Twitter CEO responds to the "account ban" incident: We made the right decision, but we will still promote the establishment of decentralized social media standards

According to BlockBeats, on January 14, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responded to the ban on the account of former US President Trump. Previously, the news that Trump was banned by media including Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat and Instagram caused a sensation.

Even Vitalik Buterin broke his consistent "Twitter-minimization" principle and expressed his views on the matter on Twitter. He said that Twitter founder Jack Dorsey's ban on the US president violated the principles of freedom and democracy (Dorsey was not elected), but at the same time, it was a victory for the separation of powers. Fred Wilson, an investor in well-known Internet companies such as Twitter and Tumblr and co-founder of Union Square Ventures, also expressed similar views to Vitalik Buterin.

Jack Dorsey tweeted today: "I am not grateful or proud of canceling Trump's account. (We) took this action after a clear warning, and we made this decision based on the personal safety threats (he posted) on Twitter and outside the network. Is this correct?"

“I believe this is the right decision for Twitter. We are facing an unusual and unstable situation that forces us to focus all our actions on public safety. The offline harm caused by online speech is real, and this drives our policies and enforcement in the first place.” However, Dorsey also reflected, “That being said, banning accounts has a real and significant impact. Although sometimes there are necessary and obvious exceptions, I think banning accounts is a manifestation of our ultimate failure to promote healthy dialogue. It’s time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.”

Dorsey believes it’s time to take these actions to decentralize the public conversation. Too much concentration of power limits the potential for clarity, redemption, and learning. And it sets what he considers a dangerous precedent: the power that one person or company has over a portion of the global public conversation.

The check and accountability on this power has always been the fact that services like Twitter are only a small part of the massive public conversation on the internet. If people disagree with our rules and enforcement, they can simply move on to another internet service. Yet last week, that notion was challenged when some of the providers of basic internet tools also decided not to host (allow users to post) content they deem dangerous. I don’t think this was premeditated, but more likely: companies came to their own conclusions or were encouraged by the actions of others. I think this reaction may be necessary at this time, but in the long run it will undermine the noble purpose and ideals of the open internet. A company making its own business decision to adjust is different from a government removing access, but it feels much the same.

Finally, Dorsey also mentioned that the reason for such enthusiasm for Bitcoin is largely because of the model it shows: basic Internet technology that is not controlled or influenced by any single individual or entity. This is what the Internet wants to be, and as time goes by, there will be a lot of Internet like this.

As for future improvements to Twitter, Dorsey still insists on the "Bluesky Project": "We are working hard to do our part by funding an initiative around open decentralized standards for social media. Our goal is to become a client for the standard public conversation layer of the Internet."