🕷️ Crawler Inspector

URL Lookup

Direct Parameter Lookup

Raw Queries and Responses

1. Shard Calculation

Query:
Response:
Calculated Shard: 133 (from laksa052)

2. Crawled Status Check

Query:
Response:

3. Robots.txt Check

Query:
Response:

4. Spam/Ban Check

Query:
Response:

5. Seen Status Check

ℹ️ Skipped - page is already crawled

đź“„
INDEXABLE
âś…
CRAWLED
1 day ago
🤖
ROBOTS ALLOWED

Page Info Filters

FilterStatusConditionDetails
HTTP statusPASSdownload_http_code = 200HTTP 200
Age cutoffPASSdownload_stamp > now() - 6 MONTH0.1 months ago
History dropPASSisNull(history_drop_reason)No drop reason
Spam/banPASSfh_dont_index != 1 AND ml_spam_score = 0ml_spam_score=0
CanonicalPASSmeta_canonical IS NULL OR = '' OR = src_unparsedNot set

Page Details

PropertyValue
URLhttps://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-importance-and-incoherence-of-twitters-trump-ban
Last Crawled2026-04-26 06:12:11 (1 day ago)
First Indexed2021-01-15 20:06:02 (5 years ago)
HTTP Status Code200
Content
Meta TitleThe Importance, and Incoherence, of Twitter’s Trump Ban | The New Yorker
Meta DescriptionAndrew Marantz writes about the decisions of Twitter and other social-media platforms to ban Donald Trump after the violence of January 6th, and about the civic repercussions of tech leaders’ unchecked and unregulated control of public discourse and speech.
Meta Canonicalnull
Boilerpipe Text
After Twitter permanently suspended Donald Trump ’s account, earlier this month, the reactions were quick, ubiquitous, and mostly predictable. Many of the takes seemed canned, the way an obituary of a terminally ill celebrity is often pre-written. On the Trump-apologist right, the suspension was denounced as Orwellian tyranny, deep-state collusion, or worse. (Glenn Beck, during a segment on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, compared the Trump ban and other Big Tech crackdowns to “the Germans with the Jews behind the wall. They would put them in the ghetto. Well, this is the digital ghetto.”) Among Trump’s opponents, reactions were more mixed. There was a good amount of gloating—the only thing easier than kicking a man when he’s down is dunking on an account after it’s locked—but the Schadenfreude was tempered with caution. Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, neatly summarized the tension (in a tweet , naturally): “It’s coherent—and in my view absolutely appropriate—to believe both that (i) the social media companies were right to suspend Trump’s accounts last week; and (ii) the companies’ immense power over public discourse is a problem for democracy.” In another tweet, he added, “The First Amendment question is easy. All the other questions are hard.” Let’s take the easy question first. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a private company from enforcing its own policies; if anything, the First Amendment protects a company’s right to do so. Now the harder questions. Does censoring a head of state set a dangerous precedent? Yes, it does, but so does allowing a head of state to use a platform’s enormous power, over the course of several years, to dehumanize women, inflame racist paranoia, flirt with nuclear war, and incite armed sedition, often in flagrant violation of the company’s rules . Is it worrisome that Jack Dorsey , a weirdly laconic billionaire with a castaway beard who has never been elected to any public office, is able to make unilateral, unaccountable decisions that may help determine whether our country survives or self-immolates? Yes, it is. But, given that Dorsey and a handful of other techno-oligarchs have this ability, they might as well be pressured (or shamed, or regulated) into using it wisely. The suppression of speech we despise can lead down a slippery slope toward the suppression of speech we cherish; indeed, it almost always does. We should worry about this, but we should also worry about another slippery slope: the one we are already on. Twitter and the other major social networks spent their first decade of existence branding themselves as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party,” using this as a catchall excuse to absolve themselves of any real responsibility for moderating their platforms. They seemed to assume, blithely and conveniently, that the marketplace of ideas would take care of itself. This isn’t what happened. Instead, with shocking speed, social media decimated professional media, abraded our civic life, coaxed us into unhealthy relationships with our phones and with one another, harvested and monetized our personal data, warped our brains and our politics, and made us brittle and twitchy and frail, all while a few entrepreneurs and investors continued to profit from our addiction and confusion. Social media was hardly the only malign force in the world, but it certainly didn’t seem to be helping. Just a few years into this unprecedented global experiment, several formerly stable liberal democracies found themselves on the precipice of authoritarianism. Britain left the European Union, Brazil and the Philippines came to be ruled by thugs who routinely threatened to kill their political opponents, and India, once a beacon of religious pluralism, descended into Islamophobic mob violence . It seemed as if there were no more ways for the nightmare to grow more dire, and yet it always did. Soon enough, millions of Americans were radicalized, lost in an epistemic fun house of pernicious drivel, and one day a few hundred of them formed a mob and assailed the Capitol , planting bombs and smearing shit through the halls, leaving at least six people dead. For years, social-media tycoons have been allowed to avoid accountability by relying on airy abstractions— we want to change the world ; we believe in people ; we support free speech . It’s long past time, at the very least, to weigh the benefits of these abstractions against a frank accounting of social media’s measurable, tangible harm. If the Constitution provides a way to remove a sitting President from office under extenuating circumstances, then there must be a way to remove a sitting President from the Internet. Twitter was right to ban Trump—I think the ban should have come years ago, when Trump started repeatedly flouting the platform’s rules—but my confidence in this opinion shouldn’t be mistaken for a glib assumption that an action of this magnitude can come without downside risk. The hard questions are hard precisely because there are no good answers, only bad ones and worse ones. “No problem that landed on my desk, foreign or domestic, had a clean, 100 percent solution,” Barack Obama writes in “ A Promised Land ,” a book whose phlegmatic tone is almost shocking against the backdrop of the present chaos. One of many differences between Obama and Jack Dorsey is that the problems Obama faced during his Presidency—an American sailor held hostage by Somali pirates, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the war in Syria—were not problems of his own making. If it weren’t for Jack Dorsey and a few of his buddies, though, Twitter wouldn’t exist. They created it from nothing, invented its deeply flawed mechanics and its perverse incentive structures, spent years encouraging as many people as possible to devote as much time and attention to it as possible, and then, essentially, washed their hands of it and walked away. The horrific optics of January 6th were enough to shock Twitter and other platforms into action. But any ban, no matter how prominent, is still a relatively superficial intervention, because it doesn’t change the platform’s underlying architecture. Jack Dorsey often muses publicly about how he might improve “conversational health” on his platform: by diminishing or eliminating the importance of such metrics as retweets and follower counts; by introducing significant friction to make disinformation less likely to go viral; by rebuilding his company’s algorithms from the ground up. A few of these ideas have been implemented, in part, but most of them, so far, have been little more than talk.
Markdown
[Skip to main content](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-importance-and-incoherence-of-twitters-trump-ban#main-content) [![The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/thenewyorker-us/assets/logo.svg)](https://www.newyorker.com/) - [Newsletter](https://www.newyorker.com/newsletters?sourceCode=navbar) [Sign In](https://www.newyorker.com/auth/initiate?redirectURL=%2Fnews%2Fdaily-comment%2Fthe-importance-and-incoherence-of-twitters-trump-ban&source=VERSO_NAVIGATION) Search - [The Latest](https://www.newyorker.com/latest) - [News](https://www.newyorker.com/news) - [Books & Culture](https://www.newyorker.com/culture) - [Fiction & Poetry](https://www.newyorker.com/fiction-and-poetry) - [Humor & Cartoons](https://www.newyorker.com/humor) - [Magazine](https://www.newyorker.com/archive) - [Puzzles & Games](https://www.newyorker.com/crossword-puzzles-and-games) - [Video](https://www.newyorker.com/video) - [Podcasts](https://www.newyorker.com/podcasts) - [Goings On](https://www.newyorker.com/goings-on) - [Shop](https://store.newyorker.com/) Open Navigation Menu [![The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/thenewyorker-us/assets/logo-header.svg)](https://www.newyorker.com/) [Daily Comment](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment) # The Importance, and Incoherence, of Twitter’s Trump Ban ![](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097b85019dfc3494ea36f6/1:1/w_270%2Cc_limit/marantz-andrew.png) By [Andrew Marantz](https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/andrew-marantz) January 15, 2021 ![A hand holding a cell phone showing President Donald Trumps suspended Twitter page.](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/6001e56b35298cfade393c87/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Marantz-TwitterBan.jpg) The events of January 6th shocked Twitter into action, but a ban is still a relatively superficial intervention, because it doesn’t change the platform’s underlying architecture.Photograph by Graeme Sloan / Bloomberg / Getty Save this story Save this story After Twitter permanently suspended [Donald Trump](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/donald-trump)’s account, earlier this month, the reactions were quick, ubiquitous, and mostly predictable. Many of the takes seemed canned, the way an obituary of a terminally ill celebrity is often pre-written. On the Trump-apologist right, the suspension was denounced as Orwellian tyranny, deep-state collusion, or worse. (Glenn Beck, during a segment on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, compared the Trump ban and other Big Tech crackdowns to “the Germans with the Jews behind the wall. They would put them in the ghetto. Well, this is the digital ghetto.”) Among Trump’s opponents, reactions were more mixed. There was a good amount of gloating—the only thing easier than kicking a man when he’s down is dunking on an account after it’s locked—but the Schadenfreude was tempered with caution. Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, neatly summarized the tension (in a [tweet](https://twitter.com/JameelJaffer/status/1348975873471488002), naturally): “It’s coherent—and in my view absolutely appropriate—to believe both that (i) the social media companies were right to suspend Trump’s accounts last week; and (ii) the companies’ immense power over public discourse is a problem for democracy.” In another tweet, he added, “The First Amendment question is easy. All the other questions are hard.” Let’s take the easy question first. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a private company from enforcing its own policies; if anything, the First Amendment protects a company’s right to do so. Now the harder questions. Does censoring a head of state set a dangerous precedent? Yes, it does, but so does allowing a head of state to use a platform’s enormous power, over the course of several years, to dehumanize women, inflame racist paranoia, flirt with nuclear war, and incite armed sedition, [often in flagrant violation of the company’s rules](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/19/why-facebook-cant-fix-itself). Is it worrisome that [Jack Dorsey](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/two-hit-wonder), a weirdly laconic billionaire with a castaway beard who has never been elected to any public office, is able to make unilateral, unaccountable decisions that may help determine whether our country survives or self-immolates? Yes, it is. But, given that Dorsey and a handful of other techno-oligarchs have this ability, they might as well be pressured (or shamed, or regulated) into using it wisely. The suppression of speech we despise can lead down a slippery slope toward the suppression of speech we cherish; indeed, it almost always does. We should worry about this, but we should also worry about another slippery slope: the one we are already on. Twitter and the other major social networks spent [their first decade of existence](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/30/the-dark-side-of-techno-utopianism) branding themselves as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party,” using this as a catchall excuse to absolve themselves of any real responsibility for moderating their platforms. They seemed to assume, blithely and conveniently, that the marketplace of ideas would take care of itself. This isn’t what happened. Instead, with shocking speed, social media decimated professional media, abraded our civic life, coaxed us into unhealthy relationships with our phones and with one another, harvested and monetized our personal data, warped our brains and our politics, and made us brittle and twitchy and frail, all while a few entrepreneurs and investors continued to profit from our addiction and confusion. Social media was hardly the only malign force in the world, but it certainly didn’t seem to be helping. Just a few years into this unprecedented global experiment, several formerly stable liberal democracies found themselves on the precipice of authoritarianism. Britain left the European Union, Brazil and the Philippines came to be ruled by thugs who routinely threatened to kill their political opponents, and India, once a beacon of religious pluralism, descended into [Islamophobic mob violence](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/blood-and-soil-in-narendra-modis-india). It seemed as if there were no more ways for the nightmare to grow more dire, and yet it always did. Soon enough, millions of Americans were radicalized, lost in an epistemic fun house of pernicious drivel, and one day a few hundred of them formed a mob and [assailed the Capitol](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/25/among-the-insurrectionists), planting bombs and smearing shit through the halls, leaving at least six people dead. For years, social-media tycoons have been allowed to avoid accountability by relying on airy abstractions—*we want to change the world*; *we believe in people*; *we support free speech*. It’s long past time, at the very least, to weigh the benefits of these abstractions against a frank accounting of social media’s measurable, tangible harm. Video From The New Yorker [A Reporter’s Video from Inside the Capitol Siege](https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/a-reporters-footage-from-inside-the-capitol-siege) If the Constitution provides a way to remove a sitting President from office under extenuating circumstances, then there must be a way to remove a sitting President from the Internet. Twitter was right to ban Trump—I think the ban should have come years ago, when Trump started repeatedly flouting the platform’s rules—but my confidence in this opinion shouldn’t be mistaken for a glib assumption that an action of this magnitude can come without downside risk. The hard questions are hard precisely because there are no good answers, only bad ones and worse ones. “No problem that landed on my desk, foreign or domestic, had a clean, 100 percent solution,” Barack Obama writes in “[A Promised Land](https://www.amazon.com/A-Promised-Land-Obama-Audiobook/dp/B08HGH9JMF),” a book whose phlegmatic tone is almost shocking against the backdrop of the present chaos. One of many differences between Obama and Jack Dorsey is that the problems Obama faced during his Presidency—an American sailor held hostage by Somali pirates, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the war in Syria—were not problems of his own making. If it weren’t for Jack Dorsey and a few of his buddies, though, Twitter wouldn’t exist. They created it from nothing, invented its deeply flawed mechanics and its perverse incentive structures, spent years encouraging as many people as possible to devote as much time and attention to it as possible, and then, essentially, washed their hands of it and walked away. The horrific optics of January 6th were enough to shock Twitter and other platforms into action. But any ban, no matter how prominent, is still a relatively superficial intervention, because it doesn’t change the platform’s underlying architecture. Jack Dorsey often muses publicly about how he might improve “conversational health” on his platform: by diminishing or eliminating the importance of such metrics as retweets and follower counts; by introducing significant friction to make disinformation less likely to go viral; by rebuilding his company’s algorithms from the ground up. A few of these ideas have been implemented, in part, but most of them, so far, have been little more than talk. The Trump problem hardly caught Twitter by surprise. In 2019, Jack Dorsey did a round of podcast interviews and press appearances, hoping to boost “conversational health”—and, surely, Twitter’s stock price—with yet more public conversation. The podcast host Joe Rogan asked Dorsey whether he’d considered getting rid of Donald Trump, one of the most influential and least healthy conversationalists on the platform. Dorsey demurred, arguing that the words of a President are inherently newsworthy. “We should see how our leaders think and how they act,” he said. “That informs voting, that informs the conversation.” In the end, Twitter banned Trump, ostensibly, for two tweets posted on January 8th. The first, in which he referred to the seventy-five million Americans who had voted for him as “patriots,” was hardly one of the most incendiary things he’d ever posted. (It wouldn’t even make the top fifty.) The next tweet read, in its entirety, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” This was, ironically, one of the tiny minority of Trump’s tweets that really was unambiguously newsworthy. Twitter argued that “President Trump’s statement that he will not be attending the Inauguration is being received by a number of his supporters as further confirmation that the election was not legitimate”; to my eyes, on the contrary, it looked like the closest Trump will ever come to a concession. If you take Twitter’s [reasoning](https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html) at face value, then the most generous way to interpret the ban is that the company made the right decision for the wrong reasons. Perhaps the real reasons for the ban were simpler—that Trump is now a lame duck who can no longer punish Twitter with the levers of the federal government; that the siege of the Capitol was simply one bad press cycle too many; that the company is worried about violence in the near future, and is trying to avoid ending up with even more blood on its hands. If Twitter is being coy about its real motivations, or if the thinking leading to this monumental decision was really as muddled as the official explanation suggests, then there is little cause to think that its future decisions will be much more coherent. “I doubt I would be here if it weren’t for social media, to be honest with you,” Donald Trump said in 2017. He may have been wrong; after all, he uttered those words on Fox Business, a TV network that will surely continue to have him on as a guest long after he leaves the White House, and even if he loses every one of his social-media accounts. Perhaps Trump could have become President without social media. There were plenty of other factors militating in his favor—a racist backlash to the first Black president, the abandonment of the working class by both parties, and on and on. Still: Trump wanted to be President in 1988, and in 2000, and he [couldn’t get close](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-and-the-truth-the-viral-candidate). In 2012, just as social media was starting to eclipse traditional media, Trump was a big enough factor in the Republican race that Mitt Romney went to the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas to publicly accept his endorsement. Only in 2016, when the ascent of social media was all but complete, did Trump’s dream become a reality. Maybe this was just a coincidence. There is, tragically, no way to run the experiment in reverse. [![](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097b85019dfc3494ea36f6/1:1/w_270%2Cc_limit/marantz-andrew.png)](https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/andrew-marantz) [Andrew Marantz](https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/andrew-marantz) is a staff writer at *The New Yorker* and the author of “[Antisocial: Online Extremists, Techno-Utopians, and the Hijacking of the American Conversation](https://www.amazon.com/Antisocial-Extremists-Techno-Utopians-Hijacking-Conversation/dp/0525522263).” More:[Donald Trump](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/donald-trump)[Social Media](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/social-media)[Twitter](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/twitter)[Free Speech](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/free-speech)[First Amendment](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/first-amendment)[Democracy](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/democracy)[Trump-Biden Transition](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/trump-biden-transition) ### The News & Politics Newsletter Read the latest from Washington and beyond, covering current events, the economy, and more, from our columnists and correspondents. Read More [View all stories](https://www.newyorker.com/news/election-2020) [![How Social Media Made the Trump Insurrection a Reality](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5ff762f7515a1fd85f89c326/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/Marantz-CapitolMob.jpg)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-social-media-made-the-trump-insurrection-a-reality) Daily Comment [How Social Media Made the Trump Insurrection a Reality](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-social-media-made-the-trump-insurrection-a-reality) [![How Social Media Made the Trump Insurrection a Reality](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5ff762f7515a1fd85f89c326/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/Marantz-CapitolMob.jpg)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/how-social-media-made-the-trump-insurrection-a-reality) Facebook banned the President from its platform on Thursday, but the move was too little, too late. By Andrew Marantz [![Trump’s Been Unplugged. Now What?](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5ffe0da7546d4c7cc8a4bf40/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/Wiener-DeplatformingTrump.jpg)](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/big-tech-unplugs-trump) Annals of Technology [Trump’s Been Unplugged. Now What?](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/big-tech-unplugs-trump) [![Trump’s Been Unplugged. Now What?](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5ffe0da7546d4c7cc8a4bf40/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/Wiener-DeplatformingTrump.jpg)](https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/big-tech-unplugs-trump) The platforms have acted, raising hard questions about technology and democracy. By Anna Wiener [![“That’s Not Who We Are” Is the Wrong Reaction to the Attack on the Capitol](https://dwgyu36up6iuz.cloudfront.net/heru80fdn/image/upload/c_fill%2Cd_placeholder_thescene.jpg%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_center%2Ch_480%2Cq_80%2Cw_640/v1610146411/thenewyorker_thats-not-who-we-are-is-the-wrong-reaction-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol.jpg)](https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/thats-not-who-we-are-is-the-wrong-reaction-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol) Video [“That’s Not Who We Are” Is the Wrong Reaction to the Attack on the Capitol](https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/thats-not-who-we-are-is-the-wrong-reaction-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol) [![“That’s Not Who We Are” Is the Wrong Reaction to the Attack on the Capitol](https://dwgyu36up6iuz.cloudfront.net/heru80fdn/image/upload/c_fill%2Cd_placeholder_thescene.jpg%2Cfl_progressive%2Cg_center%2Ch_480%2Cq_80%2Cw_640/v1610146411/thenewyorker_thats-not-who-we-are-is-the-wrong-reaction-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol.jpg)](https://www.newyorker.com/video/watch/thats-not-who-we-are-is-the-wrong-reaction-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol) Andrew Marantz talks about why such sweeping statements, issued by many public figures after a mob of Trump supporters rioted in the halls of Congress, can stand in the way of necessary change. [![Donald Trump’s Case for War Fails to Mention How to Win It](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69ce50d03765620566de2bf7/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-case-for-war-fails-to-mention-how-to-win-it#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Letter from Trump’s Washington [Donald Trump’s Case for War Fails to Mention How to Win It](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-case-for-war-fails-to-mention-how-to-win-it#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![Donald Trump’s Case for War Fails to Mention How to Win It](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69ce50d03765620566de2bf7/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-case-for-war-fails-to-mention-how-to-win-it#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) The President poses an existential question: Can everything be going according to the plan with Iran if there is no plan? By Susan B. Glasser [![A.I. Has a Message Problem of Its Own Making](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69deb78f6180d0f075d10783/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/ai-has-a-message-problem-of-its-own-making#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Infinite Scroll [A.I. Has a Message Problem of Its Own Making](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/ai-has-a-message-problem-of-its-own-making#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![A.I. Has a Message Problem of Its Own Making](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69deb78f6180d0f075d10783/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/ai-has-a-message-problem-of-its-own-making#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) OpenAI’s Sam Altman wants to “de-escalate” the rhetoric around A.I. But if you tell people that your product will upend their way of life, take their jobs, and possibly threaten humanity, they might believe you. By Kyle Chayka [![J. D. Vance’s Bumpy Ride](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69e28d0dbd6ef2e6093aab2d/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/27/j-d-vances-bumpy-ride#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Comment [J. D. Vance’s Bumpy Ride](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/27/j-d-vances-bumpy-ride#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![J. D. Vance’s Bumpy Ride](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69e28d0dbd6ef2e6093aab2d/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/27/j-d-vances-bumpy-ride#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) It wasn’t the first time that Trump had debased someone who serves him. It wasn’t even the first time that Vance had had to downplay a blasphemy-themed A.I. image. By Amy Davidson Sorkin [![How to Measure the Good Life](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69c30087ebb3449a2bdc2d49/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/06/the-meaning-of-your-life-arthur-c-brooks-book-review#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Books [How to Measure the Good Life](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/06/the-meaning-of-your-life-arthur-c-brooks-book-review#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![How to Measure the Good Life](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69c30087ebb3449a2bdc2d49/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/06/the-meaning-of-your-life-arthur-c-brooks-book-review#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) In a new book, the conservative pundit Arthur C. Brooks offers tips to “young strivers” on maximizing their daily meaning quotient. By Becca Rothfeld [![Saving a Lost Generation of Young Men—with Chop Saws](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69e1435c6eb9ee5711c2c778/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/saving-a-lost-generation-of-young-men-with-chop-saws#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Annals of Education [Saving a Lost Generation of Young Men—with Chop Saws](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/saving-a-lost-generation-of-young-men-with-chop-saws#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![Saving a Lost Generation of Young Men—with Chop Saws](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69e1435c6eb9ee5711c2c778/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-education/saving-a-lost-generation-of-young-men-with-chop-saws#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) The College of St. Joseph the Worker, which combines the trades with a liberal-arts education, is trying to restore its students’ sense of their own competence, and revive the city of Steubenville, Ohio, along the way. By Emma Green [![The Camps Promising to Turn You—or Your Son—Into an Alpha Male](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69c2ad88f2086f3780ce4502/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/06/the-camps-promising-to-turn-you-or-your-son-into-an-alpha-male#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) American Chronicles [The Camps Promising to Turn You—or Your Son—Into an Alpha Male](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/06/the-camps-promising-to-turn-you-or-your-son-into-an-alpha-male#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![The Camps Promising to Turn You—or Your Son—Into an Alpha Male](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69c2ad88f2086f3780ce4502/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/06/the-camps-promising-to-turn-you-or-your-son-into-an-alpha-male#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) At the Men of War Crucible, you bear-crawl through rivers. At Warrior Week, you dig your own grave. At the Squire Program, your teen-ager can take part, too. By Charles Bethea [![The Scandal of the Sharenting Economy](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69d3f3dc72d7ac02c8a311fe/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/the-scandal-of-the-sharenting-economy#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) The Lede [The Scandal of the Sharenting Economy](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/the-scandal-of-the-sharenting-economy#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![The Scandal of the Sharenting Economy](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69d3f3dc72d7ac02c8a311fe/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/the-scandal-of-the-sharenting-economy#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) As kidfluencers come of age, some may find the law an imperfect means of restitution for what was lost and broken in their childhoods. By Jessica Winter [![TMZ Gets Political](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69de6786d01a512837f7553c/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/tmz-gets-political#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) The Lede [TMZ Gets Political](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/tmz-gets-political#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![TMZ Gets Political](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69de6786d01a512837f7553c/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-lede/tmz-gets-political#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) The celebrity tabloid has been basking in the Schadenfreude of catching politicians asleep on the job. By Paula Mejía [![America’s Orange Jesus](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69e155cbd62200d09776e6d0/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/americas-orange-jesus#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Letter from Trump’s Washington [America’s Orange Jesus](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/americas-orange-jesus#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) [![America’s Orange Jesus](https://media.newyorker.com/photos/69e155cbd62200d09776e6d0/4:3/w_640%2Cc_limit/undefined)](https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/americas-orange-jesus#intcid=recommendations_the-new-yorker-article-bottom-recirc-personalized_73e7e601-efc9-4d8d-bd3c-30dae6c6db9c_closr_bktb) Reflections on a week in which Donald Trump decided to feud with the Pope while comparing himself to the Saviour. By Susan B. Glasser [![The New Yorker](https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/thenewyorker-us/assets/logo-reverse.svg)](https://www.newyorker.com/) Sections - [News](https://www.newyorker.com/news) - [Books & Culture](https://www.newyorker.com/culture) - [Fiction & Poetry](https://www.newyorker.com/fiction-and-poetry) - [Humor & Cartoons](https://www.newyorker.com/humor) - [Magazine](https://www.newyorker.com/archive) - [Crossword](https://www.newyorker.com/crossword-puzzles-and-games) - [Video](https://www.newyorker.com/video) - [Podcasts](https://www.newyorker.com/podcast) - [100th Anniversary](https://www.newyorker.com/100) - [Goings On](https://www.newyorker.com/goings-on) More - [Manage Account](https://www.newyorker.com/account/profile) - [Shop The New Yorker](https://store.newyorker.com/) - [Buy Covers and Cartoons](https://condenaststore.com/art/new+yorker+covers) - [Condé Nast Store](https://condenaststore.com/conde-nast-brand/thenewyorker) - [Digital Access](https://www.newyorker.com/about/digital-access) - [Subscribe](https://www.newyorker.com/subscribe) - [Newsletters](https://www.newyorker.com/newsletter) - [Jigsaw Puzzle](https://www.newyorker.com/jigsaw) - [RSS](https://www.newyorker.com/about/feeds) - [Site Map](https://www.newyorker.com/sitemap) - [About](https://www.newyorker.com/about/us) - [Careers](https://www.newyorker.com/about/careers) - [Contact](https://www.newyorker.com/about/contact) - [F.A.Q.](https://www.newyorker.com/about/faq) - [Media Kit](https://www.condenast.com/advertising) - [Press](https://www.newyorker.com/about/press) - [Accessibility Help](https://www.newyorker.com/about/accessibility-help) - [User Agreement](https://www.condenast.com/user-agreement/) - [Privacy Policy](http://www.condenast.com/privacy-policy#privacypolicy) - [Your California Privacy Rights](http://www.condenast.com/privacy-policy#privacypolicy-california) © 2026 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. *The New Yorker* may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. [Ad Choices](http://www.aboutads.info/) Your Privacy Choices
Readable Markdown
After Twitter permanently suspended [Donald Trump](https://www.newyorker.com/tag/donald-trump)’s account, earlier this month, the reactions were quick, ubiquitous, and mostly predictable. Many of the takes seemed canned, the way an obituary of a terminally ill celebrity is often pre-written. On the Trump-apologist right, the suspension was denounced as Orwellian tyranny, deep-state collusion, or worse. (Glenn Beck, during a segment on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show, compared the Trump ban and other Big Tech crackdowns to “the Germans with the Jews behind the wall. They would put them in the ghetto. Well, this is the digital ghetto.”) Among Trump’s opponents, reactions were more mixed. There was a good amount of gloating—the only thing easier than kicking a man when he’s down is dunking on an account after it’s locked—but the Schadenfreude was tempered with caution. Jameel Jaffer, the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia, neatly summarized the tension (in a [tweet](https://twitter.com/JameelJaffer/status/1348975873471488002), naturally): “It’s coherent—and in my view absolutely appropriate—to believe both that (i) the social media companies were right to suspend Trump’s accounts last week; and (ii) the companies’ immense power over public discourse is a problem for democracy.” In another tweet, he added, “The First Amendment question is easy. All the other questions are hard.” Let’s take the easy question first. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a private company from enforcing its own policies; if anything, the First Amendment protects a company’s right to do so. Now the harder questions. Does censoring a head of state set a dangerous precedent? Yes, it does, but so does allowing a head of state to use a platform’s enormous power, over the course of several years, to dehumanize women, inflame racist paranoia, flirt with nuclear war, and incite armed sedition, [often in flagrant violation of the company’s rules](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/19/why-facebook-cant-fix-itself). Is it worrisome that [Jack Dorsey](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/two-hit-wonder), a weirdly laconic billionaire with a castaway beard who has never been elected to any public office, is able to make unilateral, unaccountable decisions that may help determine whether our country survives or self-immolates? Yes, it is. But, given that Dorsey and a handful of other techno-oligarchs have this ability, they might as well be pressured (or shamed, or regulated) into using it wisely. The suppression of speech we despise can lead down a slippery slope toward the suppression of speech we cherish; indeed, it almost always does. We should worry about this, but we should also worry about another slippery slope: the one we are already on. Twitter and the other major social networks spent [their first decade of existence](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/30/the-dark-side-of-techno-utopianism) branding themselves as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party,” using this as a catchall excuse to absolve themselves of any real responsibility for moderating their platforms. They seemed to assume, blithely and conveniently, that the marketplace of ideas would take care of itself. This isn’t what happened. Instead, with shocking speed, social media decimated professional media, abraded our civic life, coaxed us into unhealthy relationships with our phones and with one another, harvested and monetized our personal data, warped our brains and our politics, and made us brittle and twitchy and frail, all while a few entrepreneurs and investors continued to profit from our addiction and confusion. Social media was hardly the only malign force in the world, but it certainly didn’t seem to be helping. Just a few years into this unprecedented global experiment, several formerly stable liberal democracies found themselves on the precipice of authoritarianism. Britain left the European Union, Brazil and the Philippines came to be ruled by thugs who routinely threatened to kill their political opponents, and India, once a beacon of religious pluralism, descended into [Islamophobic mob violence](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/12/09/blood-and-soil-in-narendra-modis-india). It seemed as if there were no more ways for the nightmare to grow more dire, and yet it always did. Soon enough, millions of Americans were radicalized, lost in an epistemic fun house of pernicious drivel, and one day a few hundred of them formed a mob and [assailed the Capitol](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/25/among-the-insurrectionists), planting bombs and smearing shit through the halls, leaving at least six people dead. For years, social-media tycoons have been allowed to avoid accountability by relying on airy abstractions—*we want to change the world*; *we believe in people*; *we support free speech*. It’s long past time, at the very least, to weigh the benefits of these abstractions against a frank accounting of social media’s measurable, tangible harm. If the Constitution provides a way to remove a sitting President from office under extenuating circumstances, then there must be a way to remove a sitting President from the Internet. Twitter was right to ban Trump—I think the ban should have come years ago, when Trump started repeatedly flouting the platform’s rules—but my confidence in this opinion shouldn’t be mistaken for a glib assumption that an action of this magnitude can come without downside risk. The hard questions are hard precisely because there are no good answers, only bad ones and worse ones. “No problem that landed on my desk, foreign or domestic, had a clean, 100 percent solution,” Barack Obama writes in “[A Promised Land](https://www.amazon.com/A-Promised-Land-Obama-Audiobook/dp/B08HGH9JMF),” a book whose phlegmatic tone is almost shocking against the backdrop of the present chaos. One of many differences between Obama and Jack Dorsey is that the problems Obama faced during his Presidency—an American sailor held hostage by Somali pirates, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the war in Syria—were not problems of his own making. If it weren’t for Jack Dorsey and a few of his buddies, though, Twitter wouldn’t exist. They created it from nothing, invented its deeply flawed mechanics and its perverse incentive structures, spent years encouraging as many people as possible to devote as much time and attention to it as possible, and then, essentially, washed their hands of it and walked away. The horrific optics of January 6th were enough to shock Twitter and other platforms into action. But any ban, no matter how prominent, is still a relatively superficial intervention, because it doesn’t change the platform’s underlying architecture. Jack Dorsey often muses publicly about how he might improve “conversational health” on his platform: by diminishing or eliminating the importance of such metrics as retweets and follower counts; by introducing significant friction to make disinformation less likely to go viral; by rebuilding his company’s algorithms from the ground up. A few of these ideas have been implemented, in part, but most of them, so far, have been little more than talk.
ML Classification
ML Categories
/People_and_Society
53.9%
/People_and_Society/Social_Issues_and_Advocacy
52.3%
/Law_and_Government
49.4%
/Law_and_Government/Legal
44.2%
/Law_and_Government/Legal/Constitutional_Law_and_Civil_Rights
39.8%
/News
36.4%
/News/Politics
35.6%
/People_and_Society/Social_Issues_and_Advocacy/Ethics
32.7%
/News/Politics/Media_Critics_and_Watchdogs
21.5%
/Internet_and_Telecom
10.5%
Raw JSON
{
    "/People_and_Society": 539,
    "/People_and_Society/Social_Issues_and_Advocacy": 523,
    "/Law_and_Government": 494,
    "/Law_and_Government/Legal": 442,
    "/Law_and_Government/Legal/Constitutional_Law_and_Civil_Rights": 398,
    "/News": 364,
    "/News/Politics": 356,
    "/People_and_Society/Social_Issues_and_Advocacy/Ethics": 327,
    "/News/Politics/Media_Critics_and_Watchdogs": 215,
    "/Internet_and_Telecom": 105
}
ML Page Types
/Article
99.8%
/Article/Opinion_Piece
92.2%
Raw JSON
{
    "/Article": 998,
    "/Article/Opinion_Piece": 922
}
ML Intent Types
Informational
99.9%
Raw JSON
{
    "Informational": 999
}
Content Metadata
Languageen-us
AuthorAndrew Marantz
Publish Time2021-01-15 19:59:36 (5 years ago)
Original Publish Time2021-01-15 19:59:36 (5 years ago)
RepublishedNo
Word Count (Total)2,438
Word Count (Content)1,078
Links
External Links24
Internal Links62
Technical SEO
Meta NofollowNo
Meta NoarchiveYes
JS RenderedYes
Redirect Targetnull
Performance
Download Time (ms)2,207
TTFB (ms)2,204
Download Size (bytes)115,095
Shard133 (laksa)
Root Hash16027205805525588333
Unparsed URLcom,newyorker!www,/news/daily-comment/the-importance-and-incoherence-of-twitters-trump-ban s443