House Majority Leader Demands Jack Dorsey Testify On Twitter "Shadowbans"

After months of rumored Twitter "shadowbans" on conservative accounts were finally confirmed by VICE  and other publications, the GOP is taking action ahead of midterms.

Axios reports that House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter Thursday to Greg Walden, the chairman of a powerful House committee, to ask that he publicly grill Twitter chief executive Jack Dorsey over recent allegations that the platform limits the reach of some conservative accounts.

“Any solution to this problem must start with accountability from companies like Twitter, whose platforms have enormous potential to impact the national conversation — and unfortunately, enormous potential for abuse,” McCarthy said in the letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden.

“In particular, I would like to request a hearing with Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey so that the American people can learn more about the filtering and censorship practices on his platform.”

Full Letter below:

McCarthy, who has worked on tech issues for years, has pressured social media companies over the way they treat conservatives in recent months. McCarthy and other Republican leaders met with Facebook staffers in June over their concerns, and as recently as last month McCarthy was running ads on Facebook inviting supporters to join him “and President Trump in defending our conservative voice against social media censoring," according to the platform's public database of political ads.

This action follows Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against Twitter after he discovered that his account was being 'shadowbanned' - the practice of excluding or reducing the visibility of one's tweets from normal circulation on the platform.

Then last Friday, Twitter issued a strange explanation to "set the record straight," in response to growing outrage over the practice of "shadow banning" conservatives, as confirmed last week by the liberal publication VICE and promptly tweeted about by President Trump, where they explicitly state that they do not engage in the practice - except then they describe how they do exactly that

"People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”

The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster." -Twitter 

Then, Twitter reiterates they don't shadow ban - with the caveat in parentheses that you may need to go directly to the timeline of some users in order to see their tweets. (tee hee!)

"We do not shadow ban. You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology." -Twitter 

In other words, Twitter says they don't shadow ban - it's just that tweets from people you follow may never appear unless you click directly into their timeline.

Source: Ben Garrison

The problem Jack Dorsey is going to have if and when he faces his grilling is,  as we detailed previously, Twitter's own employees admitted to the practice in a January undercover exposé, after investigative journalists with Project Veritas went undercover in San Francisco, Twitter's hometown. 

In one clip, a former Twitter software engineer who explains how/why Twitter "shadow bans" certain users:

Abhinav Vadrevu:  "One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don't know they've been banned, because they keep posting but no one sees their content."

"So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it. I don't know if Twitter does this anymore."

Then there was Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

In the full video, Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Nora explains that Twitter doesn't have an official written policy that targets conservative speech, but rather they were following "unwritten rules from the top":

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state.You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

Meanwhile, Pranay Singh reveals again just how creepy Twitter can be by digging into your profile and conversation history to determine whether or not you're a "redneck" and therefore worthy of being banned:

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

Brad Parscale, along with Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, wrote a letter in May calling for the CEOs of Facebook and Twitter to address concerns over conservative censorship ahead of the 2020 election, as well as a call for transparency.

"We recognize that Facebook and Twitter operate in liberal corporate cultures," the letter reads.

"However, rampant political bias is inappropriate for a widely used public forum."


wee-weed up el buitre Thu, 08/02/2018 - 23:35 Permalink

Hell yeah, I want to hear him explain why...

The new NYT ultra-racist hire, Sarah Jeong...

Was allowed to spout all her vile...

Anti-white hate on Twitter...

Without being banned.

Their excuse for shadow-banning...

Conservative groups was because of what they...

Said was racist hate speech.


Sounds rather hypocritical to me.

In reply to by el buitre

wolf pup truthseeker47 Fri, 08/03/2018 - 02:10 Permalink

I watched Charlie Gasparino on FOX’s StayPufft’s- - er, Neil Cavuto show a few days ago, stating that “GOP members complained and Twitter responded right away. And they fixed it. Shadowbanning doesn’t happen anymore. Twitter fixed it. So that’s over now.”

Gasbagarino: an idiot; a suck up company man, and a tool of globalists everywhere. 

In reply to by truthseeker47

Oliver Klozoff vaporland Thu, 08/02/2018 - 20:40 Permalink

Couldn't agree more, the whole social networking thing smelled like a trap when I first observed it in action.

Don't like being censored? Then don't use their fukin crap.

The exception being of course, youtube which grown well beyond the bounds of a private industry and is now in the domain of a public utility. Make it so Mr. Trump.

In reply to by vaporland

Endgame Napoleon Krink26 Thu, 08/02/2018 - 21:18 Permalink

For the older and less trendy set, it is harder to parlay that sort of thing into a long-term position at the Times or any other media company. They will fire you for age-related reasons, using racism as an excuse, while applying that standard very unevenly in a way that exempts minorities and younger people in general. It seems to be even worse in the broadcast media. 


  • Jimmy the Greek 
  • Paula Dean
  • Rosanne Barr


In reply to by Krink26

VWAndy Thu, 08/02/2018 - 20:14 Permalink

 Make them all state their guidelines and then hold um to it. If they wont comply snatch their FCC license. Simple stuff really.

 All I need is a level field. Truth and love works just fine on anything close to a level field.  

Endgame Napoleon VWAndy Thu, 08/02/2018 - 21:24 Permalink

Whatever happened to professionalism and propriety? Whatever happened to putting the public interest first? Skin pigmentation and other issues unrelated to the work should not be the focus of the reporting. Nor should the reporter’s personal life. Nor should the personal lives of politicians. But in this case, she’ll get more clicks, making more money for the Times, due to this ginned-up controversy, which could be the whole point. 

In reply to by VWAndy

Not Too Important Thu, 08/02/2018 - 20:16 Permalink

Beware Congress getting involved in First Amendment issues. If they can force them to push conservative content, the next Democratic congress can just as well turn it all off - just call it all 'Hate Speech'.

Gab would go through the roof if Trump simply posted his tweets to both platforms, and anyone else with a serious Twitter alternative. But he doesn't.



Endgame Napoleon Yogizuna Thu, 08/02/2018 - 21:33 Permalink

All these sites control their content. Really, newspapers always did, too, but bigger cities had a liberal newspaper and a conservative alternative. The broadcast news is more centralized, making it easier to impose a fairness doctrine. With these internet companies, it seems like the search engine is the element that needs to be fair, letting the searcher choose which site s/he goes to, rather than suggesting content from one side or the other, although the search engine conforms to your search preferences through the AI or whatever. And some people say they use sites like FB and Twitter as search engines. Tech issues are more complex than the broadcast media issues.

In reply to by Yogizuna

G-R-U-N-T Thu, 08/02/2018 - 20:34 Permalink

The guy seems to be part of the cesspool, from the anti-American ungrateful tribe, and to think, that we the people, allowed him the freedom to become whatever he chose to be in this great country, only to have him shit all over Constitution, American Flag, and our great warrior's who fought, were wounded and those who died so he could have his liberty! 

Go ahead and make your declaration in front of the committee like Zuckerberg, let's see what your made of!

G-R-U-N-T koan Thu, 08/02/2018 - 22:24 Permalink

I have't much of a problem with arrogance, however pitying our great country and it's current action based leadership is pathetic. The guy may be worth 5 billion, good for him, indeed, here we have someone that is brilliant in an area but dumb as fence post in other's.  

In reply to by koan