Twitter finally banned the US president on Friday, taking a dramatic step to limit Trump's ability to communicate with his followers. That decision, made in light of his encouragement for the violent invasion of the United States Capitol on Wednesday, might seem sudden to anyone not particularly familiar with his presence on Twitter.
In fact, Twitter has given Trump many, many second chances in his four years as president, keeping him on the platform because he believes the word of world leaders was in the public interest, even if he breaks the rules.
Now that Trump is gone forever, we have a pretty interesting look at the political decision-making process that led Twitter to drop the hammer on Friday. The company first announced Trump's ban in a series of tweets from his @TwitterSafety account but also linked to a blog post detailing the thought.
In that deep dive, the company explains that it gave Trump one last chance after he suspended and then restored his account for violations made on Wednesday. But the next day, a couple of tweets made by the president pushed him over the edge. Twitter said those tweets, pictured below, were not examined on their own, but rather in the context of her recent behavior and events this week.
"... We have determined that these Tweets violate the Glorification of Violence Policy and user @realDonaldTrump should be immediately permanently suspended from the service," Twitter wrote.
Here's how the company is he explained his reasoning, point by point:
- "President Trump's statement that he will not attend the inauguration was received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate and is seen as rejecting his earlier statement made via two tweets (1, 2) from his Deputy Chief of Staff, Dan Scavino, that there would be an "orderly transition" on January 20.
- The second Tweet can also serve as an encouragement to those who potentially consider violent acts that the inauguration would be a 'safe' target, as it will not attend.
- "The use of the words 'American Patriots' to describe some of its supporters is also being interpreted as supporting those who commit violent acts on the United States Capitol.
- "The mention of his supporters having a 'GIANT VOICE in the future' and that 'They will not be disrespected or unfairly treated in any way, shape or form !!!' it is being interpreted as a further indication that President Trump does not intend to facilitate an "orderly transition" and instead intends to continue to support, empower and protect those who believe they have won the election.
- "Plans for future armed protests have already begun to proliferate on and off Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and US Capitol buildings on January 17, 2021."
This is all quite intuitive, even if its most ardent supporters will disagree. Ultimately these decisions, although they boil down to declared policies, involve many subjective analyzes and interpretations. Try how social media companies could let algorithms make the tough calls for them, the dollar stops with a bunch of humans trying to figure out the best course of action.
Twitter's explanation here offers a rare and totally transparent look at how social networks decide what's left and what's going. It's a big move for Twitter - which many people reasonably believe should have been done months if not years ago - and it's helpful to have what so often is inscrutable high-level decision-making clearly and publicly exposed for all to see.
