Rubio To Twitter: Explain Content Moderation Process

0
Rubio To Twitter: Explain Content Moderation Process
<a href="https://pixabay.com/users/PhotoMIX-Company/">PhotoMIX-Company</a> / Pixabay

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) sent a letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey after the company responded to Rubio’s December 1, 2020 letter, which sought an explanation for the company’s failure to remove or label a falsified image posted by a Chinese Communist Party bureaucrat, with a series of non-answers.

Know more about Russia than your friends:

Get our free ebook on how the Soviet Union became Putin's Russia.

Q4 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more

“In light of Twitter’s response letter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that either the company has no formal process for reviewing tweets or that it wishes to hide the details of its review process from policymakers and the public,’” Rubio wrote. “However, what may be even more disturbing is Twitter’s refusal or inability to answer basic questions about its moderation procedures and the effects that the company’s global ambitions have on its moderation decisions.”

Canyon Distressed Opportunity Fund likes the backdrop for credit

CanyonThe Canyon Distressed Opportunity Fund III held its final closing on Jan. 1 with total commitments of $1.46 billion, calling half of its capital commitments so far. Canyon has about $26 billion in assets under management now. Q4 2020 hedge fund letters, conferences and more Positive backdrop for credit funds In their fourth-quarter letter to Read More


The full text of the letter is below.

Marco Rubio's Letter To Twitter Asking About Their Content Moderation Process

Dear Mr. Dorsey:

On December 1, 2020, I wrote to you requesting information related to Twitter’s review and response to a tweet by Zhao Lijian, the deputy director-general of China’s Information Department. Since that time, Twitter has communicated a series of non-answers to me, including in a December 23 letter from Twitter’s head of U.S. public policy. It has also engaged in a sweeping crackdown of U.S.-based users.

In a recent Twitter thread, you acknowledged the inherent danger of the type of control your company has “over a part of the global public conversation.” I agree, and that danger is amplified when your company engages in inconsistent content moderation and attempts to avoid congressional oversight. In light of Twitter’s response letter, it is not unreasonable to conclude that either the company has no formal process for reviewing tweets or that it wishes to hide the details of its review process from policymakers and the public.

It is deeply troubling that Twitter found that the post in question did not violate its terms of service and that it merited nothing more than an interstitial merely denoting it as “potentially sensitive content.” However, what may be even more disturbing is Twitter’s refusal or inability to answer basic questions about its moderation procedures and the effects that the company’s global ambitions have on its moderation decisions.

I would appreciate a response to the following, along with supporting documentation, by Tuesday, February 2:

  1. Please provide documentation clearly detailing the steps for Twitter’s process of evaluating user-generated content, from the circumstances that give rise to a review to how the company determines whether to remove, flag, or intentionally limit specific content's reach.
  • Please also provide the names of departments responsible for these decisions and the country or countries in which such departments are located.
  1. In my previous letter, I inquired whether Twitter plans to operate in China in the future, and if the company has had any conversations with relevant officials or entities in China. This question was not answered in your company’s December 23 response letter.
  • The absence of any reply to this question strongly implies that Chinese market access is a motivating factor in how Twitter handles content generated by Chinese Government and Chinese Communist Party officials.

Thank you in advance for providing clear, detailed, and well-documented replies to my inquiries, which will be taken into account as Congress revisits Big Tech’s unique legal immunities.

Previous article The Art of Arranging Capital For Emerging Businesses
Next article NCRC Recommends New Way To Establish CRA Assessment Areas For Branchless Banks
Jacob Wolinsky is the founder of ValueWalk.com, a popular value investing and hedge fund focused investment website. Jacob worked as an equity analyst first at a micro-cap focused private equity firm, followed by a stint at a smid cap focused research shop. Jacob lives with his wife and four kids in Passaic NJ. - Email: jacob(at)valuewalk.com - Twitter username: JacobWolinsky - Full Disclosure: I do not purchase any equities anymore to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest and because at times I may receive grey areas of insider information. I have a few existing holdings from years ago, but I have sold off most of the equities and now only purchase mutual funds and some ETFs. I also own a few grams of Gold and Silver

No posts to display