Protecting Pandemic Conversations: Tracing Twitter’s Evolving Content Policies During COVID-19

Twitter as a Public Platform

Before assessing the rhetorical nature of Twitter’s evolving Terms of Service (TOS), we must recognize it as a “platform.” Gillespie (2010) identified two uses of the term that are especially relevant to Twitter’s approach for combating COVID-19 information: architectural and political. Citing the Oxford English Dictionary, Gillespie stated that architecturally, a “platform” acts as “a raised level surface on which people or things can stand, usually a discrete, structure intended for particular activity or operation” (p. 349). Like a soapbox, Twitter as a digital platform provides users with some degree of visibility among a large, often undefined audience of other active users. Gillespie, though, is quick to indicate that such a platform, especially in today’s digital environments, also allows for human biases and agendas. Political preferences influence and shape actions accepted on a platform, making these spaces rhetorical in nature. Adding necessary nuance to Gillespie’s perspective, Edwards and Gelms (2018) stress that

platforms are sites for rhetorical action but also determine the contours of that action. Platforms are complex and evolving assemblages of people, technologies, discourses, materialities, financial decisions, community practices, and more that shape the possibilities for social, civic, and political exchanges. (p. 4)

Thus, if we position Twitter as a digital platform, we can better account for the corporate values and objectives that shape Twitter’s content policy development. Moreover, viewing Twitter as a platform highlights the nuanced motives informing Twitter’s strategies for fighting COVID-19 misinformation, especially as they concern defining and acting on updated definitions of harm.

Redefining Harm

Central to Twitter’s strategy for combating COVID-19 misinformation are definitions of the terms harm and harmful content included in its most recent TOS. In the company blog post “An update on our continuity strategy during COVID-19,” Gadde and Derella (2020), Twitter’s legal, policy, and trust and safety lead and its customers lead, respectively, state that “as the entire world faces an unprecedented public health emergency, we want to be open about the challenges we are facing and the contingency measures we’re putting in place to serve the public conversation at this critical time” (para. 1). As a platform, then, Twitter communicates a political position that emphasizes its obligation to circulate the best and most accurate content and discussions regarding the pandemic, which extends to scrutinizing and removing misinformation and other misleading Tweets.

Like Edwards and Gelms (2018) reminded us, Twitter’s TOS is not static, rather, it regularly evolves to fit the technology and cultures of the time. The COVID-19 pandemic provides an interesting insight on how Twitter’s TOS, seen specifically through Twitter’s definition of harm, is kairotic and thus rhetorical in nature. Gadde and Derella (2020) explained that, in response to the pandemic, “harmful” will now include content that “directly [poses] a risk to people’s health or well-being” (para. 15). Recognizing that their explanation left room for question, Gadde and Derella cited specific instances of what content Twitter deems harmful to their users and the ongoing public COVID-19 conversations. For example, it considers Tweets with the following content as “harmful” and subject for removal from the platform for whatever length of time administrators deem appropriate:

“denial of global or local health authority recommendations to decrease someone’s likelihood of exposure to COVID-19 with the intent to influence people into acting against recommended guidance”

Prior to the COVID-19’s pandemic status, Twitter provided only a vague definition of the term and positioned harmful content as something users might “encounter” while on the site rather than content it would remove.

Gadde and Derella (2020) noted that since implementing its current policies on March 18, 2020, Twitter has “removed more than 1,100 tweets containing misleading and potentially harmful content” (para 14). Among these include the removal of a Tweet sent by Lynnette Hardaway and Rochelle Richardson (known as Diamond and Silk) that claimed that “the only way we can become immune to the environment; we must be out in the environment. Quarantining people inside of their houses for extended periods will make people sick!” More recently, Twitter restricted visibility of the hashtags #PlagueOfCorruption and #Plandemicmovie on the platform’s trending section after leading health officials criticized the film’s scientific accuracy.

Like other digital platforms, Twitter requires users to agree to a TOS that defines appropriate and inappropriate content. Especially relevant to COVID-19 content, its recently updated definition of harm reflects Twitter’s recognition of the pandemic’s current status and the role Twitter aims to play in COVID-19 discussions. Gillespie (2010) noted that “[a digital platform’s] choices about what can appear, how it is organized…what can be removed and why…are all real and substantive interventions into the contours of public discourse” (p. 359). Because of Twitter’s popularity, the platform could change the tide of online COVID-19 public discussions. In fact, through its definition and applications of harm, Twitter, as an online platform, has the capacity to ensure user access to the most accurate and up-to-date information that reflects best practices for flattening the curve.

Coupling Kairos and Authority

By broadening the term harm as it relates to COVID-19 content, Twitter is engaging with the kairotic moment. Drawing from Aristotle, Artemeva (2005) explained that kairos can be best understood as “the qualitative aspect of time…defined as the right moment, the opportune, or as due measure” (p. 393). The kairotic moment, Artemeva reminded us, is both created and recognized (p. 394). Thus, by broadening its definition of harm both proactively and retroactively, Twitter demonstrated a recognition of the kairotic moment in more nuanced forms that reflect the impacts of previously circulated content on the public, as well as a critical awareness of conversations that are likely to emerge based on social perceptions of certain topics concerning COVID-19.

But Twitter’s expansion of its definition of harm means little if its specific applications do not reflect the current nature and best practices of the situation. Gadde and Derella (2020) explained that COVID-19 policies and policy enforcement are evaluated through a lens informed by both site administrators and “trusted partners, including public health authorities and governments” (para. 1). The influence of authoritative experts on Twitter’s policy development reflects the interconnected nature of acting on the kairotic moment in a way shaped by leading experts. Bowdon (2014) observed that, although the impacts of Tweets might seem fleeting, Tweets can, in fact, have great cultural impact, especially for those who rely on Twitter for information during times of crisis. Considering the weight of Twitter as a platform, Bowdon warned that social media tools, like Twitter, risk creating misinformation through ineffective content vetting (p. 37). It is important to develop content policies by thoughtfully coupling kairotic moments with authoritative insight. Updating content policies to reflect the given context requires not only recognizing the moment but also identifying the best sources to inform the content policies and removal protocols.

Applications in the TPC Classroom

Social media platforms, including Twitter, have found their way into TPC classrooms—and with good reason. Vie (2018) stressed that social media are not “fads” but rather legitimate platforms for communication that students will engage with in personal, academic, and professional contexts. As such, TPC educators have “a responsibility” to prepare students for composing effectively and ethically on these platforms (p. 354). Twitter’s response to COVID-19 misinformation not only affirms Edwards and Gelms’s (2018) idea that platforms are in a constant state of rhetorical evolution but also demonstrates for TPC students how a company such as Twitter synthesizes important rhetorical considerations to foster and facilitate specific public discussions that reflect the platform’s professional and political views on ongoing events such as COVID-19.

We might reasonably assume that by the time this article is published, Twitter will have again changed its content policies and perhaps even updated its definition of harm. As a platform that elevates users’ voices if they comply with company values, Twitter updates its COVID-19-related content policies based on the pandemic’s current status, which is informed by the best practices of experts. This strategy could serve as an opportunity to assess the effectiveness of partnerships between site administrators and leading experts for developing policies that better serve the interest of thoughtful, productive online public discussions.