I’m on Telegram/Minds/GAB/Parler. But mostly Telegram.

UPDATE 2: Gorcenski still disagrees. I recommend Emily picks up a thesaurus. With that said, I hope this video of Emily in Charlottesville on August 11th 2017 helps alleviate doubt.

UPDATE 1: Emily Gorcenski responded. With nothing substantial besides denying being in charge of organizing Charlottesville’s counter protests in August 2017. I have several tweets from Emily stating otherwise: 1.) while denying being an organizer, Gorcenski says they’re part of a “media coordination team” 2.) “I was happy to say, under penalty of law, that all of my organization has been to push nonviolence” 3.) “I met last weekend with a 3%er organizer to ensure non-instigation and non-interference to ensure a peaceful rally.” 4.) “Hi, maybe if you actually talked to me you’d know I am one of the organizers working to protect my community from armed kkk & nazi violence”

_______________________________________________________________________________

(BTC: 36F8Bxah6NXrGY8k1eHNWUYiqxKdtgWohS)

(Credit to Bloomberg and Christopher Gregory when it comes to the banner photo.)

The same person who was in charge of organizing the August 2017 counter-protest in Charlottesville ended up going on to being at the center of Twitter’s political bias.

Eoin Lenihan wrote an article for Quillette connecting prominent people to Antifa Twitter accounts. I was banned from Twitter around the same time as Eoin. I talked about his findings. I was curious as to whether or not any of the people Eoin mentioned had connections to Twitter staff. Emily Gorcenski does, and then some.

In the past, Emily Gorcenski complained to you about Andy Ngo. He was temporarily suspended recently. Did Emily’s complaints finally pay off? I wish this piece was simply about something specific like that. But we’re going all-in here.

You follow Emily Gorcenski. They follow you, Jack. You’re on the record for helping Gorcenski out. So why do you allow Emily to openly dox while on the platform? Watch this video. You’ll see doxing that VICE brushes over when writing about Emily Gorcenski. They call Gorcenski a data scientist but don’t explore the political jihad Emily inflicts on Twitter. That involves families and kids.

You do not have sufficient freedom levels to view this video. Support free software and upgrade. You do not have sufficient freedom levels to view this video. Support free software and upgrade.

Do some people get immunity?

While I wanted to find proof of my Twitter ban being illegitimate, I stumbled across findings that go against the “sanctity” of Twitter’s rules-making process. I now see that focusing on case-by-case bans led to an impasse. It was the wrong angle. In this article, I’m going to take things a step back and bring the bigger picture of the Big Tech bias conversation into better focus.

I could say my name is Nick Monroe, but it seems to be Josef K. these days. What Twitter is doing to me is ripped straight out of Franz Kafka’s The Trial. Prosecuted by an authority I can’t directly talk to. The exact nature of my “crime” never revealed to me.

My ban needed a SPARK. Something that Twitter Support saw as pressing and dangerous enough that they felt like they needed to act. In the case of Eoin Lenihan, his work allegedly inspired some kind of video that targeted the people he mentioned. Was it because I tweeted about Lenihan’s findings? It came out recently that the video in question had no connection to Quillette. An alleged kill list is a serious matter, of course. I’m not ignoring the significance of that. But with a lack of evidence provided, it’s impossible to assess. What we do know is there was a smear campaign against Lenihan and Quillette. They tried to downplay the connection between people like Gorcenski and Antifa. They tried blaming Andy Ngo. Jared Holt came to the rescue and made a hit piece against Quillette trying to downplay Eoin’s findings from multiple angles. I wonder how he’ll defend Gorcenski’s chronic doxing.

Eoin Lenihan’s reporting stood up to Jared’s particular scrutiny. Even if Eoin himself left a lot to be desired, elsewhere. Cathy Young is much much more even-handed than Jared Holt. I recommend skipping to the July 10th update at the bottom of her piece as example of this. Data is data. While the subject of my article is Gorcenski in particular, I’m more than happy to flesh out the other nodes highlighted by Eoin Lenihan. Kim Kelly being booted from NPR for her “activism” would be a fantastic place to start.

For the sake of this article, I’m going to refer to Emily Gorcenski and Liz Fong-Jones as female and leave at that. If I get wrapped up in a pronouns argument, it’d distract from the point of this piece.

However, in one sense, this does involve the fact that Twitter enacted a policy against “deadnaming” or misgendering transgender people. It was something discussed in the March 2019 Joe Rogan podcast between yourself, Vijaya Gadde, and Tim Pool. Tim provided a passionate argument about how the new rule fundamentally went against people’s political leanings. He was certainly onto something. We know that in how Twitter handled Lindsay Shepherd and Meghan Murphy for getting into heated arguments with Jessica Yaniv. For people who don’t know, Yaniv is the individual who went to court in Canada demanding people wax balls. Their efforts failed.

What we’ll come to find out is how it’s possible for outside forces to influence that.

Now how do I introduce this lovely pair? Gorcenski and Jones are people who openly dox on one hand, and preach diversity on the other.

I know how you hate people who “game the system” of Twitter, Jack. Emily Gorcenski didn’t mind doing that though. “It’s important to report people because after enough times locked Twitter *will* make them go away.”

This reminds me of how Twitter locked my account after reporting on the New Zealand massacre. Nearly a dozen times. Something that I had no prior warning of. What I was talking about was newsworthy. I know because local news talked about my Twitter thread. The same one that’d end up being neutered by your staff. Director of Public Policy Strategy at Twitter, Nick Pickles, even told Congress about Twitter’s reaction to New Zealand after the fact. I had no way of knowing. Twitter wouldn’t even allow me to know in some cases, shadow deleting my tweets when I simply tried to report on difficult events.

Yet in the weeks after this happened, I had people targeting my Twitter account. I know because they DM’ed me to brag about it. Here’s proof what happened. in that case, wasn’t exactly fair.

Why would Emily go after me? I’m a vocal opponent of left-wing extremism. Things like the attack against Andy Ngo and the ICE facility attack. Why would Emily become radicalized? She organized the counter-protest in Charlottesville. You know. The Antifa stuff. The one that ended with the death of Heather Heyer. That was a changing moment in Gorcenski’s life.

“Anyhow, looking forward for him to be surrounded by antifa where we can have civil discourse,” Gorcenski told Richard Spencer. It seems clear to me. FBI even got involved.

Emily Gorcenski denies Antifa even exists, or at least that they’re a member. They admit to being an Anarchist though. “(This is a joke making fun of the Nazi conspiracy theory that antifa is an actual shadow organization with leaders and funding and orders),” is their definition. It’s semantics. To counteract that, here’s Gorcenski calling herself an “Anti-fascist activist.” According to Emily, the term Antifa is shorthand for that. This ain’t rocket science. There ain’t a national Antifa group or shadow organization. Emily ain’t a “commander” or leader of Antifa. However, Gorcenski speaks on Antifa’s behalf. Calls them friends. Uses the label. Says they’re the right side. Admits they’re armed and use force but denies terrorism. Gorcenski helps Antifa spread dox.

Over this past summer, I took the time to confirm Antifa exists.

We’re opposites. While I reported on the stalking and menacing of Tucker Carlson’s family, Emily excused it.

I needed probable cause of some kind to come out with this whole piece. Emily Gorcenski provides it.

“When the Eoin Lenihan situation came up one of the reasons I was so quick and forceful with shutting it down was because I was legitimately worried this would become a thing that Trump became aware of and tweeted about or whatever.”

If Emily’s standard is as loose as Twitter likes, my set-up here is fair game. Emily Gorcenski having access to DMing Jack Dorsey and discuss banning people like Andy Ngo.

Donald Trump Jr. followed me. A lot of high-profile folks did. Jordan Peterson. Pewdiepie. People knew me as someone who could effectively get the news out. I was one of the earliest people promoting Eoin Lenihan’s work. Based on Emily’s tweet, “shutting it down” can easily mean taking both me and Eoin Lenihan off the platform. He tried talking to Gorcenski. She proved difficult to work with.

Back over the summer, when I was freshly banned from Twitter, I spoke to a source that knows you, Dorsey. They know you well enough to speak about the divide between your leadership and employees. Especially as it applies to who you ban, and who you don’t. That is to say, it isn’t out of the question to say a mutiny is possible.

The catalyst that proves the intent of Emily Gorcenski and Liz Fong-Jones is a presentation given at SREcon18 Europe. Liz Fong-Jones is a former Google employee on the record for being racist against white people. Yet for some reason, she and Emily Gorcenski can get a conference room to openly advocate for employees to disobey management.

Watch the video in its entirety. Read the video description. It’s crystal clear.

“Our job as engineers does not stop purely with adherence to Service Level Objectives. A service that does a reliable job of harming people, exacerbating injustices, or excluding marginalized groups is not at all a service worth building and maintaining. Technology is poised to change the world, for good or for ill, and engineers of all kinds share a responsibility to ensure that their work is “for the public good.” We can apply SRE practices to advocate for justice in the products we build and in the broader industries we work in.”

Especially that last line. “Attendees will learn about the parallels between SRE and social activism movements, and how they can advocate for changing their workplaces and the world.”

The whole presentation is based on a chapter in a book called Seeking SRE. Even though this presentation happened in Europe, it represents an overall agenda for Liz Fong-Jones and Emily. Liz Fong-Jones was kind enough to provide a PDF of their slideshow, too.

Do Twitter employees attend these conferences? Yes.

Emily and Liz’s presentation is that it serves as a focal point. Critics of Big Tech bias assert “you can’t PROVE someone’s agenda.” Until now, it seemed like an impossible thing to prove. But that’s exactly what this is. That’s what you’re looking at here. You need to give the PDF a read.

What we have here is basically Emily and Liz injecting politics into the workspace of engineers at Big Tech. Everyone looking for agendas and bias was looking in the wrong places. This presentation entirely proves it. The premise of the whole thing is that Emily and Liz seek to merge internal working conditions with the external product (pg 8 and 9). That is to say, full-on recommending technology not be impartial and working on how to make it politically correct. When the term ethics is brought up, that’s what is meant. In the video presentation, Liz flat-out says “doing good” is impossible as an industry. Now the focus is all about “preventing harm.”

To support their claim, the duo brings up examples like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) software decision-making and Facebook’s potential factor in the Chemnitz protests last year (pg 13/14).

In the video, Liz provides two different examples and casts them into the same net. She says that a Muslim employee being required to build a “Muslim tracking app” to identify people for deportation, is somehow the same as people who work for social media companies and having anti-harassment tools.

There’s a distinction that needs to be made between the video and presentation. In the video, Liz demands the recording gets cut off. They have a slide that shows nobody can film or tweet about this particular portion of their show. But if we follow along in the document Liz herself uploaded, we can see pages 19 and 20 are the missing slides. Presumably. If this sounds hard to follow, I made this clip to show what I’m talking about.

I assume it was some sort of personal moment. Given that one of the missing slides says “we’re tired and need your help.”

I can call this presentation a “handbook” because what Liz and Emily seek to do here is make some kind of movement. In the presentation video, Emily Gorcenski directly makes this a call to action. They go as far as delegating possible roles for people (pg 21), how to react to real-world events (22), and how to operate as groups (23). It’s also suggested that people stop helping law enforcement, especially in the case of political activists (pg 24).

Emily Gorcenski sugarcoats the destructive protests that happened in Washington DC, depicting law enforcement as the bad guys. She says SREs have the capacity to resist cops when the subpoena for records in cases like what happened on Inauguration night.

In the second half of the presentation, Emily and Liz zero in on company culture and the use of industry ethics codes (pg 25/26). They recommend that engineers leverage their jobs to make demands (28). If that doesn’t work, the presentation outlines an escalation process. From tapping into the local unions for back-up (29), or whistleblowing to the media (30).

The only reason I found this in the first place is that Emily Gorcenski mentioned it. In this tweet, she credits it as the reason that Twitter staff stabbed you in the back, Dorsey. Is that clear enough for everyone?

Let me make it clearer. Emily Gorcenski knows what she’s doing. In April 2018 she was accused of this exact practice. But for another platform, Stripe. More specifically it was the downfall of MakerSupport. But Gorcenski flaunting knowing people at Stripe was what raised suspicions in the first place. “I work for an online bank, and being a data scientist generally I get to meet a lot of people in the field. It’s natural that I would know a bunch of Stripe employees.”

Emily Gorcenski was right in calling Chris Cantwell’s accusation nonsense. Some conspiracy about Antifa and Stripe sharing credit card numbers? That’s a load of bullocks. However, it isn’t a stretch for me to say Gorcenski looked at the Stripe accusation and repackaged the idea in a presentable fashion.

To support my claim, I present a Twitter employee who acted upon Emily’s and Liz’s guidance. Here we go. Alex from Twitter Seattle. Alex knows Emily. An exchange between Alex and Liz Fong-Jones absolutely seals the deal here.

There’s proof everywhere. I don’t need to imply a damn thing. The onus is on me to establish that this Twitter employee acted on the urging of people like Liz and Emily.

Allow me to demonstrate.

To make this crystal clear, I’ll name some victims that Alex of Twitter Seattle targeted. First, we have someone who went by the handle @apurposefulwife. Alex accused her of being a white supremacist. “yep. the “purpose” of that account is to normalize a white supremacist viewpoint, with coded language. it’s propaganda,” said your Twitter employee.

@apurposefulwife has long since been banned.

Did Twitter ask @apurposefulwife about her account’s intentions, or did they just go off Alex’s assumption? This question comes more into focus alongside the second case, @polNewsForever. Alex admitted to going out of their way to look for “signaling.” Their campaign against @polNewsForever being one example. Also banned.

Alex went on the warpath.

“Islamophobia, transphobia, white supremacy, attacks on news media. You want to fight “fake news”? KILL THESE ACCOUNTS. you can’t Machine Learning your way out of having to ACTIVELY REMOVE BAD ACTORS.”

Jack. It’s one thing for a Twitter employee to do this on their own. But if it was done at the urging of Emily Gorcenski or Liz Fong-Jones, that leaves your platform open to be taken advantage of. All any “outsider” needs to do is convince a Twitter employee to act on their behalf.

Did Liz Fong-Jones want to push change onto Twitter? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

I can even establish Gorcenski’s intentions. “I think a lot of you underestimate the degree to which I engage in narrative-driving to counteract rightward motion of the Overton window.“

Her words. Not mine. Take a second to soak this in.

My favorite part? Here. “As I am not a journalist, I do not have an ethical duty to a fair representation, nor to report in proportion. I can exaggerate, minimize, mock, rage, or react in any way to any topic as I see fit,” Gorcenski confesses.

So to recap. We have a pair of partisan actors who managed to leverage Twitter to bend a particular direction. Liz Fong-Jones and Emily Gorcenski both have a lot of insider connections. I know because I did a tally. I couldn’t just show off one and leave it at that, now could I? What happened is everyone else on Eoin Lenihan’s list had connections to 6 or 7 Twitter staff, at most. Gorcenski has 14.

I led off with what made Gorcenski’s situation unique to circumvent the whole “BREAKING NEWS: PEOPLE TALK TO EACH OTHER” write-off excuse. But that’s the point of the rest of the data. I took the time to properly exhaust every other possible lead. My data shows that I didn’t single out neither Emily nor Liz based on “protected characteristics” or anything like that. This isn’t a race/sex/gender/ethnicity thing. Liz Fong-Jones has connections to a whopping 34 different Twitter people.

With Emily Gorcenski and Liz Fong-Jones, the case can be made that having friends at Twitter puts people in a special “class” on the website. The public communications policies for getting anything done in regards to Twitter accounts are like a brick wall. Conversely, it’s something unique to Twitter as a platform in terms of finding evidence of nepotism.

In fact, she’s generous enough to supply her own entire confession of Twitter bias.

(8:14 AM – 24 Apr 2018) Yo Twitter, can you please un-jail @skimbrel? cc @trooperx17 @NuttySwiss, do you have any contacts still there?

This isn’t complete without a Twitter staff response. Thankfully, that is also supplied.

(8:17 AM – 24 Apr 2018) /cc: @igb @marsanfra @egd unsure what my contacts there can do, but I’ve tagged some in.

Gosh. It’s great to have access. Liz was looking to spring someone out from Twitter jail for live-tweeting a conference. I’d imagine this was taken care of in a matter of minutes, rather than the hours or days the rest of us “plebeians” without a hook-up have to face.

That ain’t all, Jack. Liz provides more testimony.

(9:41 PM – 20 Sep 2018) Yup. I cannot believe the amount of effort it took to get Monday’s death threat against me down :/ multiple appeals with no result, only saw change when Twitter employees I knew started looking into it :/

(5:37 PM – 28 Oct 2018) Twitter initially didn’t take down a picture of a gun being readied to shoot at a person accompanied with the text “Their time is coming to an end”, in reply to a tweet with my face and 7 other faces of Googlers. It took 3 escalations plus asking friends at Twitter to get it down

(7:44 PM – 9 Nov 2018) This is also true of the photo of a gun being pointed at a cartoon representation of me/others. I went through normal support 3 times. Only after I escalated through Twitter employee friends did it come down.

Liz Fong-Jones is able to bend Twitter Support to their will. That’s remarkable. I mean that’s what she’s saying, isn’t it? Liz Fong-Jones compares her situation to Emily Gorcenski.

(11:34 AM – 20 Feb 2019) .@EmilyGorcenski is lucky. Twitter won’t enforce the misgendering policy when it’s against me. They seem to only enforce policy when it’s abuse against people with blue checks. And then only sometimes.

In just one tweet Liz tells us two things. 1.) Emily Gorcenski has some kind of special protection from Twitter Staff. 2.) This elevated protection is applied to anyone on Twitter who is verified.

Liz Fong-Jones is verified now. But that wasn’t always the case. Let’s see what it took to get through Twitter’s broken system.

Verified Twitter users being granted special attention from support isn’t just a theory. Here we got a testimony from a Twitter employee.

Liz Fong-Jones outright says it.

It’s good to know that verified accounts get their reports actioned more often and faster than the rest of the general public.

Let’s turn back to Emily Gorcenski. Where we have someone who commits abuse and Twitter looks the other way.

We’re going to take a ride down the slippery slope, Jack. You and me. Emily claims to take ethics seriously. No, they don’t. All it takes is four tweets to show how Emily Gorcenski abandoned her principles and morals because of Twitter.

(5:11 PM – 14 Jun 2017) As someone who’s been doxed, I find myself in a moral debate as to whether I’d dox someone who is supporting overt white supremacy.

(5:19 AM – 15 Aug 2017) Re doxxing & #Charlottesville they fucking attacked us and planned to come here with violence & they’re Nazis so go hard as fuck

(6:23 AM – 24 Mar 2018) My motivation for revealing identities is simple: before August 12, we warned officials that violence would happen from the right. Our warnings were deemed non-credible at the time. To avoid that failure in the future it is necessary to link names to online identities.

(12:57 AM – 19 Jan 2019) It’s 2019 we don’t need to justify doxing the Nazi anymore

I would love to know what you think of that, Jack. The underlying moral code for Gorcenski originates around Charlottesville. No matter which way anyone looks at it, the experience of people get ran over by a speeding car is traumatic. The big question is: does this justify the fear Emily Gorcenski uses when targeting folks?

At some point, doxing people became a means of entertainment content for Emily. I’m not even going to bother asking you ban Gorcenski, Jack. I would love to hear you explain why this was allowed.

Can we just take a moment and look at this.

Emily Gorcenski brought families into it, Jack. 3-year-old kids. Ethics though. Amirite? Someone to ask one of the debate teams Emily threw into a dox. Gorcenski swears they never post addresses. But they have. Phone numbers too. They justify it by either saying someone else posted it, or that it was old. Emily Gorcenski isn’t afraid of threatening people. Showing addresses. Going after careers. Emily denies going after people’s jobs. That’s a hoot. Gorcenski does that too. Gorcenski is lying.

“i am extremely uncomfortable with this” replies someone. It didn’t matter to Emily.

There’s going to be a whole “it’s ok to dox Nazis” conversation after I publish this. But what’s a Nazi in the eyes of Emily Gorcenski? We’ve got Cassandra Fairbanks, Graham Linehan, Conservatives, The Marines, Proud Boys, candidates for public office, the police, people who misgender, the DHS, GamerGate, and CNN’s Jake Tapper. Emily thinks a sequel to World War II is coming. She stretches the definition of Nazi so far and too thin to even mean anything. Even Jesse Singal is named as a “maybe.”

People like Singal have pointed out Emily Gorcenski isn’t being careful. I guess that’s what happens when dealing with someone who dreams about fighting Nazis. They openly admit to picking fights with anybody.

The Patreon guy, Jack Conte, talked about manifest observable behavior. A pattern. In Gorcenski’s case, that’s clearly on display. In that video from the introduction, we’re going to use the official Twitter definition of DOX and provide context that establishes the manifest observable behavior of Emily Gorcenski.

Watch it again.

It was about Charlottesville until it wasn’t. Then it became about “TERFS.” What happens when someone who “doxes Nazis” expands their definition of Nazi to include pretty much anybody? What happens is you got a problem.

“TERFism is an astroturf movement based on hate, and need not have a consistent ideology. Instead it is a vessel for radicalization,” says Emily.

Regardless of politics, I’d love to hear why none of this breaks Twitter rules. Just to make sure this is clear: Emily Gorcenski puts feminists and Nazis into the same group.

She went too far, Jack. Emily Gorcenski doxed an innocent man.

Here and here you’ll see the entire thread. I took the liberty of blacking out everything Gorcenski shared. But as you can see, Emily targeted someone who works in the military, as well as dragged that person’s father into it. It ended up being a case of stolen identity. Although Gorcenski took the dox down and apologized, it demonstrates the big problem at hand here. Emily learned nothing and continued to dox.

Nothing is stopping Emily from doing it again, to anyone. Why did Gorcenski do it in the first place? We can tell that it’s for attention, according to this tweet a few days earlier.

Let’s take a look.

(5:27 AM – 11 Nov 2018) Maybe you should look me up. Or ask your Nazi friends who I am.

(6:16 PM – 30 Nov 2018) No-platforming Nazis is a key focus of anti-Nazi work, and the efforts to prevent them from raising terror funding on platforms is part of that legal, morally-justified work.

(5:57 AM – 1 Dec 2018) There isn’t a Nazi in America who doesn’t know who we are. That’s simultaneously terrifying and empowering.

Emily admits that it’s an intimidation tactic meant to instill fear into people.

(10:22 AM – 18 Aug 2018) I haven’t exposed docclar’s ID yet. I simply started publicly looking into him. Since then, he’s account-deleted his Gab, his Twitter, and some other random social media. He’s deleted podcasts. He’s removed his online presence.

(10:23 AM – 18 Aug 2018) Which is to say: I didn’t even need to expose him to utterly fucking no platform him. I just had to posture as if I could.

(10:25 AM – 18 Aug 2018) Now, don’t get me wrong. I know who he is. And I control the release of his identity. There’s nothing he can do to stop it. I can release it whenever I want.

I have questions as to whether or not you were aware of all this, Jack Dorsey.

In the picture above there are three things on display. The first is Gorcenski saying she reached out to you to ban somebody, and you did. The second tweet is Emily saying they plan to dox all of “mumsnet.” Whatever that is. Third, and most importantly, Emily Gorcenski flaunts her connection to you. As if having Jack Dorsey follow you on Twitter is some kind of immunity card that allows someone to do whatever they want. Again, I’m trying to make solid arguments here. So for good measure, here and here we have Emily DMing you. Emily even provides a frame of reference for when you potentially started following them. October 2017. There’s no way you could’ve missed any of it, Jack. I double-checked to make sure that you still follow Emily Gorcenski. Yup.

Don’t take it from me. Here’s what our buddy Alex, your employee at the company, says “Verified users can still be abusive. Our current system seems to believe otherwise, it appears to me that it favors them over the unverified.”

What will people think of Twitter once word gets around that Jack Dorsey allows doxing? You follow Gorcenski. Emily talks to you. You banned someone on her behalf for misgendering. But when it comes to almost ruining an innocent man’s life? Nothing. This is on you, Jack. You follow someone who throws around words like “eradicated” and “permanently terminated.” That sounds pretty extremist. Imagine how Emily got there. With the over-saturated definition of “Nazi” combined with a refusal to debate anyone. Acting on emotion. “EVERY. NAZI. IS. A. MURDERER. WAITING. FOR. A. CHANCE.”

“I can tell you about the user name Joey Zyklon from the Discord. Someone whose dox I’m sitting on because he’s young and I don’t want to expose a kid who can still be saved. Not a Russian.” says a totally sane person you listen to for some reason, Jack.

This is the last Dear @jack I plan on writing, Jack Dorsey. On the one hand, I have every right to continue defending myself against an unjust permanent suspension. Twitter’s appeal system failed me after 23 days in a row of trying. I still want my Twitter account back. I still want my slate wiped clean. I still want to go back to the community I built and just watch some movies with them.

But I found what I needed to.

Back in like 2008, Biz Stone said: “Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content.” Obviously at some point that changed. During GamerGate, it was alleged that Del Harvey helped Randi Harper get Leigh Alexander’s account back online. The fact that a Twitter employee tried shutting down Trump’s account shows me how loose the company culture can be. I found that out for myself after discovering the Sleeping Giants connection to your company. The Wall Street Journal stands by their report that describes how outside advocacy groups pressured Twitter to take out Laura Loomer. So we know outside groups can pressure decision making.

I know that your entire company isn’t some cesspool. There are good people there. I can not, in good conscience, indefinitely pilfer through your staff’s profiles. I’d be no better than Emily Gorcenski if I turned this into just “content.” I’m not here to create a culture of fear. It horrifies me to think of the potential that one day all Twitter employees would make their accounts private. Which is why I haven’t revealed my company-wide searching methods to anyone.

Jack Dorsey, you have a lot of explaining to do.