The third installment of the “Twitter files” gave us some of what we were looking for in terms of government involvement in censoring free speech, though many questions remain. Tonight, close on the heels of the last data dump, Michael Shellenberger unleashed the fourth chapter in the story. This edition also focused on the decision-making process that led to the President of the United States being banned. At least in the early revelations, Schellenberger winds up offering more cover for Jack Dorsey and focusing the blame on the covert actions of Yoel Roth. There are also indications that Twitter was paying far more attention to the “big names” in the progressive movement than their own rules. One of these was found in one of the first tweets from Shellenberger, where input from Michelle Obama and high-profile liberals are cited as reasons to kick the Bad Orange Man off the platform.

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

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 10, 2022

In this series of documents, we learn that Jack Dorsey was actually on vacation in French Polynesia when the January 6th riot took place. He was checking in by phone to some meetings, but Yoel Roth was actually in charge of most of the action. (The head of “Trust and Security.”) Dorsey was actually urging caution before banning world leaders, but this thread reminds us of the overwhelming dominance of registered Democrats and liberals at Twitter and how they may have been making decisions that ran contrary to Dorsey’s impulses.

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

In 2018, 2020, and 2022, 96%, 98%, & 99% of Twitter staff's political donations went to Democrats. https://t.co/XdwkdPwYVQ

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 10, 2022

Dorsey seemed to still be uneasy about banning Trump, even as the riot unfolded. But then, on the following day, Jack appeared to approve it, at least in general, if not specific to Donald Trump. But he still didn’t seem to be in favor of a permanent ban. He wanted the company to remain “consistent” in its ban policies and the right of people (including Trump) to return to Twitter after a temporary suspension. Internally, however, Yoel Roth was questioning Dorsey’s interpretations.

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

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

The new approach would create a system where five violations ("strikes") would result in permanent suspension. pic.twitter.com/F1KYqd1Xea

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022

There were “junior persons” expressing concern over the First Amendment implications of banning a world leader. But those concerns seem to have been ignored.

"This might be an unpopular opinion but one off ad hoc decisions like this that don’t appear rooted in policy are imho a slippery slope… This now appears to be a fiat by an online platform CEO with a global presence that can gatekeep speech for the entire world…" pic.twitter.com/4pedmgY8pa

— Michael Shellenberger (@ShellenbergerMD) December 11, 2022

I’ve been asking for some time now how Jack Dorsey hasn’t been taken to task for the censorship taking place, including the banning of Donald Trump. But these latest revelations from Shellenberger only seem to offer more cover for Dorsey. Roth seems to have been the villain here and Dorsey may have been largely out of the loop, even when he testified before Congress about shadowbanning. This story is still developing and we’ll have more about it tomorrow, but Elon Musk is still seemingly doing an admirable job of airing all of the dirty laundry, no matter where the finger points in the end. Twitter was doing some very bad things in terms of helping the government censor free speech, but the culprits may have been scattered throughout the upper levels of the company and not solely found at the CEO level.