Twitter Files Reveal The Rise Of Tech Divinity Complex
After years of accusations and denials, we now know what we have known all along: Twitter suppressed conservative viewpoints.
By Chuck Warren
The investigation into the content moderation policy of Twitter under its previous management has been quite explosive. After years of accusations and denials, we now know what we have known all along: Twitter suppressed conservative viewpoints.
The most revealing aspect of the saga is not the revelations themselves—again, we already knew about viewpoint discrimination by the company—but the progressives’ reaction to it. The defenders of the old Twitter’s explanation could be summarized as discrimination never happened, but if it happened, everyone knew about it, and we like that it happened.
But let’s rewind briefly. In 2018, Twitter admitted that, while it didn’t engage in shadow banning—allowing users to tweet but making their accounts and posts invisible to everyone—it did reduce the reach of certain tweets. A few months later, Jack Dorsey, then the CEO of Twitter, admitted that there was a left-wing bias in the company.
The most (in)famous case of Twitter bias is the banning of the Libs of TikTok account, an orthodox woman whose view on banning transition of children is well within the mainstream—and whose view on firing openly gay teachers is well out of the mainstream. What is telling is that both views were treated the same way by Twitter management. Even then, the latter view was expressed as the nation was debating a Florida bill that restricts teachers from talking about sex-related issues with pre-high-school children. Offensive or legitimate, the account’s view was directly related to a national policy debate, and Twitter was silencing the conservative viewpoint.
Twitter censorship is not a violation of anyone’s right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment is a contract between the government and private actors, not between two private actors. But just because what Twitter did is legal doesn’t mean that it is right or good for the country. Quite the opposite.
It is true that Twitter too often brings out the worst in people. Otherwise perfectly nice people say the worst thing to each other behind their keyboards and screens. The best example is not political. After a troll mocked Casey O’Neill, an undefeated female UFC fighter, she responded, “Come spar me, that would be fun!” Of course, the troll never picked up on the generous offer. In the same vein, most political disagreements unravel in a much more respectful manner off Twitter.
So the problem isn’t that Twitter moderated its content, it’s the fact that it cracked down unevenly. If Twitter should be criticized for anything, it should be for not cracking down on rudeness against all viewpoints.
The tech industry is very progressive. That’s fine. A pluralistic society should accept all kinds of viewpoints. Nobody’s right on everything, and the best way to see one’s own errors is by being challenged. Regrettably, that’s not a view shared by Twitter’s previous management.
Their flaw wasn’t that they had progressive biases. It was their certitude. It wasn’t that they are progressive, but that they were either insecure about their politics or condescending toward fellow Americans, thinking that allowing the reach of contrary viewpoints would lead to the triumph of those opposing viewpoints because people are just stupid and gullible.
But the real problem was that they were confused about their duty. They were tech executives, with no political expertise, who decided to become political actors. They drifted from their lane, and, in doing so, they not only failed to ensure the triumph of the policies they resent so much—the Florida bill is now state law, after all—but they exacerbated the conservative political resentment of the elites that led to the ascent of Donald Trump, whom they hate.
In the 1993 movie Malice, Dr. Jed Hill, played by Alec Baldwin, recites his tremendous credentials and continues:
So I ask you, when someone goes into that chapel and they fall on their knees and they pray to God that their wife doesn't miscarry, or that their daughter doesn't bleed to death, or that their mother doesn't suffer acute neural trauma from postoperative shock, who do you think they're praying to? Now, you go ahead and read your Bible, Dennis, and you go to your church and with any luck you might win the annual raffle. But if you're looking for God, he was in operating room number two on November 17th, and he doesn't like to be second guessed.
Then he adds:
You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something: I am God!
Only the Almighty deserves certitude. We mere mortals must debate these earthly matters, hoping that we get it right more often than not. And the more recent and sensitive a topic, the more debate it merits. Content moderators at Twitter failed to grasp this vital point. They want to save democracy from the authoritarian forces on the right, so they acted like authoritarians. Not because they think of themselves as authoritarians but far worse, they will never say that they are God, but they act as though they are.