Monday’s fifth installment of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files” revealed that employees believed that tweets by former President Donald Trump regarding the events of January 6, 2021 had not violated company policies, despite it being stated at the time.

“For years Twitter had refused calls to ban Trump from its platform, or to remove their controversial tweets. This was on the grounds that blocking a leader of the world would make it difficult for people to see and discuss important information,” Bari Weiss, of The Free Press, wrote at the beginning of Monday’s thread. “But, as @mtaibbi & @shellenbergermd documented, the pressure to ban Trump grew both within and outside Twitter.”

Weiss mentioned “dissenters” on Twitter who did not want Trump to be banned, including one who wrote: “Maybe because my family is from China.” I understand the dangers of censorship and how it can ruin public discourse.

“But voices such as that one seem to have been a distinct minority in the company. Weiss stated that many Twitter employees were unhappy Trump wasn’t banned earlier on Slack channels. “After January 6, Twitter employees organized for their employer to ban Trump. One Twitter employee stated that there was a lot of employee advocacy.

Weiss cited the outcry from “over 300 Twitter employees”, who signed an open letter in the Washington Post urging Jack Dorsey, then-Twitter CEO, to ban Trump. Weiss said that “Twitter staff responsible for evaluating tweets quickly concluded Trump had not violated Twitter’s policies.”

According to Weiss, a staffer stated that “I believe we’d have trouble saying this is incitement.” It’s clear that he is saying that the “American Patriots” are those who voted for him, and not terrorists (we can still call them that). From Wednesday

According to Weiss, another employee agreed that there was no incitement angle.

Anika Navaroli wrote similarly as a Twitter policy officer, “I also don’t see clear or coded encouragement in the DJT tweet.” I will respond in the elections channel. We have assessed the tweet and found no violations for it.

Later, Navaroli added that Safety had assessed the tweet above from DJT and found no violation of our policies.

“Later, Navaroli would testify before the House Jan. 6, committee: ‘For many months, I had been anticipating and begging and trying to raise the fact that if nothing-if we did not intervene into what I saw [occurring], people would die,” Weiss tweeted.

Concerning Trump’s tweet declaring that he would not attend President Biden’s Inauguration, Twitter’s safety staff stated at the time that “it’s clear no vio.” It’s only to state that he is not attending the inauguration.

Weiss reviewed tweets by controversial world leaders to provide context on Trump’s ban from Twitter. He included Ayatollah Ali Khanei of Iran, who wrote in 2018: “#Israel is an incurable cancerous tumor in West Asia that must be removed and eliminated: it is possible, it will happen.

Twitter removed a tweet by Mahathir Mohamad (Malaysian Prime Minister), which stated that Muslims have the right to “kill millions” of French citizens. The tweet also said that violence is “righteous.” However, the leader was still on Twitter. Twitter treated Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari similarly.

Weiss reported that, less than 90 minutes after Twitter employees determined that Trump’s tweets weren’t in violation of Twitter policy, Vijaya Gadde, Twitter’s Head for Legal, Policy and Trust, asked whether the tweet could, in reality, be coded incitement towards further violence. “A few moments later, Twitter employees from the’scaled enforcement’ team suggested that Trump’s tweet might have violated Twitter’s Glorification of Violence policy. If you interpret the phrase American Patriots’ as referring to the rioters, it will be.

Weiss said, “Things escalate further from there.” “Members from that team came to view him as the leader a terrorist organization responsible for violence/deaths comparable with Hitler or Christchurch shooter. Based on this and the entirety of his tweets, he should not be de-platformed.”

Weiss then referred to the 30-minute all staff meeting that was led by Dorsey & Gadde. Staffers were then confronted about why Trump hadn’t been banned.

Yoel Roth (then-head of Trust and Safety at Twitter) wrote to a colleague: “Multiple Twitter employees have quoted the Banality of Evil suggesting people who implement our policies are Nazis following orders.”

Roth responded to Dorsey’s request for simpler language to explain Trump’s ban.

“One hour later, Twitter announces Trump’s permanent suspension ‘due to the risk for further incitement violence’,” Weiss wrote. She also shared communications from staff celebrating the Trump ban.

According to internal communications, the Trump ban seemed to have sparked a crackdown against “medical misinformation.” Weiss reported that the next day the tech giant gave a new push to Weiss. One staffer said that Twitter’s position was, “For the longest, Twitter wasn’t the arbiter truth.” This I respect, but it never gave me warm fuzzy feelings.

“But Twitter’s COO Parag Agrawal, who would succeed Dorsey to the CEO position, told Head of Security Mudge Ztko that he thought a few people should brainstorm the ripple effect’ of Trump’s ban. Agrawal also stated that IMO’s central content moderation had reached a breaking point. Weiss reported.

Weiss ended her thread by saying, “Ultimately, Twitter’s attempts to censor news regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop and blacklist disfavored viewpoints, ban a president aren’t about past choices of executives at a social media firm.” These concerns are about the power of a few people at a private firm to influence public discourse and democracy.

Twitter Files started on December 2, with Matt Taibbi, a journalist, revealing internal attempts to suppress Hunter Biden’s story in 2020 by the New York Post.

Weiss reported on Thursday the second installment in the Twitter Files. It revealed that Twitter shadowbanned certain users and tweets, making them “blacklisted”

Parts 3 and 4 were dedicated to describing what led to Trump’s b.