Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign manager, Brad Parscale, speaks out against Jack Dorsey and Twitter’s anti-conservative bias in a new op-ed that calls for the platform to “fix its act.”
In an op-ed for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Parscale calls for an “enforcer” for Twitter that will ensure conservative voices are not silenced, and suggests if the company does not fix its bias against conservatives, the company should have its privileges taken away.
Twitter has a proven record of shadowbanning conservatives, a sneaky way to ensure their content isn’t seen by others. While Twitter’s shadowbanning has often been the focus of controversy surrounding the platform, the social media giant’s bias is far more evident in whom it bans outright — and whom it doesn’t ban at all.
Right-wing voices who have received temporary or permanent bans include Sheriff David Clarke, British activist Tommy Robinson, CTRV host Gavin McInnes, Turning Point USA activist Candace Owens and InfoWars host Alex Jones.
Parscale explains that these conservatives were banned by Twitter for ‘inciting violence,’ and ‘hateful content,’ while progressive users can post “vile, violent and hateful” tweets on the platform without punishment.
There is clearly an imbalance in the way Twitter applies its rules. The enforcer clearly needs an enforcer.
The source of Twitter’s bias problem was highlighted by Dorsey’s own testimony. “Twitter is committed to … hold ourselves publicly accountable towards progress,” Dorsey said, noting that nothing is removed “unless we have determined … [it] violates Twitter policies.”
So the problem isn’t the algorithms — it’s the people managing them, most of whom are left-wing and believe “progress” means the extinction of conservative ideas.
Parscale explains that Twitter is protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which means the platform is free from legal liability for content posted by its users.
Though Section 230 reserves the right of websites to remove content they find “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” the increasing trend of tech giants classifying half of the country’s political beliefs as obscene or objectionable undermines the reasoning that gave them Section 230 protections in the first place. Congress is well within its rights to remove those protections from social media platforms that choose one political side and promote a clear political message.
Twitter is exercising editorial control of its content. And if Twitter is acting like a normal publisher, it should be treated like one. If Twitter wants to maintain its status as a forum for “true diversity of political discourse,” then it must start acting like one.
Parscale adds that if Twitter does not “fix its act,” but remains protected by Section 230, “it may need to be overseen by an independent entity to ensure conservative voices with which Jack Dorsey and his company disagree aren’t being silenced.” If this does not happen, Parscale believes the platform should “lose its privileges — and be held legally responsible for every vile, hateful, racist tweet its legions of liberal users are allowed to publish every day.”