UNDERCOVER VIDEO: Twitter Engineers To “Ban a Way of Talking” Through “Shadow Banning,” Algorithms to Censor Opposing Political Opinions
by Staff Report January 11, 2018

-Steven Pierre, Twitter engineer explains “shadow banning,” says “it’s going to ban a way of talking”
-Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu on shadow banning: “they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it”
-Former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai explains banning process: “if it was a pro-Trump thing and I’m anti-Trump… I banned his whole account… it’s at your discretion”
-When asked if banning process was an unwritten rule, Norai adds “Very. A lot of unwritten rules… It was never written it was more said”
-Olinda Hassan, Policy Manager for Twitter Trust and Safety explains, “we’re trying to ‘down rank’… shitty people to not show up,” “we’re working [that] on right now”
-“Shadow banning” to be used to stealthily target political views- former Twitter engineer says, “that’s a thing”
-Censorship of certain political viewpoints to be automated via “machine learning” according to Twitter software engineer
-Parnay Singh, Twitter Direct Messaging Engineer, on machine learning algorithms, “you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck…” “the majority of it are for Republicans”

(San Francisco) In the latest undercover Project Veritas video investigation, current and former Twitter employees are on camera explaining steps the social media giant is taking to censor political content that they don’t like.

This video release follows the first undercover Twitter exposé Project Veritas released on January 10th which showed Twitter Senior Network Security Engineer Clay Haynes saying that Twitter is “more than happy to help the Department of Justice with their little [President Donald Trump] investigation.” Twitter responded to the video with a statement shortly after that release, stating “the individual depicted in this video was speaking in a personal capacity and does not represent of speak for Twitter.” The video released by Project Veritas today features eight employees, and a Project Veritas spokesman said there are more videos featuring additional employees coming.

On January 3rd 2018 at a San Francisco restaurant, Abhinov Vadrevu, a former Twitter Software Engineer explains a strategy, called “shadow banning,” that to his knowledge, Twitter has employed:

“One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don’t know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it.”

Twitter is in the process of automating censorship and banning, says Twitter Software Engineer Steven Pierre on December 8th of 2017:

“Every single conversation is going to be rated by a machine and the machine is going to say whether or not it’s a positive thing or a negative thing. And whether it’s positive or negative doesn’t (inaudible), it’s more like if somebody’s being aggressive or not. Right? Somebody’s just cursing at somebody, whatever, whatever. They may have point, but it will just vanish… It’s not going to ban the mindset, it’s going to ban, like, a way of talking.”

Olinda Hassan, a Policy Manager for Twitter’s Trust and Safety team explains on December 15th, 2017 at a Twitter holiday party that the development of a system of “down ranking” “shitty people” is in the works:

“Yeah. That’s something we’re working on. It’s something we’re working on. We’re trying to get the shitty people to not show up. It’s a product thing we’re working on right now.”

Former Twitter Engineer Conrado Miranda confirms on December 1st, 2017 that tools are already in place to censor pro-Trump or conservative content on the platform. When asked whether or not these capabilities exist, Miranda says, “that’s a thing.”


Unlike the tech companies, we aren't owned by billionaires.

Unlike the mainstream media, we don't have major Wall Street advertisers.

Please support our work with a small give today.

In a conversation with former Twitter Content Review Agent Mo Norai on May 16th, 2017, we learned that in the past Twitter would manually ban or censor Pro-Trump or conservative content. When asked about the process of banning accounts, Norai said, “On stuff like that it was more discretion on your view point, I guess how you felt about a particular matter…”

When asked to clarify if that process was automated Norai confirmed that it was not:

“Yeah, if they said this is: ‘Pro-Trump’ I don’t want it because it offends me, this, that. And I say I banned this whole thing, and it goes over here and they are like, ‘Oh you know what? I don’t like it too. You know what? Mo’s right, let’s go, let’s carry on, what’s next?'”

Norai also revealed that more left-leaning content would go through their selection process with less political scrutiny, “It would come through checked and then I would be like ‘Oh you know what? This is okay. Let it go.’”

Norai explains that this selection process wasn’t exactly Twitter policy, but rather they were following unwritten rules from the top:

“A lot of unwritten rules, and being that we’re in San Francisco, we’re in California, very liberal, a very blue state. You had to be… I mean as a company you can’t really say it because it would make you look bad, but behind closed doors are lots of rules.”

“There was, I would say… Twitter was probably about 90% Anti-Trump, maybe 99% Anti-Trump.”

At a San Francisco bar on January 5th, Pranay Singh details how the shadow-banning algorithms targeting right-leaning are engineered:

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

When asked if the majority of the algorithms are targeted against conservative or liberal users of Twitter, Singh said, “I would say majority of it are for Republicans.”

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe believes the power over speech Silicon Valley tech giants has is unprecedented and dangerous:

“What kind of world do we live in where computer engineers are the gatekeepers of the ‘way people talk?’ This investigation brings forth information of profound public importance that educates people about how free they really are to express their views online.”

Project Veritas plans to release more undercover video from within Twitter in the coming days.

Mr. O’Keefe has just completed a book about this series entitled “AMERICAN PRAVDA: My fight for Truth in the Era of Fake News.” The book will be released by St. Martin’s Press on January 16, 2018.
Pre-order James O’Keefe’s new book – a treatise on modern media, a true crime spy thriller, and a rollicking adventure story. Follow James and his undercover journalists as they expose mainstream media outlets like CNN and the New York Times and reveal dirty political tricks during the 2016 national elections.

“Yeah you look for Trump, or America, and you have like five thousand keywords to describe a redneck. Then you look and parse all the messages, all the pictures, and then you look for stuff that matches that stuff.”

Come on Panther. You're better than this.

But why shouldn't California and New York control the federal government via strict popular vote?!

You really have been gone for a long while.

Hold on. Look at the source in the OP.

Isn't this the joke of a person who got busted trying to peddle fake news who nobody takes seriously anymore?

Hold on. Look at the source in the OP.

Isn't this the joke of a person who got busted trying to peddle fake news who nobody takes seriously anymore?

Hold on. Look at the source in the OP.

Isn't this the joke of a person who got busted trying to peddle fake news who nobody takes seriously anymore?

The issue with Project Veritas is its methods, not the veracity of what it uncovers.

The veracity is questionable as their editing methods are very dishonest and can complete change the context of what is said.

If Project Veritas is confident in their work, then they should release the unedited videos, but they won't.

Obviously, Project Veritas has an agenda. It's certainly not journalism. But I don't believe anyone has ever argued that they didn't say what the tape has captured them saying.

check twitter.

but seriously why are we all the sudden freaking out about what how a corporation decides to run their business. Let the free market take its toll.

Well, there's a legitimate conversation to be had regarding these large social media companies and their applications as to whether they should be treated like public utilities. They are so large and so powerful that it would be very difficult for any competitor(s) to challenge them. And there's good reason that they are in favor of net neutrality and it isn't because they care about the unfettered dissemination of information.

Well, there's a legitimate conversation to be had regarding these large social media companies and their applications as to whether they should be treated like public utilities. They are so large and so powerful that it would be very difficult for any competitor(s) to challenge them. And there's good reason that they are in favor of net neutrality and it isn't because they care about the unfettered dissemination of information.

check twitter.

but seriously why are we all the sudden freaking out about what how a corporation decides to run their business. Let the free market take its toll.

Why are MANY unable to see this?

Well, there's a legitimate conversation to be had regarding these large social media companies and their applications as to whether they should be treated like public utilities.

I dont think many people actually believe these huge media companies truly care about fairness. The people touting that are likely just in favor of Net Neutrality for their own experience and are using companies who are on their side.

When Facebook and Twitter control speech on the internet to the extent that they will (or already do), there will be (or already are) speech issues tied into internet-as-public-utility.

Possibly(although I'm very skeptical of this premise too), but regardless, you're not taking Zuckerberg's company and turning it into a public utility. That's an outrageous proposition.

No, we're not going to nationalize Facebook (insert NSA joke here), but it's something to think about when people sneer about "freeze peaches" not being protected on a private entity. That's not a good thing.

If you like your facebook profile you'll be able to keep your facebook profile.