Ethical Virus

Ethical twitter

Twitter is in the business of free speech. That's its product. It provides a broadcasting platform for millions of people worldwide — some 140 million monthly users by Twitter's own count. Twitter famously publishes government data requests, and positions itself as the voice of freedom in oppressed nations.

But now Twitter's position as a free-speech leader is in jeopardy. Twitter has a serious censorship problem on its hands, and how it acts to fix it will reveal much about the company's future. Because Twitter doesn't just find itself in the middle of a PR problem. The company's current predicament demonstrates that its core service conflicts with its own attempts to become a larger media player.

When news broke that Twitter had suspended journalist Guy Adams' account for violating its privacy rules by tweeting the email address of NBC executive Gary Zenkel, it sent shock waves across the Twitter community. (The account has subsequently been restored but only, apparently, because NBC withdrew its request.) Adams was protesting NBC's coverage of the Olympic Games. Twitter has a partnership with NBC. It even opened a special office in Colorado to work with NBC on its Olympics coverage. That looks like a conflict of interest, and many cried foul, but Twitter was ostensibly just following its own rules.
Twitter's policy is to automatically comply when someone files a ticket alleging a privacy rules violation, and then works with the user whose account was suspended to bring it back online. That's a good policy to stop harassment or abuse — unless the policy itself is abused, which it seems NBC may have done. But even in that case, if the account can be brought quickly back, there's little permanent harm done.
Today, however, the Telegraph reported that, according to Christopher McCloskey, NBC Sports vice president of communications (and as Twitter itself has subsequently confirmed) someone from within Twitter itself contacted NBC proactively, pointed out the tweet, and showed the network how to file a complaint. (Wired has reached out to Twitter for a confirmation on this and the company is still investigating NBC's claims.) That fact makes Twitter's actions an entirely different matter.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Imagine that instead of going after an NBC executive, Adams' target was a dictator. Imagine that Adams tweeted, say, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's email address, along with a call to action to protest his policies. Had Twitter worked back-channel with the Syrian government, showing it how to have Adams' account taken down on a technicality, it would clearly be an indefensible act of censorship. Heads would roll.

But even though the issues at play are smaller when someone criticizes Olympic coverage, Twitter's actions are no more defensible. Especially because Adams broke none of Twitter's rules.

Twitter's rules state that you can't post another person's private and confidential information, and explicitly lists "non-public, personal email addresses." Adams has argued that the email address was already widely available online to anyone who had access to Google.

While there's been some debate about whether the address was "widely" available, or whether a corporate email address can be "private," it was already on the web. That alone should mean that Adams' action was not an offense, because according to Twitter itself, that's all that matters.

Twitter's policy is remarkably clear on this issue. It says in very clear language that "[i]f information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy." This invalidates any argument concerning whether Adams' account should have been taken down.

But the account takedown itself isn't even the biggest issue at play. The big question is, Who contacted NBC and why? Odds are this was not a top-level decision. It was probably the action of someone on the Olympics media team, looking out for a partner, and acting on his or her own. (Twitter has subsequently confirmed it was the Olympics media team that reported the tweet.)

Yet the Adams imbroglio reveals a tension in the company, and gets at the heart of the recent debate about whether Twitter is a technology company or a media company. Media companies by definition want to control the message. Twitter, previously, has assured us that it does not want to control the message — that as long as we do not violate its rules (and Adams very clearly did not) the tweets will flow.

Just because the Adams flare-up revolves around sports on TV, Twitter should take this no less seriously than were it a geopolitical issue. The same principle is at stake: free speech. Although Twitter must comply with local laws, none were broken in this case. Twitter should defend that principle, or abandon it completely. There's no room for middle ground — especially when it involves a corporate partner. Users are right to be distrustful of Twitter after this debacle. Reinstating Guy Adams' account was a good first step, but Twitter needs to go further.
It should start by apologizing to Adams and the greater social community. Then it should explain what happened, and put mechanisms in place to make sure nothing like this happens again in order to reassure its 140 million-plus supporters. (Twitter has since offered an apology and statement that it "will actively work to ensure this does not happen again." The devil, of course, is in the details.)

Oh, and Twitter should fire the bejesus out of whoever contacted NBC. Like, escorted from the building immediately.

It needs to treat the person who gave special favor to NBC no differently than it would treat someone who gives special favors to the Syrian regime. It must stand by its "tweets will flow" stance in every case if it's to demonstrate that it stands for principles, and not just marketing.

Or, it can be a big media player, like its partner, Comcast, which owns NBC.

The bottom line is that Zenkel's email address clearly wasn't previously unpublished. Which means it wasn't a rule violation. Which means this is Twitter's screw up. It broke its own rules. Now it's time to make it right.

Was twitter ethical correct or not?