Authored by Jason Sullivan and Bill Binney,
Open Letter to Jack Dorsey…
The American People and Social Media
“We seek a free flow of information… we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.”
– John F. Kennedy, February 1962
Dear Mr. Dorsey,
At the September 5, 2018, U.S. Congressional Hearing in which you gave testimony under oath, you stated, in part:
“Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially. We do not shadowban anyone based on political ideology. From a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform.”
What we now know, thanks to multiple media investigations, is that; not only is Twitter engaged in censorship, but that it also openly weights its decisions by subjective terminology like “highest potential for harm” meant to obscure its motive of silencing any opposition to the mainstream narrative of both political “sides.”
At its inception, America was intended to be a free and open society, a land of opportunity where common people could freely express their thoughts and ideas, a place where Americans could practice freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly without fear of persecution. Throughout the history of our great nation, brave men and women have fought and died to protect these God-given inalienable rights. That is why the Founding Fathers wrote protections into the Bill of Rights for the generations to come. Thomas Jefferson insisted on the 1st Amendment, and swore upon an altar of God against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.
It is the great wisdom and divine vision of our Founding Fathers that is responsible for propelling America’s trajectory to become the greatest nation on earth, both admired by those inspired by its idea and feared by those who oppose the light of truth it represents.
President Harry S. Truman said:
“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
Our Founding Fathers drafted the Bill of Rights not to protect popular speech or the popular majority, but to protect the rights of the minority, lest they fall silent and all real social progress cease. By attempting to make polarized views inaccessible, you effectively shut down the discussion of ideas born out of the flaws in the current system, creating a two-sided echo chamber that neither enlightens people nor helps society grow.
It prevents people from engaging in quality discourse over any ideology that subjectively may “offend” people on all sides.
This Orwellian tactic represents the wishes of citizens on either side of the aisle, but perfectly captures the profit-driven motive behind the corporate stance. That no opinion except the popular view of the moment need be allowed. The popular opinion can be shaped by the controlling interests of the corporation that holds the medium hostage. After all, in a world where lines of division are controlled and silenced, new generations of people being immersed in only an ofGicial narrative will have little other recourse for truly free thought.
We understand that social media is not the government and that companies such as Twitter are private entities. Yet at what point does a private body expand beyond using this excuse to shelter themselves from accountability for their provably suspicious behavior, and enter the realm of being a public service used by billions of people the world over?
Twitter is not just a messaging board. After all, it aggregates news, offers content suggestions based on meticulously created algorithms that track a person’s every click. It is designed to create and maintain echo chambers and censor out any offending opinions. This creates a dangerous precedent, especially in terms of abusing its power to shape public opinion along controlling party lines actively.
For example, the very powerful Democratic Congressman, Adam Schiff, chair of the Congressional Intelligence Community, wrote a letter to the top social media platforms, urging them to censor discussions of vaccine injuries, which certainly do occur. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid out over $4 billion for vaccine injuries since its inception in December 1987. Yes, there are those who, in misplaced zeal, offer opinions less than worthy of note. Still, there should never be a point where a multi-billion dollar corporation steps in and removes people’s ability to actively discuss issues like this on either side of the aisle. Healthy discussion, after all, is what leads to progress, spurs forward innovation, and motivates accountability across the board.
President John F. Kennedy said:
“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.“
By their very nature, social media platforms have become the dominant platform in the exchange of information and ideas. Technology’s inexorable march into the Digital Age has created a connected world, a communications platform without peer or precedent. Whether by design or not, social media has become the largest and most powerful public forum on the planet. As you duly noted in your testimony, Twitter and other platforms have created a true “global public square.”
Why would any American-based platforms intentionally design their rules or weight their “community standards” toward one group of views over another, in direct conflict with the protections of the 1st Amendment of the United States? Any “community standard” practices less than or not equal to the 1st Amendment standards would essentially be unAmerican, wouldn’t it?
In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized (in a unanimous opinion) that social media platforms are the most important platforms for the exchange of information and ideas. That is why so many people, government officials, human rights agencies, and activists are working around the clock to protect “equal and fair” access to social media for all of the people, even if someone’s ideas are unpopular or controversial.
The more profound question then becomes: With evidence mounting to support the fact that censorship not only occurs but often leans toward the moderator’s individual biases or those few interests who control the moderator, at what point do we look at the equation and note the collusion that takes shape? What begins to appear out of the murky water of legalese excuses is a distinct pattern of systematic control exercised by a few interests who can weight and shape the landscape of public opinion with a dangerous amount of unchecked power.
The fact is, that for all the excuses put forward, the lies given to not just the American People, but the citizens of the global community at large, the provability of censorship to a startling degree is not only easy to see, but can be identified with cold sets of data, and be recreated and shown to the masses.
Pursuant to the above, I, Jason Sullivan (aka “The Wizard of Twitter”), along with Bill Binney (former NSA Lead Technical Director and developer of its surveillance metadata program Thin Thread) hereby challenge you, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, that your company systematically and aggressively censor “free speech” on your ubiquitous platform concerning the following three criteria.
1. Twitter shadowbans ( including “deboosting” people and hiding their words to more substantial audiences “based on larger political success of their corporate ideology.
2. Twitter censors religious and medical freedoms that subvert human rights. (while promulgating some alarming content that Gits their broader agenda.)
3. Twitter removes and physically deplatforms voices that challenge its views and ideology while lifting similar content; it deems in line with its own goals.
We are intent on proving these facts beyond a shadow of a doubt and are fully prepared to do so.