Commerce Committee Investigating Twitter CEO For Lying Under Oath

Jack Dorsey the Twitter CEO is finally going to be held accountable for missing the October 15, deadline for replies to congressional questions. There are those in congress that claim Twitter shadow bans anyone who does not lean their way. 600,000 accounts at last count according to the article.

Jack Dorsey stood up under oath before the House Energy and Commerce Committee back in September and said with a straight face that neither Twitter's algorithm nor the company's policies target individual users due to their political orientation.
It doesn't take a deeply researched understanding of Twitter's persistent shadowbanning - and outright banning - of conservative voices like Laura Loomer to see that this is patently untrue. And while Dorsey was willing to concede during the Sept. 5 hearing that Twitter wrongly shadowbanned some 600,000 accounts, many of which belonged to conservatives using the platform, his insistence that Twitter was free of bias (something he was willing to acknowledge back in July during an interview on CNN) clearly unnerved several Congressmen, who suspected that Dorsey wasn't being entirely truthful.
And after Dorsey and Twitter ignored follow-up questions from the committee - making their disdain for the Republicans who grilled Dorsey clear - the committee is finally doing something about it.

I do not know what congress could do other than say he lied, which used to be a crime but there are so many lies by different people in powerful positions that I kinda think congress is overwhelmed ?

Facebook next ?
www.zerohedge.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

Does he even need to answer that question? shadowbanning or flat out banning anyone that doesn't fit nicely into the group think are the reasons why twitter is becoming the compressed version of tumblr.
has been going on for a while at this point.
I doubt he will face any actual consequences even if found guilty, just like some banks, people like him are too big to fail.

Some cheese to the whine, darling?
...


Now there is GOVERNMENT telling PRIVATE companies how they have to run their thing?

Really? Isn't that something deeply hated by many people on this board? Isnt' that something like communism?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

It's about his honesty not his politics.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

It's about his honesty not his politics.

He can ban whoever he wants, for whatever he wants. It's his company. There's Gab for those who wish to spout hate speech. In the interest of advertising revenue, it is a no brainer as to why he doesnt want that on his platform.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Facebook next?

No. I'm currently banned from Facebook for saying that Trump supporters are white trash. I don't think that fits the narrative of being banned for not leaning their way politically.

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
Some cheese to the whine, darling?
...


Now there is GOVERNMENT telling PRIVATE companies how they have to run their thing?

Really? Isn't that something deeply hated by many people on this board? Isnt' that something like communism?

Wrong...

It is illegal to lie under oath. Other than that, I'm with you

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Flatcoat

It's about his honesty not his politics.

He can ban whoever he wants, for whatever he wants. It's his company. There's Gab for those who wish to spout hate speech. In the interest of advertising revenue, it is a no brainer as to why he doesnt want that on his platform.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Facebook next?

No. I'm currently banned from Facebook for saying that Trump supporters are white trash. I don't think that fits the narrative of being banned for not leaning their way politically.

All of what you said is fine...

But none of that is the issue... Lying under oath is

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
All of what you said is fine...

But none of that is the issue... Lying under oath is

My problem is that it made it to congress in the first place. Why should the government get involved in who twitter bans?

originally posted by: LordAhriman
My problem is that it made it to congress in the first place. Why should the government get involved in who twitter bans?

Good point.

What has happened is that some kids who think they are special are not allowed to play with the other kids. So a couple have gone home and complained to mom. Now several moms are upset and talking about it. They may want force the other kids to play with theirs. We mistakenly thought grown ups ran the country and it's businesses.

a reply to: LordAhriman

Boy that’s quite the ignorant blanket statement.

@LordAhriman

would you say calling people white trash is positive or hate speech? Would you say that is respectful?

That's the rub, there is no such thing as hate speech, there is only speech you like and speech you don't like. You can fin clips of BLM marchers saying they want to fry the pigs, ANTIFA talking about killing, vandalizing and what not, louis farrakhan is all over twitter, and they are all "woke" and "tolerant" people.

What makes one white trash? I would say being a criminal. so anyone who is helping illegals stay in any country, is white trash, but i bet you have a different definition. I don't care, and i wouldn't ban you from my social media site, if i had a social media site

That again is why US government was and is evolved with this, because of the law. It's a publisher vs platform question. Are they a social media site or are they an on line publishing firm? Big Tech has to decide which one it is, because the laws are different for each one. We don't want them to be big tech trash, so they have to pick one and follow the laws.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson
@LordAhriman

would you say calling people white trash is positive or hate speech? Would you say that is respectful?

That's the rub, there is no such thing as hate speech, there is only speech you like and speech you don't like. You can fin clips of BLM marchers saying they want to fry the pigs, ANTIFA talking about killing, vandalizing and what not, louis farrakhan is all over twitter, and they are all "woke" and "tolerant" people.

What makes one white trash? I would say being a criminal. so anyone who is helping illegals stay in any country, is white trash, but i bet you have a different definition. I don't care, and i wouldn't ban you from my social media site, if i had a social media site

That again is why US government was and is evolved with this, because of the law. It's a publisher vs platform question. Are they a social media site or are they an on line publishing firm? Big Tech has to decide which one it is, because the laws are different for each one. We don't want them to be big tech trash, so they have to pick one and follow the laws.

I would say I do not care what people say or think about me, but I will defend to the death their right to say it freely and openly on any forum they choose to.

If you're not American then the 1st Amendment is not going to coarse through your veins and it's not going to make sense why our automatic answer to limiting the 1st is to reach for the 2nd.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure
All of what you said is fine...

But none of that is the issue... Lying under oath is

My problem is that it made it to congress in the first place. Why should the government get involved in who twitter bans?

Randomly banning people because [insert reason] is fine with me since this is a free private company. Though, the answer to your question i do not have.

Personally i have not looked into this into detail. All i can think of is if there are other laws they were looking into and this popped up as a result.