I hope this illustrates the rationale behind our actions, and demonstrates our ability to take feedback, admit mistakes, and make changes, all transparently to the public. We acknowledge there are still concerns around how we moderate content, and specifically our use of §230.

Three weeks ago we proposed three solutions to address the concerns raised, and they all focus on services that decide to moderate or remove content. They could be expansions to §230, new legislative frameworks, or a commitment to industry-wide self-regulation best practices.

Requiring 1) moderation process and practices to be published, 2) a straightforward process to appeal decisions, and 3) best efforts around algorithmic choice, are suggestions to address the concerns we all have going forward. And they all are achievable in short order.

Finally, before I close, I wanted to share some reflections on what we saw during the US Presidential election. We focused on addressing attempts to undermine civic integrity, providing informative context, and product changes to encourage greater consideration.

We updated our civic integrity policy to address misleading or disputed information that undermines confidence in the election, causes voter intimidation or suppression or confusion about how to vote, or misrepresents affiliation or election outcomes.

More than a year ago, the public asked us to offer additional context to help make potentially misleading information more apparent. We did exactly that, applying labels to over 300k tweets from Oct 27-Nov 11, which represented 0.2% of all US election-related tweets.

We also changed how our product works in order to help increase context and encourage more thoughtful consideration before tweets are shared broadly. We’re continuing to assess the impact of these product changes to inform our long term roadmap.

Thank you for the time, and I look forward to a productive discussion focused on solutions.

Terrible idea! And terribly false.

Welcome!