I’m moving $1B of my Square equity (~28% of my wealth) to #startsmall LLC to fund global COVID-19 relief. After we disarm this pandemic, the focus will shift to girl’s health and education, and UBI. It will operate transparently, all flows tracked here: docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d…
Why UBI and girl’s health and education? I believe they represent the best long-term solutions to the existential problems facing the world. UBI is a great idea needing experimentation. Girl’s health and education is critical to balance: drawdown.org/solutions/heal…
Why is #startsmall a LLC? This segments and dedicates my shares to these causes, and provides flexibility. Grants will be made from Start Small Foundation or the LLC directly based on the beneficiary org. All transfers, sales, and grants will be made public in tracking sheet.
Why the transparency? It’s important to show my work so I and others can learn. I’ve discovered and funded ($40mm) many orgs with proven impact and efficiency in the past, mostly anonymously. Going forward, all grants will be public. Suggestions welcome. Drop your cash app ;)
Why pull just from Square and not Twitter? Simply: I own a lot more Square. And I’ll need to pace the sales over some time. The impact this money will have should benefit both companies over the long-term because it’s helping the people we want to serve.
Why now? The needs are increasingly urgent, and I want to see the impact in my lifetime. I hope this inspires others to do something similar. Life is too short, so let’s do everything we can today to help people now. ✌🏼
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?
I believe this was the right decision for Twitter. We faced an extraordinary and untenable circumstance, forcing us to focus all of our actions on public safety. Offline harm as a result of online speech is demonstrably real, and what drives our policy and enforcement above all.
That said, having to ban an account has real and significant ramifications. While there are clear and obvious exceptions, I feel a ban is a failure of ours ultimately to promote healthy conversation. And a time for us to reflect on our operations and the environment around us.
Thank you members of the Judiciary Committee for the opportunity to speak with the American people about Twitter and your concerns around censorship and suppression of a specific news article, and generally what we saw in the 2020 US Elections conversation.
We were called here today because of an enforcement decision we made against the @NYPost, based on a policy we created in 2018 to prevent Twitter from being used to spread hacked materials. This resulted in us blocking people from sharing a @NYPost article, publicly or privately.
We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence, that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, blocked them from being spread. Upon further consideration, we admitted this action was wrong, and corrected it within 24 hours.
Thank you members of the Commerce Committee for the opportunity to speak with the American people about Twitter and §230. My remarks will be brief to get to questions. §230 is the most important law protecting internet speech. Removing §230 will remove speech from the internet.
§230 gave internet services two important tools. The first provides immunity from liability for user’s content. The second provides “Good Samaritan” protections for content moderation and removal, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it’s done “in good faith.”
That concept of “good faith” is what’s being challenged by many of you today. Some of you don’t trust we’re acting in good faith. That’s the problem I want to focus on solving. How do services like Twitter earn your trust? How do we ensure more choice in the market if we don’t?
The most incredible aspect of the internet is that no one person or organization controls it: the people make it what it is every day. That ideal is constantly under threat, especially today. We commit as a company to fighting for an #OpenInternet.
The power of the internet is only as good as the power it gives to individual people. The more we do to advance that, the stronger it becomes. This underlies all else. But there are two emergent and growing threats.
The first is a number of large organizations effectively building walled-garden alternative internets, sustained by favorable regulation, and thus killing competing ideas and organizations that could be better for society.
$1.6m to @codetenderloin to support support Code Tenderloin’s Calming the Corner street pop-up providing immediate and on the ground needs in the Tenderloin of San Francisco. codetenderloin.org
$1.7m to @antiviolence to support the AVP 24/7 Spanish/English crisis intervention hotline nationally and launch text and chat, and provide assistance for undocumented LGBTQ immigrants with emergency support. avp.org
Working on getting help to be more proactive and have a general intake form that doesn’t lean on my network or established orgs that have already done the work.
$75k for @TeenHealthMS to support the urgent needs of Mississippi youth disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 by providing a variety of assistance options, including: housing, nutrition, childcare, transportation, medical, and school supply assistance teenhealthms.org