StMU Research Scholars

Featuring Scholarly Research, Writing, and Media at St. Mary’s University

November 1, 2020

The Political Involvement of Twitter

On September 5, 2018, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, was set to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee in Washington DC regarding Twitter’s platform being used for meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election. Dorsey entered the Dirksen Senate Office Building hearing room, where people were frantically moving around. There were dozens of cameras directly in front of the witness table getting all angles of his entrance and seating. The room was very tense as Dorsey and Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, sat down in anticipation of the hearing. The entire time, the executives had photojournalists swarming them with their cameras, filming their every move. Suspense in the room developed further as Chairman Richard Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner shook hands with Dorsey and Sandberg. They then began the hearing with a few words from the Chairman discussing the grounds of hearing, and then each executive made opening remarks.

Jack Dorsey shaking hands with Chairman Richard Burr and Vice Chairman Mark Warner before the Senate hearing began | Courtesy of The Verge

As the hearing began, Chairman Burr stated that the purpose of the hearing was to inquire into Russia’s use of  social media in 2016 in its attempt to “interfere in U.S. elections and those of [their] allies,” based on the report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee.1 In his opening statement, Dorsey then explained,

“Twitter prioritizes identifying suspicious account activity, such as exceptionally high-volume Tweeting with the same hashtag or mentioning the same @handle without a reply from the account being addressed, and requires an individual using the platform to confirm control. Twitter has also increased its use of challenges intended to catch automated accounts, such as reCAPTCHAs, that require individuals to identify portions of an image or type in words displayed on screen, and password reset requests that protect potentially compromised accounts. Twitter is also in the process of implementing mandatory email or cell phone verification for all new accounts.”2

This statement began the hearing with Dorsey claiming a new transparency for his company, and an explanation of what the company has done in response to the claims of political meddling.

The tension began to build as Vice Chairman Warner questioned Dorsey on whether there was evidence in either the Russian context or any recent disruptions that the new policies on ad transparency had helped stop foreign purchases of political ads on the platform. Dorsey calmly responded, stating, “In some cases, our new transparency requirements go further than the draft legislation—for example, by requiring transparency for all advertisers regardless of topic, and by committing to the inclusion of advertisements for candidates on state and local levels.”3 Warner also questioned Dorsey on how his company would identify and stop misuse of their platform after having failed to have done so in the past. To this, Dorsey stated,

“In August, we removed approximately 50 accounts misrepresenting themselves as members of various state Republican parties. We have also taken action on Tweets sharing media regarding elections and political issues with misleading or incorrect party affiliation information…Twitter is committed to protecting the integrity of elections. We have made recent improvements to three critical areas of our election integrity efforts: (1) Updates to the Twitter Rules (2) Detection and Enforcement; and (3) Product Improvements.”4

The advancements to their rules and policies as a company demonstrate how they were listening and responding to complaints and issues that the platform was facing. To maintain currency on the platform, they would be continually coming out with new features so that users would be able to stay informed and see the best content first. Dorsey explained that they have learned to react more quickly and prevent such abuse of its platform in the future, so that the company would not be under fire for political meddling.

Graph showing the Fake news on Twitter before, during, and after the 2016 Presidential election | Courtesy of Science

Democrats and Republicans think very differently about Twitter and the risk/reward it poses for politics. In 2018, the Democrats believed that the platform needed to be patrolled better, but that conservative voices were trying to manipulate the situation to benefit their party in elections. The Democrats believed that no changes needed to be made to the platform as information was being presented equally to users, and voices were not being censored. Republicans strongly believed that the company was strongly biased against their political party and its representatives. Representatives Jim Jordan and James Sensenbrenner wrote in a letter written to Dorsey, “Twitter’s discrimination against conservative voices is extremely alarming. These actions give rise to concerns that the company is systematically engaged in the disparate treatment of political speech and is deceiving users of the platform by not uniformly applying its terms of service.”5 They expressed their concerns particularly for the platform’s actions and treatment towards Donald Trump. Journalist Paul Sperry stated that “Federal records reveal 80 percent of Twitter’s corporate PAC contributions in the 2018 election cycle have gone to Democratic candidates, none of whom are moderates. Liberal Democrats also got top dollar in the 2016 race” which can further explain the conservative bias within the platform.6 These Republicans raised concerns about the integrity of the company and whether the accusations they raised were correct that Twitter was manipulating information that it was presenting to its users.

Within the hearing, there were Senators from differing political backgrounds making the conversations within the hearing multisided. There was strong pushback from the Democratic Senators, because they believed that the Republicans were manipulating the situation to their benefit by saying their voices were being censored. They believed that in saying this, the conservative voices would have priority leading to a political advantage when using the platform. The notion that social media platforms were intentionally choosing what political content would be displayed was stressed by “Representative Mike Doyle, a Democrat of Pennsylvania, [who] accused Republicans of sounding the alarm of bias for political gain.”7 The Democratic voices were more concerned about the political meddling from outside countries than the potential bias of U.S. presidential candidates and parties. That bias is what conservative voices raised as curbing their right to speak and their freedom of political representation, due to their censorship on Twitter. Consequently, liberals replied that there was no bias and that if the platform were to change, they would become disadvantaged in being able to voice their opinions. Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, said, “We wouldn’t be having this discussion if there wasn’t a general agreement that your company had discriminated against conservatives.”8 This stressed the methods the platform uses to recommend and promote specific accounts and tweets for users to follow. Throughout the hearing, there was emphasis from the Republican voices that the algorithms on the platform suppressed the voices and views of conservative individuals and parties.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey responding to questions from Representatives at the 2018 Senate hearing | Courtesy of The Verge

In response to the Republican accusations, Dorsey repeatedly stated that Twitter did not exhibit any bias towards conservative voices on the platform. Dorsey clarified in his testimony, stating, “Our responsibility is to understand, measure, and reduce accidental bias due to factors such as the quality of the data used to train our algorithms.”9 He stated at the hearing, “I do believe there is growing concern around power that companies like ours hold…People do see us as a digital public square and that comes with certain expectations.”10 As a response to the claims of favoritisms towards tweets that aligned with their personal values, Dorsey stated, “Looking at the data, we analyzed tweets sent by all members of the House and Senate, and found no statistically significant difference between the number of times a tweet by a Democrat is viewed versus a Republican, even after our ranking and filtering of tweets has been applied.”11

Republican Senator Lankford jumped in asking how third parties that can access the company’s data do not violate the company’s terms of use. Dorsey answered,

“Those to whom we grant access to our APIs are prohibited from using the data to manipulate conversations or otherwise abuse the data. Between April and June 2018 alone we removed more than 143,000 applications that we determined to be in violation of our developer policies… In July 2018, we introduced a new measure designed to increase developers’ accountability for applications that create and engage with Twitter content and accounts. Twitter now reviews and conducts compliance checks of all developers’ stated use of the data that they wish to access.”12

Representative Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican, asked to better understand how the company decided to suspend or ban users from the service and how it ensured that there wasn’t any bias in doing so. Dorsey was asked to address online election meddling and conservative censorship. Republicans accused Twitter of being politically biased against conservatives due to the suppression of their tweets. From his written testimony, Dorsey said that Twitter “does not use political ideology to make any decisions,” and “We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially,” and “In fact, from a simple business perspective and to serve the public conversation, Twitter is incentivized to keep all voices on the platform.”13

As the hearing concluded, Dorsey explained that their focus would be about improving the overall health of Twitter, as it was their top priority. The platform would add a political conversation dashboard that would “evaluate the integrity of political conversations on the platform in the aggregate, focusing primarily (but not exclusively) on elections in the United States in the near term.”14 They wanted to maintain integrity in the information that users were seeing by having political-candidate verification so that individuals running for office would be easily recognizable. Dorsey continually stressed throughout the hearing that they were committed to being transparent and accountable with users as well as having collaborations with other social media platforms. He admitted that Twitter needed to improve its process of detecting fake accounts and notifying users. Based on the hearing, senators made it clear that regulations would come in the future. Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, then stated, “Congress is going to have to take action here…the era of the Wild West in social media is coming to an end.”15 This left the hearing somewhat open-ended, due to the concerning level of control these companies have over Congress. There will need to be more severe actions in the future, if there is the desire to fully control the way political parties and candidates are represented through social media.

Since the hearing in 2018, there have been no significant changes made. The platform followed through with some security measures in removing bots and fake accounts that were meddling in previous elections. On October 28, 2020, Dorsey was set to attend another hearing regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. There were conflicting pressures as the Democrats believed they needed to patrol Twitter more aggressively, and the Republicans think there needs to be a more hands-off approach with political speech on the platform. “The incidents have galvanized a new drive on Capitol Hill to rethink Section 230, as well as a slew of legislative proposals that might open the door for the government to hold Facebook, Google, and Twitter liable for their decisions about what to allow and prohibit online. Mark Zuckerberg (CEO of Facebook), Sundar Pichai (CEO of Alphabet), and Dorsey each sought to defend Section 230, arguing it is what allows them to keep their platforms open to expression.”16 This is particularly relevant to the 2020 Presidential election and the potential political bias against one or both parties. This situation is far from resolved in terms of powerful tech companies like Twitter being intertwined with Congress. Dorsey is set to testify on November 17, 2020, which is where some sort of resolution may be reached.

  1.  Abby Vesoulis and Abigail Simon, “Here’s Who Found That Russia Meddled in the 2016 Election,” July 2018, Time (online), https://time.com/5340060/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-summit-russia-meddling/.
  2. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Foreign Influence Operations Using Social Media, September 17, 2018, Questions for the Record for Mr. Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer, Twitter. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Twitter%20Questions%20for%20the%20Record.pdf.
  3. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Foreign Influence Operations Using Social Media, September 17, 2018, Questions for the Record for Mr. Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer, Twitter. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Twitter%20Questions%20for%20the%20Record.pdf.
  4. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Foreign Influence Operations Using Social Media, September 17, 2018, Questions for the Record for Mr. Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer, Twitter. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Twitter%20Questions%20for%20the%20Record.pdf.
  5. Reuters Staff, “Republicans Renew Complaints Twitter Stifles President, Conservatives,” July 2020, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump-republicans/republicans-renew-complaints-twitter-stifles-president-conservatives-idUSKBN24937F.
  6. Paul Sperry, “Twitter is run by Democratic Donors and Activists,” August 2018, New York Post, https://nypost.com/2018/08/04/how-twitter-is-fueling-the-democratic-agenda/.
  7. Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang, “Republicans Accuse Twitter of Bias Against Conservatives,” September 2018, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/lawmakers-facebook-twitter-foreign-influence-hearing.html.
  8. Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang, “Republicans Accuse Twitter of Bias Against Conservatives,” September 2018, New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/lawmakers-facebook-twitter-foreign-influence-hearing.html.
  9. United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Testimony of Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer Twitter, Inc. September 5, 2018. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jdorsey-090518.pdf.
  10. Cecilia Kang, et.al., “Twitter’s Dorsey Avoids Taking Sides in Partisan House Hearing,” September 2018, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/facebook-twitter-congress.html.
  11. Cecilia Kang, et.al.,” Twitter’s Dorsey Avoids Taking Sides in Partisan House Hearing,” September 2018, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/technology/facebook-twitter-congress.html.
  12.  Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: Hearing on Foreign Influence Operations Using Social Media, September 17, 2018, Questions for the Record for Mr. Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer, Twitter. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Twitter%20Questions%20for%20the%20Record.pdf.
  13. Sara Salinas, “Jack Dorsey to Congress: ‘Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions,’” September 4, 2018, CNBC online, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/04/jack-dorsey-to-congress-full-written-testimony-on-political-bias.html.
  14. United States House Committee on Energy and Commerce: Testimony of Jack Dorsey, Chief Executive Officer Twitter, Inc. September 5, 2018. https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jdorsey-090518.pdf.
  15. Tony Romm and Craig Timberg, “Facebook and Twitter Testified Before Congress. Conservative Conspiracy Theorists Lurked Behind Them,” September 2018, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/09/05/facebook-twitter-sandberg-dorsey-congress-tech-hearings/.
  16. Tony Romm, et.al., “Facebook, Google, Twitter CEOs clash with Congress in pre-election showdown,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/28/twitter-facebook-google-senate-hearing-live-updates/.

Tags from the story

Jack Dorsey

Twitter

Recent Comments

Pedro Lugo Borges

I like how non-partisan you were in your article. You showed the reasoning and beliefs of both sides and not focus on a single one. Its interesting to think as the COO of these tech companies to be called into court for meddling in the elections must be both a ludicrous idea to them and a terrifying one. I like how you talked about how conservatives feel like there being censored as that’s what a lot of young republicans are flocking to so called “alternative media”.

reply

01/11/2020

8:49 am

Alicia Martinez

The power of Twitter and other social media platforms is completely influential on the way politics operate in today’s world. Although I think that both Democratic and Republican concerns about the biased voices on the platform, I do not think that Twitter is at fault for the tweets sent by members. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey admitted that the faults within Twitters program was the lack of security with fake accounts and notifying users of false information. However, the algorithm used to show members content related to their profiles history does not violate the platforms integrity based on an impartial political attitude. This article shed light on the significance social media has on our society, especially when considering a political election.

reply

01/11/2020

8:49 am

Emmett Pena

What I really liked about this article was the description of how the whole situation of Twitter among congress and the specifics of what was happening. Twitter is one of the most influential platforms in today’s society since so many people, especially those of Gen Z, gather their news about what is going on in the world. It is important to know that such a popular site is fair to both sides and not biased towards a specific demographic of people.

reply

01/11/2020

8:49 am

Diego Oviedo

This article was very interesting and I enjoyed how it offered plenty of information about the topic. It’s interesting how twitter is the basis and go to for anything political and how twitters platform is highly involved in politics. It makes one wonder if the involvement of social media is either a good thing or a bad thing when it comes to politicians and the government.

reply

02/11/2020

8:49 am

Alexis Lopez

This article was a great read and provided a lot of information about the case on Twitter being involved with the meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election. I for some reason don’t even remember this happening but the information that was provided really helped me understand what had happen and how persuading and influencing social media is in general. Overall this article really opened my eyes to see how much Twitter is being used in a political platform and being able to see the influence it has on this generation.

reply

05/11/2020

8:49 am

Bailey Godwin

This article is very well written and informative. I found it very interesting how much social media has an influence on big issues such as politics. I really like how it shows all perspectives and points of view such as Democratic and Republican. We see how influential social media can be and it was very eye opening how so many people get their news from apps like Twitter.

reply

05/11/2020

8:49 am

Ricky Moreno

I enjoyed the article especially because it did not defend either side. The fact of the matter is that when you have such a level of “control” or “influence” (I use those terms loosely) over a massive number of people like Twitter does it’s almost inevitable that the government will step in. We’re seeing this now as Dorsey and Zuckerberg are in court over allegedly suppressing an article from the masses. In my opinion the whole situation is a mess and neither side will come out as the “winner”. The government will either impose strict regulations on social media and hinder their operation or let them go which would cause huge and accumulating outrage until they are pushed into court again. This is a very complex issue, and this article did a good job at explaining the core concepts of it.

reply

08/11/2020

8:49 am

Rhys Kennedy

Given the recent election along with just the political history that social media has had in just the recent years this is a very important article and topic to discuss. The article was very good at staying non-biased while presenting a lot of information.

reply

10/11/2020

8:49 am

Alyssa Ramos

This was a well-written topic that did not favor one party over the other. It offered plenty of information from both sides of the political spectrum and really showed how Twitter is used for politics. Especially now with a president who constantly uses Twitter and other political officials, it really shows how politics have become an issue on a platform. There is nothing wrong with stating your beliefs as long as it’s factual information and not bashing those against your opinions.

reply

10/11/2020

8:49 am

Janaya Felder

What an information packed article! Its so interesting to learn the behind the scenes of such big platforms. With so many users on them, it’s sometimes easy to forget the ones in charge of what goes on in the space. Politics are such a big concern on social media and hopefully we can reach a point where someone can share facts without beating someone else over the head for not sharing the same ideas.

reply

12/11/2020

8:49 am

1 2 3

Leave a Reply