts and they could game the system and that were there certainly sophisticated ways that people can can do uh things to mask who they are and what it don't sit there and just see internal conversation TIM just to provide more light in tow. What happens like I got it. I got a email or attacks from Vigia uh, I'm one morning and said we are going to permanently suspend this particular account, and it's not a you know. What do you think it's we are going to do this and I then have an opportunity at to ask questions. I asked the question why she give me a link back to the document of all the findings, an USA. Today we took the action I was on twitter. A bunch of people pointed me at this particular case sense, some of those tweets to her. What's going on, so
that's well, that was in the background, wouldn't you just terminate anybody associated with a company that was doing this. I mean keep in mind too at the time when this campaign was happening. That's what this more bases he had met to engaging in the operation in a quote to New York Times and you banned the accounts associated with it. So if you know he's the one running the company, wouldn't you be like okay, you're gone um. Do you want us to take? Every single newspaper accounts attribution because what we were able to do in the Jacob all situation was actually tied. Those accounts in our own systems that he you control the rounds not just take. The word of a newspaper are no yeah. You can have your say that your band is accounts, yes, and you know, oh from his own statement and from his tweets that he was the run running running the company Jacob, all no, no, no Jonathan Morgan, I'm I'm getting confused about so it Jacob Wall, it's an in the USA today he says I'm doing this and you're like ok, we can look at it and we can see if we get rid of them
with new knowledge. You said you did take those counts down. I believe we were able to take down a certain cluster of accounts that we saw engaging in the behavior, but we won't weren't necessarily able to tie it back to one person controlling those again, even if they say they did it do you- and this is where I get back like we'd like to have some sort of attribution. That's direct that we can see. Would we just take the any newspaper or any article at face value and just action them? Would you have to contact him and get some sort of statement from him in order to take down his account? I don't think you would admit to manipulating twitter after Aston's. So if you do well at the fact that he's communicated with the newspaper asked to clarify what they said, what what they claim to the times that was a false flag near time said they review internal documents that showed they admitted it was a false flag operation. The guy who runs the company said: oh his company does this. He wasn't aware necessarily, but it was experiment so he's given kind of,
in my opinion, duplicitous, like you, know, not straightforward, but at the time of this campaign, which he claims to know about, he tweeted that it was real. So, during the Roy Moore campaign he tweets wow look the Russians, then it comes out later. His company is the one that did it so you're kind of like so this guy was propping up his own fake news right then, when they get busted he goes. Oh, no, it's just my company doing an experiment, but you tweeted it wasn't. You use your verified twitter account to push the fake narrative. Your company was pumping on this platform, and so the point I wanna make, I guess is it sounds like we need to take a closer look at this one: bring back Morgan, Myrtle, well, Megan, Murphy, Megan, Murphy, sorry, a friend of mine, Thio, sorry Morgan. So this is that I haven't read the story. It's been like two months since the story broke, so I could have my you know I want to. I want to get sued and have my facts wrong, but the reserve, as I was to accuse you of wrongdoing, was to point out that I don't. I don't think that the people who work at two
twirling, your their mustaches laughing. You know back pressing the band button whenever they see a conservative. I think it's just there's a bias. That's unintentional! That flows in one direction, so you see the news about Jacob Wall and I think, there's a reason for it to there's a couple reasons for one yours, your staff is likely. You mentioned more likely to lean left and look at certain sources, so gonna hear about more things more often and take action on those things, as opposed to the other side of the of the coin, but but we we have to consider like where the actions are taking place on I'm speaking more broadly to the four thousand people that we have is a company versus no deliberateness that we have on bridges team. I just mean when we we look at a company wide average of all of you, boys and the direction they lean. Is the new sources they're willing to read you're going to see a flow in one direction, whether it's intentional or not? And so I the challenges, but we don't generally rely on new sources to find a new of our
for what we're. Looking at what we're seeing the signals we can see once in a while, we will get tipped off to something but like for the most part when we're looking at manipulation. It's not like the New York Times can tell us what's going on on the platform where the ones I have the Meta Data back accounts were the ones I can see patterns of behavior at scale, but it said I hear you I I yeah one name and I didn't know another name, and it was because video said you don't work. Only banning this account and yes, we we don't have the the same sort of findings in the other particular account, which I got feedback on past her and and we don't. I find what I need to find, I think, but to be clear- the team in taking action on this stuff months ago, when it actually happened. Yeah, I think you know a lot of what people assume is Malon tend, is sometimes fake news. You know, I think one of my biggest criticisms in terms of what's going on our culture is. The news system is, like you pointed out, although it's changed, left wing journals only follow themselves.
I that's my experience. I've worked for these companies and so they repeat the same narratives. They don't get out of their bubble. Even today, they're still in a bubble and they're not seeing what's happening outside of it and then what happens? Is you know? According to date, I think this is from Pew most new journalism. Jobs are in blue districts, so you've got people who only the same thing. The only cover the same stories. So if, if you know we hear all about Jussie Smollett, we hear about how the story goes because wild, but there's like eight hundred instances of trump supporters. When my head's getting beaten, you know about the past couple of years we had a guy show up to a school in Eugene, Oregon with a gun and fired two rounds at a cop wearing a smash. The patriarchy and she'll shirt and those stories don't make the headlines. So it's you know what, when the journalists are inherently in a bubble, the information you're going to get is a big company who follows these news organizations is going to be inherently, you know, one sided as well, and then the only action you're going to to take is what you know. You can't ban someone if you don't know that
I hear ya. I'd I'd, I think the biggest issue and the the thing that I'd I want to fix the most is the fact that we create and sustain and maintain these echo chambers yeah. Well, you you're rolling at that new feature that allows you to hide replies right. We're testing experimenting with inability to enable people to have more control, as you would expect. A host over the conversation and like Facebook allows that yeah, but I I don't think they have the level of transparency that we want to put into it. So we actually want to show whether a comma was moderated and then actually allow people to see those comments. So both going the action that this person moderated a particular comment and then you actually see the common itself. It's one click! One click, one click over one tap over! That's how
we're thinking about it might change in the future. But we we can't do this without a level of transparency, because we minimize something veg. It spoke to earlier, which is speaking truth to power holding people to account even things like the fire festival. Where you know you have these organizers, who were deleting every single comment, moderating every single comment that called this thing of fraud and don't go here. We can't we can't, we can't reliably and we, like just for
responsibility, simply ever create a feature that enables more of that to happen and and that's how we're thinking about even features like this. I'm gonna jump right off to a different train car here. Has law enforcement ever ask you to keep certain people on the platform even after they violated your rules? Not that I'm aware so then this you know to the to the next question at pertain to bias you have the issue of Anti five verses. The Prob boys and patriot prayer and Twitter prominently excised anyone associate with the proper ways, anti five pounds who have broken the rules repeatedly branded known cells that have been involved in vines, also active. Is there a reason what what the problem is, what we were able to do was actually look at documentation and announcements that young the leaders of the organization and made- and there you
violence in the real world. That was where we're focused on and subsequent to our decision. I believe the FBI also designated. That's not true. That's not true. That's not true! No, ok! No, that's not true yeah! You know the proud boys started out as a joke. Gavin Mcginnis, Anthony Cumia, who was part of Opie and Anthony now his own show tall, told me about it, happened on his show because there is a guy that was on the show and they made a joke about starting a gang based on him, because he was a very effeminate guy that would calm the proud boys and um. They went into detail about how this thing became from a joke and say thing that you could join the proud boys and everyone was, you know, was like being silly to people joining it and then it becoming this thing to fight Antifa and then becoming infested with white nationalists and becoming well well in in in in many ways and how it was. But it's been dot
commented how it started and what it was and Miss represented as to why what why was started, I I I I I think they there's some things that should be clarified about them, but Gavin has made a bunch of statements that cross the line he claims he claims to be joking, and so that's that's what he did on the podcast tv was talking to me about it, and he saw that one anti fur was blocking people like Ben Shapiro, speech, jizz and things along those lines and stopping conservatives. For speaking, you should just punch him in the face. We're gonna have to start kicking people's asses and like this. Is it not just irresponsible, responsible, foolish and short sighted and just a dumb way to talk? So then you have the Antifa groups that are engaging in the same thing: we've we've. You know the the famous bike lock basher incident, where a guy showed up at seven. Am he had seven people over there with a bike lock they'd such going to release them? I'm gonna leave that, for the time being you have other groups like. I am by any means necessary. You have in Portland, for instance, there specific branded factions. There is
the the I mentioned earlier, where they docks ice age and they said do whatever inspires you. This information and you're tagged in a million times. I know you probably can't see it, but you can actually see that some of the tweets and the threat are removed, but the main tweet itself from an anti fascist account linking to a website straight up, saying, like the private home details, phone number addresses of these law enforcement officers is not removed in September. So here's what you end up seeing is uh again. The point I think one of the big problems in this country is the media, because it was reported that the FBI designated. It was an extremist group, but it was a misinterpretation based, a sheriff wrote a draft saying with you know: the FBI considers them to be extremists. Media than reported here say from the sheriff and that's b, I came out said no. No, we never meant to do that. That's not true. We are just concerned about violence, so the problems all get purged and again, I think you know given the different story, if you want to go after the individuals who are associated with that group versus the guy who goes on the show and says outrageous things and goes on Joe's show, and then you have Antifa
branded sells like what I mean by that is, they have specific names, they sell merch nice and are the ones showing up throwing mortar shells into crowds they're the ones showing up with with crowbars and and bats and whacking people. I was Boston and there's a rally where conservatives are planning on putting on a rally was literally just like libertarians and conservatives. Antifa shows up with crowbars bats balaclavas with weapons threatening them, and so I I have to wonder if, if you know these people are allowed to organize your platform, are you concerned about that? Why are they being bad when they violate the rules? Yeah, absolutely concern about that. Has the FBI designate them as Mister Turner? Yes, I'm sorry, homeland Security in New Jersey has less them under domestic terrorism. So so here I understand conundrum in that the general concept of Anti fascism is a loose term. It means you oppose fascism run, but Anti five is now they have a flag. They had a flag since the Soviet. You know. So, if you are not a german and soviet IRAN, they've brought back their specific groups that I'm not going to mention my name that have specific names and this summer and
they appeared in various news outlets. They've expressed their desire to use violence to suppress speech. There was a centralized organization, the same way that I hear you on probably is but like where they have like tenants that are written out and there's a leader and like uh, it's not the same, but there are specific brand cells sells. That's why bring them up? Specifically, I realize you know someone showing up to a rally wearing a black hoodie and sunglasses. We we gonna ban, but there are groups that that organize specifically call for violence. They they they push the line as close as as as lightly as possible. They advocate sabotage, and things like this- and you know when the probably is going in the fights, are not getting invited themselves there. You know so, and I should point out that they they decided to call for violence based on and t for calling for violence. Yes, based on Antifa, actually actively committing violence against conservative people that were there to see different people. It partly started because in Berkeley there
is a Trump rally. So actually, after Milo got chased out of the Berkeley, there was a hundred thousand thousand in damages. There's a video of some guy in all black cracking some one on the back was on the ground, looking like they're unconscious. So these conservative see this and they just to hold a rally saying we won't back down. They hold a rally in Berkeley and then Antifa shows up again. I understand you can't figure out who these people are for the most part of decentralized. But then this insights, an escalation. You then get the rise of the base to stick man. They called it. Guy shows up in armor with a stick and start swinging back and now you have two factions forming. So while I recognize it's much easier to ban a top down group, there are, you know, is the difference. Is while you look at the proud boys, it's straight top down vertical. You look at Antifa and there's different cell of varying size and they're different accounts. So I have the two like. I guess the argument I can make as if you're going to be the proud boys by all means under your justification.
But if you look at a specific channel, that's got twenty thousand followers that cheers them on right. These are people who throw mortar shells into crowds. Isn't that advocating, for you know terrorism, incitement of violence yeah, absolutely so I guess the it is how come they don't get removed. Well, in the past, when we've looked at um Anti Evo, we we ran into this decentralization issue, which is we weren't able to find the same type of information that we were able to find about proud boys, which was the central eyes leadership based documentation of what they stand for um. But absolutely I mean it's something that will continue to look into into the extent that they're using Twitter to organize any sort of offline violence. That's completely prohibited under rules, and we would absolutely take action when I ask you why Gavin was banned, was there a specific thing that he did or was it his association with the Proud Boys association?
You know he's abandoned that he's. Not only that he's disassociated himself with it and said that it completely got out of hand. He doesn't want to have anything to do with it. Yeah, and I think this is a great again test case for how we think about getting people back from the platform. If yeah, he said, he's an interesting case because he's a really a Provoca tour and he fancies himself, you know sort of a punk rocker and he just he likes stirring shit. I mean when he came on my show last time he was on, he was dressed up like well Douglas and falling down. You know he did. It purpose brought a briefcase and everything I'm like. What are you doing? It's like Michael Douglas and falling down, like he's, he's ah showman in many ways, and he did not mean for this to to go the way it went. He saw thought it would be. This sort of innocent fun thing to be a part of, and then other people got in solved it in and when call for silence
the problem is they think that you know you're going to just hit people that's going to solve a problem. It just creates a much more much more comprehensive problem. It's important to point out Gavin said has had many like he said things way worse thing than Alex Jones ever did you know what? Whether you want to say it's a joke or not. He said things like you know: choke um, hi John yeah, but but I guess was the primary reason for game. One of them was when you thought that the FBI had does need them extremist group now, because we did it months and months and okay, I was just so he just it was just his association with the proud boys. I don't recall, and I would have to go back and I don't want to things. I don't recall whether those statements that you're referring to of Gavin's were on twitter, so they weren't there's another. You know when it comes to the weaponization of rules against like Gavin, isn't creating a compilation of
things, he's ever said out of context and then sending them around himself banned. Other people are doing that to him activists who don't like him and it's effective. In fact, I would actually like to point out. There is one particular user who has repeatedly made fake videos attacking one of your other high profile, conservatives so much so that he had filed police reports, harassment, complaint and it just doesn't stop you know. So I guess I'll ask this this regard. If someone repeatedly makes videos of you out of context fake audio, accusing you of anything you never done at what point is that mandible yeah, and if it's targeted harassment, we can establish it. It's just a really hard thing with us to term whether something is fake or not. What's also when things are out of context, you still have video person saying that I agree that it's out a contest, it's disingenuous, but it's still person saying it and you're making a compilation of some pre existing audio or video. So I think in in the in sense of Gavin, like one of the things he said was like a call to violence, but he was talking about.
It was in the context of talking about a dog in being scolded. Yes, so he was like it or just hit him, and then it's like it turns out talking about dog like burning something wrong when they take that they snippet, then it goes viral. Many sorts flagging, saying you gonna, ban this. This guy know that I understand you like you know, but that's the issue is if, if people keep doing that to destroy someone's life, so so I think that it is it. Is it a bigger discussion? I think both you could probably shed some important light on to outside of twitter. This weaponization of content from platforms is being used to get people banned from the banking accounts. You know they get there. We can talk about Patrie on, for instance, and again I'm not this is this may just be something you could chime in on Patreon Band Man, Carl Benjamin also known as sergeant of cod, he's also banned from twitter,
and it was why you know why he got banned from twitter um. I can see that's an interesting one. Ah, I do have some some of the details here. Um, do you want me to read you please? Okay, um looks like it's gonna be gross. It's not stuff that I love saying, but I will say it what Jack said he doesn't like cursing either. Let's see I curse more than he does so. I guess I should say first strike. Fuck white people kill all men die, come none of the above qualify as hate speech. When was that I don't have the dates, I'm sorry, but
he's not he's a white guy. I mean obviously he's joking around there, so it's like white people and also something else. I make a point about yeah wills and how you enforce them, not actual, possibly also exactly what you're ticked off pager on he was. It was exactly yeah well, I know he also posted a photo of interracial gay porn at some white nationalist to make them angry. Yes, yeah he's funny. Well I it's funny some I can under stand. How posting that photo was a egregious violation of the rules, whether whether or not he was trying to insult some people. That's a very good point. I wanted to bring that up is porn of violation of rules. Corn generally, no good, really good for you, and why would what it happens in my feet all the time? I follow a couple of naughty girls and occasionally they they all of them self, engaging in intercourse and like yikes.
So then what else were the other strikes? First are gone: you are um, let's see um, there was the use of ah jewish slur um. How do you use it? Ah, to a person you trader remain ER white genocide, supporting Islam, a file, jewish slur, lover. That should keep you going hash tag. Hitler was right, but but the general opinions these are trying to these are targeted at some. That sounds like he's being soy, like he's making a joke yeah, I understand in context. It sounds like the other one like in con text. What he's saying particularly particular fact he's a white guy that doesn't sound racial slur at all, I mean he's saying fuck white people and he is in context again. These are tide together. I always knew that person was not to be trusted that fucking,
jewish lark. Oh so, there's a lot. There's a bunch of very specific person target is being very, very pressing the side out a specific jewish person. I don't know the race of this person, I'm sorry- and this is okay, but this is not. It is not parody. This is not joking around. We didn't view it. Why? I'm just I'm not trying to like read it all this, I'm just tell you what they were saying. I knew he had some things that were like a greedy violations of the rules, because you know plain simple: I didn't bring him up to. You know, go through and trying to figure out a feat, but that it does sound like a least the first one was meant to be a joke of they're so intensely, but there are a bunch of others. If you wanna hear I'm more than sure that Ueberroth is again targeted. This is how I know one day that I'll be throwing you from a helicopter. You the same kind of malignant cancer. Don't forget it so there's just it it's not one thing
or to the rings earned three things is like a bunch of them, plus the engines of Ranger measure thing. You know, throw someone for help you in that hell cut and put it, but admittedly- and I I a so so he he he he's on you to buy them a sort of a Kaiser big account and I've. I've criticized him for being overly mean in the past and I think it's exactly gets angry, but but he he is a very different now and I guess the reason I brought him up was not very different now so so well, a lot of the makes makes is much calmer, he's less likely to insult someone directly. He missed probably recognizing that he's on his last straw. Death I mean especially ticked off a twitter is on you to be from got a mind, is piecing cues of that, and but that is so the reason I brought him up again, but before we move on was that activists found at a live stream from eight to go again. I I totally forgot why was brings up because we've moved so far away from where we were, but they they pulled us a clip from an hour and one slash or whatever into a two hour, live stream on a small channel that only two thousand views sent to Patris and then page
and said yep, that's a violation and banned him out right without warning. Again, I understand is different from what you guys do. You do suspensions first, but I guess the reason I bring up was to talk about a few things. Why blocking isn't enough? Why muting isn't enough? And if you think that it's driving people off the platform, people post my tweets on Reddit, I block them, they use a dummy, account load up, my tweet it to Reddit and then spammy on Reddit. So you know blocking and even leaving twitter would never do anything short of me. Shutting up, there's nothing. You can do to protect me or anyone else. Look I mean these are eggs. The conversations were having a one. The reason why I don't think blocking and meeting or enough is one I don't think. We've made me powerful enough. A it's spread all over the service. You you can use it and then you gotta go find where you actually meet. These people are a little profile page and that's just it's it's a it's. A disaster doesn't work in the same way that it should work in the same way that follow works, which is just the inverse event.
I noticed the now I get a notification says you can't see the street because you meet this person right before. I would just see a weird reply and be like: oh it's one of those exactly you know, so, there's also all this infrastructure that we have to fix in order to like pass those through in terms of what action you took or what action someone else took to be transparent about like what's happening on the network had the second. The second thing it block is re the interesting I'd. I think it's a my own view is it's wholly on unsatisfying, because you're doing is you're blocking someone. They get notification that you've blocked them, which may in I'm even more which causes you know others around and ramifications from from the network, but also that person can log on to twitter and then look at your tweets just on the parkway, because we're republic, so exactly it doesn't feel as as rigorous and as durable. Something like making mute much stronger, but
I guess the challenges, no matter what rule you put in place. People are gonna harass you if you're, if you're engaging in public discourse, you know if I go out in the street and yell out my opinion, somebody could get in my face. If I get off twitter because I'm sick and I mean look, you know, I'm sure you get it way worse than I d'oh specially. As you know, the high profile probably get it right now. Yeah, absolutely me to got out. I can only believe so so the only thing I can do is look we're not on twitter right now we're on Joe Rogan's, podcast and they're still going to target you on twitter they're stuck in it. I guarantee we're all around it. The the the left is probably railing on either it's and you guys. So it seems like, even if you try everything in your power to make twitter healthier and better, it's not going to change anything, not sure about that. I'm not sure about that, because one of the things that I do think is that just I'm not in favor of a lot of this heavy handed banning and a lot of the things that have been going on particularly case like the Megan Murphy case. But what I think that we are doing is we're were x
during the idea of civil discourse, we're thing to figure out, what's acceptable and what's not acceptable and your community meeting about this on a very large scale and it's putting that out there and then people are discussing it whether agree or disagree with a vehemently defend you or or hate you they're discussing this. This is, I think this is how these things change and the change over long periods of time think about words that were commonplace just a few years ago that you live really can't, say anymore right now, there's so many of them that were Lee commonplace or not even thought to be offensive ten years ago that now you can get banned off a platform for, but that's a good point to argue against. Banning people and Thio cease enforcing hate speech rules. Yeah, I agree with that as well. I think it's both things.
Let me, let me tell you something important. I was in the UK at an event. Um for a man named count Dracula, who I don't know if you've heard of oh sure, yeah. Thank you as the guy who got charged and convicted of making a joke where he had his pug do a Nazi salute, but I was there and I was arguing that a certain white nationalist had used racial slurs on Youtube. He has I don't. I name him and some guy in the UK said. That's not true. He's never done that and I said you're crazy. Let me pull it up. Unfortunately, I don't know why. But when I did the Google search, nothing came up. What I did notice that the bottom of the page it said due to you, know: Uk Law, certain things have been removed, so I don't know if it is exactly why I couldn't pull up a video proving or tweets or anything, because I think using these words gets were stripped from the social forms. I could not prove to this man in the first century in the in the UK, this we could use a vpn and then get around that yeah at the time. I was just like trying to pull it up and I'm like all this weird so now
have someone who doesn't realize he's a fan of a bigot, because the law has restricted the speech. So there's a point to be made. If you I understand, you want a healthy like you, you want to to grow, you need to grow. The Cheryl is needed to grow, that advertisers need to advertise. So you've got all these restrictions, but allowing people to say these awful things makes sure we stay away from them and it allows us to avoid certain people and it isn't it important to know that these people hold these believes. If you get rid of them, you know someone could walk into a business and you wouldn't even know that they were a NEO nazi, but if they were high profile saying that things you like that's the kind of like you're absolutely right. This is like one of my favorite sayings. Is that sunlight is the best disinfectant and it's so so so true, I, like one of the biggest problems with censorship, is the fact that you push people underground and you don't know
going on, and this is something I worry about. It's not that I don't worry about. You bend people. For these reasons, I also worry about driving people away from the platform and affecting their real lives. So like what we're trying to find this right balance- and I hear you like you- May know- I think- we're drawing the lines in the right place and we get that feedback all the time and where was trying to find the right places to do that. But I worry as much about like the underground and unlike being able to shine a light on these things is, as anything else to make it. I think it's a a cost, benefit analysis and- and we have to constantly rehash it and and do it it's like we. We have the technology we have today and we are looking at technologies which open up the aperture even more, and we all agree that a binary on or off is not the right answer and it's not scalable. We have started getting into nuance within our enforcement,
and we've also started getting into nuance with the presentation of of content. So you know one path might have in for some of your replies for us to just remove that those you know offensive replies completely. We don't do that. We hide it behind an interstitial to protect the original tweeter in it and and also folks who don't want to see that they can still see everything they just to do one more top. So that's one solution, ranking is another solution, but as technology gets better and we get better at applying to it, we have a lot more optionally, whereas we don't. We don't have that as much today. I I I feel, like you know it was gonna rewrite an earlier point, though you know, if you recognize someone is a basis, in fact, and your it's like you're you're chasing after and a goal that can never be met. If you want to. If you want to put all speech and they start banning certain individual, you you want, you want to increase the amount of all the conversations but you're banning some people. Well,
how long until this group is nothing to buy that group how long to have banned everybody? I hear you know what I I don't believe. A permanent ban promotes health. Okay. I know I don't I don't believe, but we have to. We have to work with the technologies and conditions that we that we have today so and evolve over overtime to where we can see examples like this woman at the Westboro Baptist Church, who was using Twitter every single day to spread hate against the other pieces, Q, a community and over time we had. I think it was three or four folks on twitter who would engage her every single day about what she was doing and she actually left the church,
Phelps Dodge and she's amazing and and she's crazy she's not pulling her family out of that as well, and you could make the argument that if we bands that account early on, she would have never left the church. I completely here that we we get it it's it's just also. It's also. I I just wanna make sure we had word man in the conversation to not just gonna go back. So just ask you this: have you considered allowing some of these people probably band back on with some restrictions, may be? You can only tweet twice per day? Maybe you can't reach we or something to that effect. They were very early in our thinking here. So we're we're open minded to how to do this. I think we agree, philosophically that permanent bands are an extreme case scenario and it shouldn't be one of our in a regular use tools in our tool chest. So how we do that, I think, is something that we're actively talking about today. Is there a time line
that we can so so look you know, I think that would fix a lot of problems. Yes, I really do feel like I'm. Your scary is like. Are you thinking like bands of a year five years ten years, like I'm, just curious like what is what is a reasonable ban in this kind of context? I, I think reasonably so much enough to state their case as to why they want to be unbanned like someone should have to have a like a well measured considerate response to what they did wrong. Do they agree with what they did wrong, maybe perhaps saying why they don't think they did anything wrong and you could review it from there. I think um. You know one of the challenges we have the benefit of english common law of hundreds of years of precedent and developing new rules and figure out what works and doesn't tweet is very different, so I think
the technology- I don't know if you need permanent bands or even or even suspensions at all, you could literally just I mean like someone's account- is essentially suspending them, but I I again I I wouldn't you know, claim to know anything about the things you go through, but what, if you just restricted most of what they could say, you know you blocked certain words in a certain dictionary of someone's been if someone was Greece till no, but no, but but think about this way. Is it better that they're permanently banned or better? But it's not it's not good to you. Don't think about this way. Instead of being suspended for seventy two hours, you get a dictionary block from hate speech. Words right not make sense people just using language. That's what we see all the time yeah I know. Well, they could move. What do you? What do you think about perhaps, instead of what is it PA both have levels of twitter like completely uncensored, unmoderated level of twitter, and then you know have like a rated r and then have like a PG thirteen. I mean, I don't think that's a
idea. We we, we have those levels in place today, but you don't really see them one. We have a not safe for work, its way in which you can turn on or off, not really and see for works, which I think you have it off Joe. Do you think so? The other things you could what you're seeing you have off they're, so we so we have that and then, as Richard pointed out earlier, you know we have the time when we we started ranking the time line about three years ago. We enable people today to turn that off completely and see. You know the reverse, Chron of everything. That's all you can. You can imagine a world where that switch. Has a lot more power over more of our algorithms threw out more of the surface areas. You can imagine that. So these are all the questions that are on the table. You asked about timeline, and this is this is a challenging one. I don't know about timeline because first.
We we've decided that our priority right now is going to be on Pro actively enforcing ah lot of this content, specifically around anything that impacts physical safety like like Doc, sing so bright, but there's so many examples of what you guys not doing that I know, but that that's what we that's, what we're writing right now. That's that's a privatization, but from your own personal warned active. We think more in terms of milestones on the particular time and we're gonna move as fast as we can, but some of it's a function of our of our infrastructure of the technology we have to. We have to bring to bear. Do you guys have conversations about trying to shift the public perception of having this left wing bias and maybe possibly addressing it yeah? Well, I'm going right now, right yeah I mean I I went on the Sean Hannity show I you know we we how's that we brought our so
before it was very what some might it was short and he well your short and the run a lot of really tough questions and not as a product as well, and you know I I get it like look again, I'm also I'm from Missouri. My dad is republican. He listened to and he listen to rush Limbaugh. My mom was a Democrat and I feel extremely fortunate that I was able to first see the spectrum, but also feel safe enough to express my own point of view. But when I go on someone like Kennedy, I'm not talking Hannity, I'm talking the people, like my dad to listen to him right and I want to get across how we think and and also that are thinking of walls and here's. The challenges were saying in like the server is our inter. This is what we're trying to protect and we're going to make some mistakes along the way and we're going to admit to him. We didn't meant to them in the past week and middle to a lot more over over the past three years, but
no, I I don't know any other way to address some of these issues at all. It all goes back to trust, like our one of our core operating principles is earning trust, her. We earn more trust in a you know the the people in the world to do not trust us at all, and there are some people who trust us a little more, but this is a thing that we want to measure this. The thing that we want to get better- and I saw you get a conversation with, I think, Katie Herzog. No, no, who was it was the wrong person. You had a twitter converse, a and with the characters, Wisher wrong person, but someone's got a shot at and and and- and you know I I I see the left is that you in the opposite direction- they want more, they want more band, they want more, you know, restrictions and then look at the right is saying less right, so I mean in terms of solving the problem. Tell us their conversations. Conversation was about. Do you Somers, because because the thing I was out specifically was that you were being asked to do more in terms of
controlling. Well, it wasn't just more but to be a lot more specific about what actions we've taken to promote more health on the platform like what products that we change. What policies did we introduce in the past two years s? So she was asking questions every question she asked. She wanted me to be a lot more specific, and some of these things have something that is very specific sum or directional right now, because it's like we, we have to prioritize. You know what the direction and- and I talked about like you know- we've decided that physical safety is going to be a party for us and to us. That means like being a whole lot more proactive around things like taxing, took two suggestions. I guess I'm not going to imply that you have unlimited funding, but we did mention the peer review Young right right, I mean you had the review mentioned earlier. Lassen retraction odd at
review, which you mentioned, but have you just considered opening an office even a small one for trust and safety in an area? That's not predominantly blue, so that at least you have like you can add some push back and is what I have learned to cope mean, and then they could tell you absolutely so that that's a that's great feedback, and just so you know, the trust and safety team is also a global team in the enforcement team is a global team. So it's not like people from California who are looking at everything making decisions their global. Now I hear your point about who trains them in the materials I have and all that like. We have to think about that and that's that's one thing that Jack has really been pushing us to think about is how do we decentralize our work force because out of services out of San Francisco in particular, so this is something he's very focused on what about publishing evidence of wrongdoing in a banning. So when people say you know what Alex Jones really d'oh, maybe a lot of people didn't realize what you what you saw and again it's an issue of trust yeah. I I love this time, I'm a lawyer so by training we're thinking of doing
then call we call case studies but essentially like this is our case law. This is what we use and so on high profile cases cases people ask us about like to actually publish this so that we can go through. You know tweet by treat us like this. Was I a lot of people just don't understand, and they don't believe us when we're saying these things so to put that out there, so people can see and again they may disagree with the calls that were making, but we at least want them to see why we're making these calls. I think, and that that I do want to do. I want to at least start that by the end of this year, so I think you know ultimately my main Adam stands and I don't see a solution to in that twitter, an unelected you know unaccountable. As far as I'm concerned, when it comes to public discourse, you have rules that are very clearly at odds as we discussed. I don't see a solution to that and I think in my opinion, we can have this kind of like we've
on things that we've had some interesting conversations. But ultimately, unless you're willing to allow people to speak, speak speak entirely freely you are in, for we we have an unelected group with a near monopoly on public discourse in many capacities, and I understand it's not everything right his big too and it's you know what I see is you are going to dictate policy, what you realize it or not, and that's going to terrify people and it's going to make violence happen. It's gonna make things worse. You know the the I am like. I hate to bring up this example on the on the rule for Miss gender ring, because I'm actually, I understand it and I can agree with it to a certain extent. I have you know, um nothing, but nothing but respect for the Trans Community, but also a we've seen an escalation in street violence. We see a continually enfranchised large faction of individuals country. We then see only one of those factions band. We then see a massive multi channel billion dollar corporation with private and foreign investors and to me like, if you hold, if, if you know I'm trying to manipulate us there, I don't. I don't see
direct solution to that problem, that you do have political views. You do enforce them, and that means that Americans, who are buying by american ruler being excised from political discourse and that's the future, that's it. We do have views on on the approach and and again it's like we will we ground this in creating as much option is possible for the largest number of people right right, but that's where it starts and where we are today will certainly involved, but like that. That is what we are trying to base our rules and judgments. Not, and I I get that that's an ideology, but I I completely understand it, but we we also have to. We also have to be free to experiment with solutions and experiment with of often policy and putting something out there. That might look right at the time and of all of it, and I'm not saying this is it but like we we look to re
search. We look to our experience and out on the platform and we make a call and if we get it wrong, word we're going to a minute and work we're going to of all of it. But I guess do you? Do you understand my point? I understand the point that they are there: american citizens, abiding by the law, who have a right to speak and be involved in public discourse that you have decided, aren't allowed to do and- and I think we've discussed like we- we we don't see that as a when a weed, we see all right yeah as not promoting health, ultimately over time right, but is ultimately what is your priority? Do you have it prioritized in terms of what you got? What you guys would like to change? I think Jack is that a couple of times, but the first thing we're going to do is prioritize people's physical safety and that's to be understanding. You already have done that pretty much right. Uh! No, you do that more we've prioritized it. Okay right, we're doing the work. I don't think companies like ours make the link enough. What is online and offline ramifications? What's the main criticism? What's the main,
this is um, you guys. Is it censorship that you guys experience? Is it sense? Ship is a banning of what is it? What is, and what do you most, it depends on. Every single person has a different criticism, so I don't think there's a universal opinion. You just pay the picture right, I mean it, but the the left- and I would like him- is asking for more short and to the right, as I sing for Us- that's very simplified just for this country, but at a high level yeah, that's consistent. I mean my opinion would be as much as I do. I don't lie. I don't like a lot of what people say about me. What they do. The rules even force on Twitter have done nothing to stop harassment towards me or anyone else right MIKE I sort of had my twitter. I mean my read. It is probably you know fifty messages for various. You know far left and left wing subreddits lying about me. Calling me horrible names quote tweeting me and these people are blocked, and I and I I never used to block people, because I thought it was silly because I can get around anyway, but I decided to at one point because out of sight out of mind, if they see my tweets last probably interact with me last, but they
do this and they lie about what I believe they lie about. What I stand for and they're trying to destroy everything about me and they do this to other people. I recognize that so ultimately I say: well, what do you do? It's going to happen? I'm one of these platforms. The internet is a thing, as they say on the internet. Welcome to the internet. So you know to me. I see twitter trying to in for all these rules to maximize good and all you end up doing is stripping people from the platform putting them dark corners of the web where they get worse, and then you don't. Actually, these are the respite from the corner of the world right now, but there are dark corners of Reddit. There are alternatives, I mean the of is going to go away and people have found alternatives and here's the other thing that's really disconcerting. We can see a trend among all these different big Silicon Valley, tech companies and they hold similar. You guys, the band similar ideology and they're creating a parallel society. You've got alternative social networks, popping up that are taking the dregs of the of the mainstream and give him a place to flirt
grow. Make money now we're seeing people be banned from Mastercard from banned from Paypal even banned from Chase Bank, because they all hold the same similar ideology to you. It's it's. You capacities. I don't know exactly. Why chase does it? I assume it's because you'll get some activists who was nice, explain what you're talking about. There have been a series of individuals banned from Chase Bank. It's have been yes, there accounts were closed. One eye, I think maybe the most notable might be Martina Marco THA. I don't know much about her. I follow her on twitter and her tweets are typical conservative and she created a comic. I think it's called lady alchemy she's a trump order and she got a notice that her business account was terminated. You then have Joe Biggs, who previously worked with in for worse. I don't know much about this. I didn't follow up, but he tweeted out chases shatter my account and then you have the new chairman of the proud boys and re gay. I forget his last name Tari or something, and so I was really white-
know he's a he's ever given. I know that's what somebody, but you know, so so what what? What? What is across the board? It's not just and it's what I wanna bring before about perspective on these things. You guys are like we're gonna. Do this one thing and no snow flake blamed itself for the avalanche, but now what we have we have can service being stripped from Paypal. We have certain of what you just six individuals from Paypal, Patrie on financing, so they set up alternatives. Now we're seeing people who have like you mentioned Westboro Baptist Search and she's been de radicalized by being on the platform, but now we have people who are being radicalized by being pushed into the dark corners and they're building and they're, getting their growing and they're growing. Because there's this this idea that you can control this and you can. You know I think you mentioned earlier- that their studies showing and also counter studies, but people exposed to each other is better something really interesting and because I have most whether or not people want give us all of my friends are on the left and some of them,
even like socialists and they're, absolutely terrified to say to talk because they know they'll get attacked by the people who call for censorship and try to get him fired and what I talked to them. I was talking to a friend of mine in LA and she said. Is there a reason to vote for Trump, and I explained a very simple thing about Trump supporters. This is back in two thousand and sixteen I said oh well, you know you got a lot of people who are concerned about the free trade agreements sending jobs overseas, so they don't know much about Trump, but they're gonna vote for him because he supported that sort of Bernie and then the response is really. I don't know that, and so you have this ever expanding narrative, that Trump supporters are Nazis and the mob ahead. Is the k, K, K Hood a lot of this rhetoric. You know emerges on twitter, but when, when a lot of these guys are getting excised, then you can't actually meet these people and see that actually people- and they may be mean they may be mean people they may be awful people, but they're still people, and even if they have that opinion, sometimes you actually, I think in most instances you find the regular people, people there's a part of
problem of calling for censorship and banning people in that it is sometimes effective and that people don't want to be thought as being racist or in support of racism or in support of journalism or any of these horrible things. So you feel like if you support these bannings, you support positive discourse in a good society. All these different things. What you do don't realize is what you're saying is that this does create these dark corners of the have these other social media platforms evolve and have farm. I mean when you're talking about bubbles and about these, the these groupthink bubbles. The worst kind of group think bubbles is a bunch of hate people that get together and decide their post they've been persecuted instead of, like we were combat with Megan Phelps having an hour. Tuner needs, maybe reshape their views by having discourse of people who choose to or not choose to, engage with them. Well, let's, let's think about the the logical end of where this is all going. You want
healthier conversation, so you're willing to get rid of some people who then feel persecuted and have no choice but to band together with others. Mastercard Chase Patri, and they all do it. Facebook does it they're growing. These platforms are growing they're, getting more users, they're expanding their showing up in real life and they're there. You know, even if these people who are banned, aren't the NEO Nazi evil, they're, just regular people who have banded together. That forms a parallel finance system, a parallel economy. You've got patron alternatives emerging where people are saying. You know we reject you, and now I want a platform or people say the most Phyllis things. Now they have money normalizes that as well. That's also, but that's what I mean by parallel society to them the everything they're doing is just and and right, yes, and you can't stop them anymore and it develops hate for the opposing view. Point you start hating people that are progressive, because it is the people that, like you, have talked about
date in society report that labeled us is all right adjacent or what whatever now more fake news coming. I got it right what's so they show us things that connected because you and I have talked to people that are on the right or far right- that somehow or another were secretly far right in that there's. This influence good network of people together and says Facebook, it's a schizophrenic connection. That's like one of those weird things we'll draw a circle! Oh you talk to this guy and this guy talked to that guy. Therefore, you know that guy well, so so here's an expanded part of this problem. So this this private familiar, but a group called date in society, published what's entirely fake report labeling eighty one alt right adjacent to they want to call it Youtube channels included Joe Rogan and me it's fake, but you know what couple dozen news outlets wrote about as if it was fact you believe the Prob ways were labeled as F, b up by the F b I's extremist when they actually weren't. It was a sheriff's report from someone out of Philly with the FBI, but they are activist within media. We have an agenda and
we saw this with learn to code. It was an NBC reporter. Who very clearly is you, know, left wing, identitarian, writing joy for NBC than your average. I can see that and be see story thinks it's factual than everyone talks about it. Then your people hear about it. These are banning people, so you know the address them to to drive the point home. The snowflake won't blame itself for the avalanche. You guys are doing what you think is right. So is Facebook Youtube page around all these all these platforms and it's all going to result. In one thing, it's going to result groups like Patriot prayer in the proud boys saying I refuse to back down showing up it's going. What Antifa, showing up it's going to Baltimore extremism. You've got an anti of account that published the home addresses and phone numbers that hasn't been banned. That's going to further show conservatives at the policing is asymmetrical, whether you know it is or isn't, and I think the the outcome to this on. The current course of action is like insurgency. We've seen people planting bombs in Houston, try to blow up a statue. We saw someone plant a bomb at a police station in Eugene Oregon two weeks before
the guy showed up with a gun and fired two rounds at a cop wearing a smash. The patriarchy and she'll shirt. So you know so that happens. Then, a week later they say you killed our comrade than a week later bombs planted. I don't believe it's coincidence. Maybe it is, but I lived in New York, I got out too many people knew who I was, and there wares people sending me emails with threats, and I'm like this is escalating. You know we've seen for the past years, with Trump we've seen. Breitbart has a list of six hundred and forty instances of trump supporters being physically attacked or harassed in some way. There was a story the other day about an eighty one year old man who was attacked and it seems everything's flowing in one direction and nobody wants take response, bility and say maybe we're doing something wrong right. That's what that's why I brought up earlier regulation is, in my opinion, inevitable. Yeah I mean, I don't think it's going to be the
responsibility of anyone company. We we have a desire. Let me be clear that we have a desire to promote health and in public conversation, as as we've said, like I said, I don't think over time. A permanent ban promotes alright, I I I I don't put we we have we have to. We have to get there all right extension in the role of course, but like we, we we, we just have work to do, and I I'd the the benefit of conversations like this is we're talking about a more, but the will naturally calls out you got it. You got to show it as well. Do you fear regulation? I don't. I don't feel regulation if, if we're talking about regulation
in the government intervention in in the job of if a regular job is to protect the individual and make sure that they level the playing field and they're not pushed by any particular special interest like companies like ours, who might you know, work with a regular to protect our own interest? Data, I think, is incorrect. I agree that we should have um a new agency that can help us protect the protecting individual and level the playing field id. So I think oftentimes companies see themselves as reacting to regulation and I think we need to take more of an education rule, so I don't fear it. I want to make sure that we're educating regulators on what's possible what we're seeing and where we could go.
You see. Educating regulators, though that's initiating a regulation, I mean you're you're you're in not necessarily I mean there. We might. I just ate all Keating regulators who were these regulators did these are folks who, who might be tasked with coming up with a proposal for particular legislation or or laws on to resent to legislators, so it's making sure that we are educating to the best our ability. This is what we are. This is what we see. This is where technology is going and do you think you can hold off regulation relational? You did you think that, by these approaches and by being proactive and by taking a stand, offering up a road to redemption to these people and making clear distinctions between what you're, what you're, allowing what you're not allowing you can hold off regulation. Or do you disagree with what he's saying about regular? No, I don't believe that should be. Our goal is to hold off for a mission. I believe we should be. We should put
just like any other citizen, whether it be Corpus, corporate citizen or individual citizen, in helping to guide the right regulation. So are you familiar- and I could be wrong on this because it's been like fifteen years since I've done this? Are you familiar with the clean water restoration ACT at all? I don't expect you to be it's a very specific thing, so it was at some point in like the early seventies, there was a river in Ohio and again I could be wrong. Been fifteen years I used to work for an environmental organization start on fire and what was typical told us was that all of these different companies said we're doing the right thing but like, as I mentioned, the snowflake doesn't blame itself. So over time the river was so polluted, it became sludge and on fire, and so someone said, if all of these companies think they're doing the right thing and they've all just contributed to this nightmare. We need to tell them blank regulation, and so what I see with these companies, like banking institutions, public discourse, platforms, video distribution, I
actually I'm really worried about what regulation will look like, because I think the government is going to you know screw everything up, but I think there's going to be a require all of at first. I think the Republicans, because I I watch the testimony had in Congress, and I thought they had no idea what they're talking about, nor do they care. There was like a couple of people who made good points, but for the most part they were like I or whatever, and they ask about Russia, so they have no idea what's going on, but there come a time when you know, for instance, one of one of the great things they brought up was that by default, when someone in DC signs up, they see way more Democrats than Republicans right. You you, member that when you can just about yeah so well that there's an issue- and I don't think I believe you when you say these algorithmic- that these know prominent individuals, so it automatically recommended. But then there you know so the solution to that like how do you regulate a programmer to credit algorithm to solve to solve that is is, is you're you're regulating someone to invent technology, but I feel like there will be a backlash when
many right now we're saying the reason why the reason we have this conversation is that conservatives feel like they're being persecuted and right and repressed. So then it's gonna ask like from is not gonna, stop we under sections and so that we we've been having a lot of talk about this particular on algorithms, and one of the things that we're really focused on is not just fairness and outcomes, but also explain ability of algorithms, and I know Jack you, you love the steps. I don't know. If you wanna talk a little bit about our work there yeah I mean we so there's two fields of research within artificial intelligence that they're rather new, but I think really impactful for our industry. One is fairness in m o so and what fairness in machine learning, light learning and a deep learning so looking at everything from what data set is fed to Ann arbor them so, like the training data set all the way to how the algorithm actually behaves on that on that data set, making sure that it it does not develop bias over the line. Longevity of the algorithms use case. So that's one
area that we want to lead in and we've been working with some of the leading researchers in the industry to do that, because. The reality is a lot of this human judgment is moving out rhythms yeah the second issue with it moving now rhythms is algorithms. Today you can't necessarily explain the decision making criteria that they use, so they can't explain in the way that you make a decision. You explain why you make that decision, algorithms, today or not being programmed in such a way that they can even explain that you may wear in apple watch, for instance, it might tell you to stand every now and then um right now. Those algorithms can't explain why. Why they're doing that right that that's a bad example, because it does it every fit every fifteen minutes, but as we offload more and more of these
visions, both internally and also individually, to watches and and and two cars and one on third, there is no there's, no ability right now for that are written to actually go through and list out the criteria used to make that decision. So this is another area that we'd like to get really good at if we want to continue to be transparent, arounds our actions, because a lot of these things are just black boxes and they're being built in that way, because there's been no research into like well, how do we get these are rooms to explain what the decision is that mine has been us. My fear is your you, it's technology that you need to build yeah, but the the public discourse is there. We we know that foreign governments are doing this. We know that democratic operatives in Alabama did this, and so I I imagine that you know what Donald Trump I you know. He talked about an executive order for free speech on college campuses so that the chattering is is here
someone's going to take a sledge hammer to twitter, to Facebook, to Youtube and just be like for not understanding the technology behind it not willing to give you the benefit, but the benefits, the doubts and just saying I don't care why you're doing it, we are mad. You know I mean don't some bills and then it's over again clarifying. I, I think you guys are biased and I think what you're doing is dangerous, but I think that doesn't matter it doesn't matter. What I think is right. It matters at all of these companies are doing similar things and it's and it's and it's already terrifying people. Look when when I saw somebody got banned from their bank account, that's terrifying and paper has done this for a long time. You know that seems like the more egregious than looking band for any social justice or social media platform that that seems and me to be worthy of the boycott trip a tree on issued a statement about a man. I believe his name is Robert Spencer and they said Mastercard instructed us to ban him, and you know what you don't say this to me. Mentioning Chase Paypal, Mastercard terrifies me, I'm on the Joe Rogan Park
right now, calling out these big companies in defiance and we've already said. I would like to know all the specifics of why they chose to do that. I would hope that they would release some sort of a statement explaining why they chose to do that. Maybe there's something we don't know there was. There was a reporter um and I could be on the wrong side and follow it very much with big league politics who said that, after reporting on papal negatively, they banned him. That's it fine. So, let's reporting on in what way reporting on the saga of a cod issue. No apparently is a journalist. He wrote about something bad papal did big league politics is conservative and so all of a sudden he got a notification that they can't tell them why but he's gone. So I see these big tech monopolies. I see Youtube Facebook, Twitter, I see Paypal, Mastercard and they're doing it and they all say they're doing the right thing, but all of these little things they're doing are adding up to something nightmarish and some some later going to show up in in a matter of time, with a sledgehammer and just he's gonna whack, your algorithm. It's really the same stupid logic was talking about. Where you know Gavin was saying, punch people when you punch people doesn't end there.
Oh yeah, the one man band them banned, it doesn't end, there doesn't end there. You have to realize. Also twitter is how old, now, eleven years old years old, thirteen years old, one thousand three hundred and thirteen years old, well, thirteen years from now. What are the odds that there's not going to be something else? Just like it? Well, pretty slim yeah. We do it's almost like a million number. Let's, let's, let's talk about the incestuous relationship that a lot of these journalists have been defending the policies you guys push gab it was was. Was a study was done. I talked with us last time when they found five percent of the tweets of the. I don't have to wait for the post and get more hate speech. Amanda Twitter's like two point four, so it's a marginal increase at gab is called the White Supremacy network of core. You go on it and yeah absolutely exists. They say that synagogue shooter, oh, he was a gap. User was a twitter user to he posted on Twitter. All the time, why is the media is targeting it's? It's such a crazy
mers reality. It is active married when, when the guardian, I believe, was the daily mail called count Ganguli a criminal yeah. I saw that really made a joke on you tube and he's being he was arrested. I'm I'm! I thank God. Every day we have the first name in this country, there's a cover of a newspaper that was hot because he got to get a job somewhere. They get you got fired for that. He got kicked off the show wow yeah this, so you have because of trying to get it. Let me, but let me ask you know the thing you guys you guys take the advice of the southern Poverty law center. Three take the advice of like so it's it's widely, Sir delayed Splc Lobbies, various social platforms to ban certain people they advise it's report reported you to, as is the Anti defamation league. Do you use in your decision making process rule development wear very re, aware of flaws with certain of their research and we're very careful about who we take advice from. But do you take advice from them? I I think that they have certainly reached out to our team members, but they're, certainly nothing definitive
that we take from them. We don't take action. You never taken action based on the information received from them, so the reason I bring up specific early is that their cited, often you know in the United it's theirs with other groups, like hope, not hate in the UK and now they're all gonna point there. You know figured of guns at me for saying this, but this poverty law center wrote an article they claimed. I went to IRAN for a Holocaust deniers conference and I've never been to IRAN and their evidence. Was this guy found an archived website from a Holocaust denier with my name on it, and that was their proof and there are people who have been labeled extremists by this organization that have been you, SAM Harris, SAM Harris was there, it was yeah, then it then they lose a a big lawsuit around. This is yes, they settling yeah, so so then, like not not to imply that you guys do use it, but I asked specifically because it's been reported. Other organizations do so. We have
activist organizations we have. Journalists that I can attest are abit absolutely activists. I've worked for I work for vice. I worked for fusion. I was told it it implicitly not explicitly to lie to side with the audience as it were, I've seen in the narrative they push and I've had conversations with people that I'm not gonna. I'm gonna keep relatively off the record journalists who you are terrified because they said the narrative, Israel right. One journalist particular said that he had yet evidence of you know. Essentially he had. I believe there was wrongdoing wrongdoing, but he talks about it. He could lose his job and there there was a journalist report to me that date in society admitted the report was was was was was incorrect. Now you've got organizations lobbying for terminating Joe, and I because of this stuff. So this this narrative persist. Then you see it all. The actions I mentioned before and all the organization saying we're doing the right thing and I got a
like we're living in it. I mean I I feel like we're. Looking at the doorway to the nightmare dystopia, I I I just want to clarify later I don't. I don't know if we're going around saying we're we're necessarily doing the right thing, we're saying why we're doing what we're doing right right, that's what we need to get better at and I I don't want to hide behind what we believe is like the right thing. We have to clearly rationalize why we're making decision we're making and more of that? That's that to me is the prevention from this snowflake avalanche metaphor well, but, but I think it's just obvious. Obviously point out again. I said this before we can have the calm conversation and I can understand you, but for from where I'm sitting you hold a vastly different ideology than I do, and you have substantially more power in controlling my government that terrifies me and what will what will make the is that a saudi prince, a as was reported that it prints on the portion of that company. So I'm sitting here like just a little american, can't do anything to stop it. I'm just watching
unaccountable machine turn away and you're just one snowflake in an avalanche. All these other companies are as well and I'm like. Well, here we go, it's gonna be a right which is exhibit just said that saudi princes and have any influence at the, but but I might the trust that that's the that's the issue right, I'm not I'm not trying to insinuation of your meetings and telling you what to do. But when someone dumps a billion dollars in your company, I think it's silly to to imply that they don't at least have some influence, but brick, brick than and unlike the internet, within a company like ours. You don't necessarily see the protocol, you don't see the the the processes and and that's an area where we can do a lot much. I I I I guess you know that could be over the head. A million times beat the dead horse. I think ultimately yeah I get what you're doing. I think it's wrong. I think it's terrifying and I think, looking we're we're on the avalanche already. It's happened and we're heading down to this nightmare scenario of a future. Where a buys me when I see people who claim to be supporting liberal ideology, burning signs that say free speech threatening violence against other people, you have these journalists to do the same thing.
Thank yous, everybody of being a everybody having a fascist, Joe, doesn't China issue and you're like you're, like a socialist. As far as I know, you like you, be I proponents, you know I'm on wooden this so essential, I'm very I'm being facetious, I'm very liberal and except for second amendment, that's probably the only thing that I disagree with a lot of live, and then you see what the media says about everybody. You see how they called Jordan Peterson all day and night, all right all right on and this it is used to strip people of their income to to remove them from public discourse. I was foolish because it in the ultimately upon examination like you're, saying that sunlight is the best disinfection absolutely and on examination you realize that this is not true at all and that these people look foolish like the date in society article. No, no all these organizations published that is fact without looking at any data. Maybe some did, but anybody doesn't but yeah and and no no, no, no they're, still talking about millions and millions of people whose who are these people that are still citing its guardian will clamp start yelling. Shame
so so there's a look foolish we now have and this man, which makes things money as we now have a guy who's, claiming that he did and this eternal of this this is a guy claiming that the eighty one accounts listed on this thing is all right have been you're being recommended on Youtube, and so I looked at the the the statistics for various people. In this channel is first of all, my channel is doing great. My recommendations are way up as yours. A lot of people are growing and I the comparison like subscribers or abuse her up, what this guy claiming and apparently he did big sampling of videos where he for summary and thought you Joe Rogan, were twelve percent of all the videos in this network and then, when the when it's data stopped working, he claims that everything stopped. So we actually produced a graph of primarily your your channel and then when the system stopped working, he published at and it was picked up by scene at and now you have people claiming the old right has been banned from from you too, and it's more face news based off fake news based on fake news. I don't understand what you're saying so, basically there's a
by claiming that, because of in society, we have been stripped of recommendations. You too, you, DR tell you one thing that is true, though we don't trend like Alex Jones was saying like the video. We did got nine million views, but it's not trending and about it's because my videos never trend. They just don't trend well you're, but I think it's probably because of the language that's used. I think that's, that's part. The issue is the subject matter in language. I think they have. They have a bias again swearing and you know streams, topics and subjects. If I don't, I don't think that's true, because you've had like late night tv hosts talk about really messed up things that way. They don't swear, though, that it's not it's not a matter of and what they talk about, whether that's messed up in comparison. What we talked about- it's probably pretty different. You know man, I'm I'm fairly resigned to this future happening, no matter what we do about it, and so I bought a van
I'm gonna, convert it to its close. Well, I'm coming through a work station right, you're gonna be a prepper bro; no, no, no, no, no! No! No! No! No! Um! First of all, I will say it's hilarious to me like that people have band AIDS, they never use, but they don't store like at least one emergency like food supply. It's like you, never use band aids. Why do you have him but uh? No, I I I do I I see this every day it was a couple years ago I said wow, I see what's happening on social media. We're gonna see violence boom violence happened. I said it's gonna ask like someone killed him child's will happen and it's like I, I've there've been statements from foreign security advisers, international security experts saying we're facing down high probability of civil war, and I know it sounds crazy. It's not gonna look like what you think it looks like it may not be as extreme. Is it wasn't? Eighteen hundreds, but this was, I think I think it was in the Atlantic where they surveyed something like ten different in international security experts who said based on what the platforms are doing, based on how the people are responding. One guy said
it's like ninety percent chance, but the average was really high. Well, what's what's Gluck outside of the idea of physical war and let's look at the war of information? What we're talking about what's happening with foreign entities, invading a social media platforms and trying to influence our elections in order to see that is a war of information. That is that war is already going on if you're looking at something like date in society, that sort of an act of war in that regard, right, right, right, information, war, an attack to light up, he has to say about their their technological opponents, and it's also one of the woman who wrote that said that it's been proven over and over again. The d platforming is an effective way to silence and then called for us to be yeah. Let's kind of lawyers, I don't think she was saying that we should be banned. Tell that she said was. I should be chances at something the fact of you too bad to take action to prevent this from you know. Well, you know people see someone saying things that they don't agree with its very important for people to understand where silencing people leads to, and I don't think they do. I think people
have these very simplistic ideologies and these very very narrow minded perceptions of what is good and what is wrong- and I think I've been saying this over and over again, but I think it's one of the most important things to state people need to learn to be reasonable. They need to be learn to be reasonable and civil discourse. Civil discourse is extremely important and think over the long term. Yes, they about understand it you're playing chess yeah. We did three hours and thirty minutes, then we know canopy amazing, proud of all of you. We did start a little late like three fifteen, okay. Fifteen I mean I guess the last thing I could say is. I don't think I think I had a good conversation. I think we did. I honestly, I don't think we've solved anything. I don't think any. Do you think we could do this again like six months and see where you guys are at in terms of like what I think is important is the road to redemption. I think that would open up a lot of doors for a lot of people to appreciate we're going to need more than six months. Do it
here's a scary thing that the information travels faster than you can write down as well as making the the our culture is going to fall faster than you can catch up to that problem, because there's a problem- and I don't want to be a technology- took a big leap- twitter existed, the internet existed now all talking so quickly. You can't ask all the problem before the people get outraged by it. So why not again, I could I mean there's an early phrase on the internet by some of the earliest in in a engineers and designers, which is code, is and a lot of a lot of what. Companies like ours and start ups and random folks, who are individuals who are contributing to the internet, will change parts of society and some for the positive and some for the negative and the most. I think the most important thing that we need to do is to does it said China punch a light on it, make sure that people know where we stand and
we're trying to go and what bridges we might need to build from our current state to the future state and and be open about the fact that, like we're not going to- and this is to your other point- we're not gonna get to get to a perfect answer it it's it's. It's just to be steps and steps and steps in step in the first. What we need to build his agility. What we need to build is an ability to experiment very, very quickly and take in all these feedback loop. So we get some feedbacks loops like this. Some within the numbers of self in internet integrate the much faster what's wrong with the with the jury system on Twitter. Why wouldn't that work? I don't know why. I want to work, I'm not saying we want to test that. Like testing is our scope and I don't have a reason, a compelling reason why we want to do it within twitter either. I don't so we likely will, but you know again, we were coming.
I so many resources, finite resources is finite people and we need to prioritize and we've decided. You may disagree with us to see, but we decided that physical safety and the admission of off platform ramifications is critical for us and we need to be able to be a lot more proactive in our enforcement, which will lead to stronger answers and we want. We want to focus on the physical safety S. Doc. Singh is a perfect example that has patterns that are recognizable in there. We can move on. I I hear it and I just feel, like you know, the conclusion I can come from the conversation is you're going to do what you think needs to be done. I think what you're doing is wrong and ultimately, just nothing change. I get it. You're gonna you're gonna try, new technologies are gonna to try and new systems. From from where I see it, I think you have an ideology, diametrically opposed to mine. I mean not to an extreme degree. I think they're people who are more like I'm, not conservative there, a lot of people who are who are
probably think you know I'll, say this to your a symbol for a lot of them, and so I can definitely respect you having a conversation. There are so many different companies that do things that piss people off you sitting right now. I'm sure there's a ton of conservatives who are pointing all of the thank you because you are here, but you know ultimately I just feel like. I don't think it is a change. I think you're on your past. You know what you need to do and you try to just if it and I'm looking at what twitter is doing as very wrong and it's it's it's oppressive and ideologically driven and I'm trying to justify why you shouldn't do it, but nothing's gonna, going to change mine. My intention is to build a platform that gives as many people as possible option it freely express themselves, and some people believe that, yes, it is, are you done that and twitter is going against what the US has developed over hundreds but you're, not a citizen. The as as well have a plot man. United States doesn't have a platform to do that. Twitter. Is it when you talking about the internet, the United States, if they want to come up with the United States Twitter, like a
Lucien on alternative that the government runs and they use it use free speech to govern that. Good luck! Good luck with that! One to challenge, and also I recognize not just you know almost insurmountable- I mean the the dummies that are in charge of the the United States government. This is why I said regulation to is scary yeah. You know it is okay because legends terrible idea, but so, but you know I I it's important point out too- that a lot of people don't realize you guys have to contend with profits. You have to be able to make money to pay your staff there's. No for, like you'll, get free money to run your company. So, aside from the fact that you have ever, I just wanna be in the platform. I I imagine. A lot of these companies are forcing hate speech policies because advertisers to want to be associated with certain things, so that creates you know through advertisement, cultural restrictions. That's one hundred percent the problem right, one hundred percent the problem. With most these platforms, including you too, absolutely yeah- I mean when Petey Pie thing happened in all of these. You know. Restrictions came down on on
fertilizing and content creators, that's where it comes from it all comes from from money. It's why I just to be clear. Those can be segmented as well. You guys advertisers can choose where they want to where they want to be placed. Certainly, but the platform recognizes there's a huge blow back and they're losing money. I mean look at the Paedo scandals just happen on Youtube. It was people posting comments with timestamps. They want you for breaking the rules and I pull up the platform and you didn't realize because they were breaking the rules. They're just creepy dudes, so people also they were in comments and so one of most preposterous responses to that was that content there's going to be responsible for their comments. Well, they do within off. Well. The problem people like me is that I put out a lot of content
and there's millions of views and it's impossible to moderate all well Cont the the damage and we don't moderate them at all, but you two band only on because of minors, so they they deleted all comments, videos with mine videos where they see you, but you know I'm saying if you put a Youtube tube video on you, have a bunch of people that say a bunch of racist things. In your Youtube comments, you could be held possible and get a fuck. No, no! No! No! You do clarified that they clarify that went the recently. They said the afterwards, but the first initial statement was that you were going to responsible for your comments and I say, but only Michael, like Philip Defranco on a lot of people freaked out and then they qualify, then we, but so they're they're I bring it up. Is just because there's gonna be things even if you said major advertisers from you look you know I I pointed out. I think the the Democrats are in a really dangerous position, because outrage culture, although it exists in all factions, is predominantly on
one faction, and so when Trump comes out and says something really offensive, you know grab him by the you know. I'm talking about the Trump supporters laugh they bought t shirts. That said it the people on the left, the democrat types they got angry. So what happens now you see Bernie Sanders he's being dragged. The media is looking for blood and they're, desperate they're, laying people off they're dying and they will do whatever it takes to get. Those clicks. There's, like you know, does that have to do with twitter, though it has to do with the fact that someone's going to find something on your platform and they're gonna, call of your advertiser and say look what what is doing and you're gonna be like a. We had no idea and the two bad canceled, all ads your money's right up and so that there is a recognize twitter recognize Twitter face because of the platforms are worried. Money has to come from somewhere pay people, so you also have to realize you've got the press that salivating looking for that use the store where they can accuse you of wrongdoing because of getting clicks, they'll make money, and that means, even though Youtube did nothing wrong. With these comments, it was just a creepy group of people who didn't break the rules of figure out how to manipulate the system. You too, eight, like you, do. We have had to take that. Take that one that has pulled out, you
lost money, so you did then panics sledgehammers comments, just wipe them out that that happen. Anybody right we're in a really dangerous time with phone, also in their defense, so they have to deal with that. I mean they have a bunch of PETA files. That are posting comments, not sure I mean that what do you do about that? Would you know I I, when I was in higher millions of people to moderate every single video that's put on you to which is almost impossible? The point I'm trying to break bring up is that even if Twitter wanted to say you know what we're gonna to free speech, what happens advertise on later, even if you segment it they're gonna, be threatened by it and so the restrictions I come from weather now you can make money doing it. I don't know about that. I don't know I. I think that that is changing and I think that is changing primarily because the internet, if you look at what was x the in terms of people discussing that would get advertisement, it was network television standards. Now, that's changing! There's good! There's gonna be there's ads on a lot of yeah. Yes, that I put out that have pretty extreme content. It's because
tires are changing their perspective. Do you? I don't think so their shift, one hundred percent shifting! That's why this CASS has ads sure sure I mean I don't think it's to the point where everyone's lost all ads. But look you think George Carlin George be allowed to do his bit today. Yes, no way now, my man is right. You would be able to do it. Listen there's stuff like that on Netflix specials that are out right now. Things are changing. It's just in the process of this transformation. People are understanding that, because of the internet. First, if you look late night conversations how about cold, they're saying that President Trump has Putin's Dick in his mouth, how about him saying that on television? Do you really think that would have been done ten years ago? It would have been two years ago, twenty impossible, not possible. You do are changing because of the internet, so things that were impossible to say on network television just ten years ago you can have it Kevin Hart lost his
Oscar hosting gig, because otherwise, last ten years ago, right, but do you know why he lost he lost it, because people were complaining because people who are activist were complaining that he had said some homophobic things and they do it every day had subsequently apologize for, but for the average that count count Dankula. Okay, look. You were to discuss this. I know I'm with you and I understand what you said. I was on a Canadian, but I am a committee and I understand where things are going. The the demise of free speech is greatly exaggerated. That's what I'm saying I'm saying: there's a lot of people out there that are complaining, but the Adam is not necessarily that there's so many people are complaining complaining the problems that people are reacting to those complaints cry. The vast majority of the population is recognizing that there is an evolution of free speech, that's occurring in our culture in all cultures around the world, but this is a slow process that, when you're in the middle of it, it's almost like evolution. Well here in the middle of it, you don't think anything is happening, but it's fucking happening also. I agree with you. I agree with you that the majority of people are like that's funny. I don't care,
but the minority is kind of dictating things right now for now, not even dictating things they're just making a lot of lawyers and that that noise is having an effect. That's what day in society was an attempt at right. I don't think it was effective. That's why we're still here we're talking right now. It was one attack, but I mean looks like many of them and is hundreds of articles that are written about all sorts things that are inaccurate or love me, and some people have been eating it about. I get counts and some apples and kicked in the in the in the this is why it's important have this conversation right conversations like that. Also so here's all say I just I cross my fingers and I wait for when you implement blocked and allergy bro well Van is going to be a mobile production studios. I can travel around when things are a lot of water, great more than just band AIDS in a shower in it. It's gonna be like another computer and monitors and I'm gonna be able to do video, so I can travel around when everything is happening, but I straight this up. I want to see the blockchain verse Twitter, where it said exists. That's what I want to see
happen, whether we like it or not. Um vigil any last thoughts I just want to. Thank you. Jos has been great and TIM thanks for your feedback, you were always listening and I've learned a lot. Thank you. I really appreciate you guys. Thank you jack. Thank you. The last things I think we've said all the folks, no Morir beatings, good night, everybody. Thank you, everyone for tuning into the show and thank you to our sponsors. Thank you to butcher box folks. If you're looking for good meat, this is a way to go unless you're looking for different kinds of you know they don't have that, but they have one hundred percent grass FED and finished beef free range, organic chicken and heritage breed pork shipped directly to your door, delivered free free shipping anywhere in the lower forty eight. You can get twenty bucks off plus free ground beef for life. That's two of free one hundred percent grass FED ground beef in every order for the lifetime of your subscription, go to butcher box, dot com, click on the
banner and entered the discount code. Rogan at checkout stay que you also to the cash app. Ladies and gentlemen, the number one app and finance for a fucking very good reason, and it provides you with the cash card download the app store down the cash app brother from the app store or the Google play market order. Your cash card today make sure when you download the cash app you enter the referral code, Joe Rogan, all one word: five dollars will go to you that five three dollars and better yet five dollars will go to help our friend Justin Brands, fight for the forgotten charity, helping to build wells for the pygmies in the Congo. And last but not least, we are brought to you by the host of Joe Rogan dot com square space. Your answer, you no question: how do I make a website? I got your answer: mother fucker it's square space and you can try it for free what free bitch go to squarespace dot com, slash joke
for a free trial, then, when you're ready to launch use the offer code, Joe to save ten percent off your first purchase of a website right for domain, you can't go wrong. It's the reason why Joe Rogan dot com is hosted there. It's easy to create a beautiful website, free, insecure hosting built in search engine optimization and twenty four slash: seven award winning customer support, squarespace dot com, Slash Joe for a free trial again is the offer code Joe and you will save ten percent off your first purchase of a website or domain all right. So I hope, but was happy with that episode. Well, that's not possible right. Imagine if everybody was happy with an episode, not possible, but I hope more of you got your questions answered and your issues addressed, and I just want to let you folks know all of you that I appreciate you even the most critical. This is a very you know, just doing something like this podcast is it's
not the same as starting so like twitter, but it is in that I didn't expect it to become what it came and along the way there are hiccups and learning experiences and moments where I have to assess and readjust and go back and do it again and that's what I did with this podcast and I hope we did it effectively and weird. Have them on again will have again in the future and we'll figure out there's more to be done. Okay, thank you to you all. Much love, bye, bye, big, kiss.
Transcript generated on 2019-09-13.