The employee notes, later in the day, "And Will Oremus noticed the inconsistency too...," linking to an article for OneZero at Medium called, "Facebook Chucked Its Own Rulebook to Ban Trump."

https://onezero.medium.com/facebook-chucked-its-own-rulebook-to-ban-trump-ecc036947f5d

Join: The Twitter Files

"The underlying problem," writes Will Oremus , is that “the dominant platforms have always been loath to own up to their subjectivity, because it highlights the extraordinary, unfettered power they wield over the global public square...

Join: The Twitter Files

"... and places the responsibility for that power on their own shoulders… So they hide behind an ever-changing rulebook, alternately pointing to it when it’s convenient and shoving it under the nearest rug when it isn’t.”

Join: The Twitter Files

“Facebook’s suspension of Trump now puts Twitter in an awkward position. If Trump does indeed return to Twitter, the pressure on Twitter will ramp up to find a pretext on which to ban him as well.”

Indeed. And as Bari Weiss will show tomorrow, that’s exactly what happened.

/END

Join: The Twitter Files

1. On the morning of January 8, President Donald Trump, with one remaining strike before being at risk of permanent suspension from Twitter, tweets twice.

Join: The Twitter Files

2. 6:46 am: “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”

Join: The Twitter Files

3. 7:44 am: “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.”

Join: The Twitter Files

4. For years, Twitter had resisted calls both internal and external to ban Trump on the grounds that blocking a world leader from the platform or removing their controversial tweets would hide important information that people should be able to see and debate.

Join: The Twitter Files

5. “Our mission is to provide a forum that enables people to be informed and to engage their leaders directly,” the company wrote in 2019. Twitter’s aim was to “protect the public’s right to hear from their leaders and to hold them to account.”

https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2019/worldleaders2019

Join: The Twitter Files

6. But after January 6, as we have documented, pressure grew, both inside and outside of Twitter, to ban Trump.

Join: The Twitter Files

7. There were dissenters inside Twitter.

“Maybe because I am from China,” said one employee on January 7, “I deeply understand how censorship can destroy the public conversation.”

Join: The Twitter Files

8. But voices like that one appear to have been a distinct minority within the company. Across Slack channels, many Twitter employees were upset that Trump hadn’t been banned earlier.

Join: The Twitter Files

9. After January 6, Twitter employees organized to demand their employer ban Trump. “There is a lot of employee advocacy happening,” said one Twitter employee.

Join: The Twitter Files

10. “We have to do the right thing and ban this account,” said one staffer.

It’s “pretty obvious he’s going to try to thread the needle of incitement without violating the rules,” said another.

Join: The Twitter Files

11. In the early afternoon of January 8, The Washington Post published an open letter signed by over 300 Twitter employees to CEO Jack Dorsey demanding Trump’s ban. “We must examine Twitter’s complicity in what President-Elect Biden has rightly termed insurrection.”

Join: The Twitter Files

12. But the Twitter staff assigned to evaluate tweets quickly concluded that Trump had *not* violated Twitter’s policies.“I think we’d have a hard time saying this is incitement,” wrote one staffer.

Join: The Twitter Files

13. “It's pretty clear he's saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from Wednesday.”

Join: The Twitter Files

14. Another staffer agreed: “Don’t see the incitement angle here.”

Join: The Twitter Files

15. “I also am not seeing clear or coded incitement in the DJT tweet,” wrote Anika Navaroli, a Twitter policy official. “I’ll respond in the elections channel and say that our team has assessed and found no vios”—or violations—“for the DJT one.”

Join: The Twitter Files

16. She does just that: “as an fyi, Safety has assessed the DJT Tweet above and determined that there is no violation of our policies at this time.”

Join: The Twitter Files