jackಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿದ ಖಾತೆ

Agree w all of this. Our early values informed our rules. We likely over-rotated on one value, & then let the rules react to rapidly changing circumstances (some we helped create). We need to root these values in human rights law. A starting consideration: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html …https://twitter.com/davidakaye/status/1027588269591027712 …

Thank you, Will. We will keep this conversation open and public.https://twitter.com/puzzlesthewill/status/1027626923004977152 …

More context on why our rules are currently where they are and how we’re thinking about evolving them.https://twitter.com/delbius/status/1027337799974809600 …

Thank you Emily. Proud to work for an open company not afraid to speak up and push us all forward. Someday maybe we can have most of our conversations debates and disagreements right here on Twitter for everyone to see.https://twitter.com/emilyjhorne/status/1027288279627063296 …

Some fair points here. We certainly have a lot of work to do to help journalists do their jobs better. That’s our intent. Help with reach, balance, and economic incentives. We’re behind on those last two. Shouldn’t take away from skepticism and critical thinking tho.https://twitter.com/jeffjarvis/status/1027283366520020995 …

Definitely not happy with where our policies are. They need to constantly evolve. Doing that work. Thanks for the thoughtful tweets and push, Mikehttps://twitter.com/mikecvet/status/1027233395942744064 …

Relying on algorithms alone will not work. Not today, not tomorrow. And we know providing broader reach isn’t enough. We need to figure out how to help with economic incentives too. We’re behind on that, but thinking deeply about it. Open to great and scalable ideas.

One of the most important constituencies we serve is our journalist population. Has been since day 1. We don’t mean to shift the work here. We must build tools to help (and need to work together to do that). We can’t be a useful service without the integrity journalists bring.https://twitter.com/jack/status/1026984249960755200 …

Accounts like Jones' can often sensationalize issues and spread unsubstantiated rumors, so it’s critical journalists document, validate, and refute such information directly so people can form their own opinions. This is what serves the public conversation best.

If we succumb and simply react to outside pressure, rather than straightforward principles we enforce (and evolve) impartially regardless of political viewpoints, we become a service that’s constructed by our personal views that can swing in any direction. That’s not us.

Truth is we’ve been terrible at explaining our decisions in the past. We’re fixing that. We’re going to hold Jones to the same standard we hold to every account, not taking one-off actions to make us feel good in the short term, and adding fuel to new conspiracy theories.

We didn’t suspend Alex Jones or Infowars yesterday. We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified.

The