17 February 2023
J Schofield
[FYI request #21370 email]
Ref: OIA-2022/23-0413
Dear J Schofield
Official Information Act request for communications with Twitter’s SRT-GET and SIP-
PES
Thank you for your Official Information Act 1982 (OIA) of 9 December 2022.
You have requested:
1. “…all documents held that constitute communications between the
Prime Minister, other Ministers, or other NZ Government officials,
agencies or agents and; Twitter's Strategic Response Team - Global
Escalation Team (SRT-GET), and Twitter's Site Integrity Policy,
Policy Escalation Support (SIP-PES).
2. Please
consider
SRT-GET
and
SIP-PES
to
include
any
known/potential members of that team, and any high ranked
officials/employees at Twitter. Specifically but not exclusively this
includes Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde, Yoel Roth, Parag Agrawal, as
identified as SIP-PES members by Ms Bari Weiss.
3. I seek any communications relating to requests by NZ govt persons
or entities and Twitter that seek to suppress or alter the dissemination
of any information tweeted by any person known or thought to be
either or both a New Zealand citizen/permanent resident and/or
located within New Zealand (incl any overseas territory/overseas NZ
govt controlled location).
4. I also request all documents held that may constitute similar
discussions or communications that may be of any international
public interest.
5. I also request all documents held that constitute any discussion of
suppression of any information whatsoever, between the same NZ
Govt persons and twitter-related persons.
6. I also request all documents held that constitute NZ-govt internal
policies or discussions relating to the suppression or algorithmic
alteration of the dissemination of information by Twitter, Facebook,
and Instagram.
I limit the period covered by this request to the period between 1
January 2019 and today's date (9 December 2022).
Executive Wing, Parliament Buildings, Wellington, New Zealand 6011
4695270
64 4 817 9698 www.dpmc.govt.nz
Please reference the #TwitterFiles by journalists Matt Tiabbi and Bari
Weiss, brought to us by Twitter's new owner, notable gigachad Elon
Musk.
Specifically;
"12. The group that decided whether to limit the reach of certain users
was the Strategic Response Team - Global Escalation Team, or SRT-
GET. It often handled up to 200 "cases" a day.
13. But there existed a level beyond official ticketing, beyond the
rank-and-file moderators following the company’s policy on paper.
That is the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support,” known as
“SIP-PES.
14. This secret group included Head of Legal, Policy, and Trust
(Vijaya Gadde), the Global Head of Trust & Safety (Yoel Roth),
subsequent CEOs Jack Dorsey and Parag Agrawal, and others".
These
tweets
are
available
from
this
link
–
www.twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1601007575633305600?s=20&t=W
cJ7Tf3x9l-nPdSwEOGK6g”
On 22 December 2022, we wrote to you and advised that your request, as it is currently
framed, has not been specified with due particularity per section 12(2) of the OIA. We further
advised that we consider it reasonably necessary for your request to be clarified in order for
us to response appropriately and requested that you provide clarity and particularity on the
six points of your request.
On 27 December 2022, you responded and noted that you are confident that your request
meets the “due particularity” test. While the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
(DPMC) does not consider that your request has been specified with due particularity per
section 12(2) of the OIA, we will endeavour to provide a response to your request.
Parts One and Two
As you are aware, elements of these parts of your request were transferred to the
Prime Minister’s Office for response on 13 January 2023.
DPMC has interpreted these parts of your request to refer to all communications between
1 January 2019 and 9 December 2022 between DPMC and “
Twitter's Strategic Response
Team - Global Escalation Team (SRT-GET), and Twitter's Site Integrity Policy, Policy
Escalation Support (SIP-PES) [including]
any known/potential members of that team, and
any high ranked officials/employees at Twitter. Specifically but not exclusively this includes
Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde, Yoel Roth, Parag Agrawal, as identified as SIP-PES members
by Ms Bari Weiss” (Twitter).
I can advise that DPMC is not aware of the teams you have referred to. It therefore follows
that DPMC has not had any correspondence with those specific teams. As such, your
request for communications between DPMC and Twitter’s Strategic Response Team –
Global Escalation Team (SRT-GET), and Twitter’s Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation
Support (SIP-PES) is refused under section 18(e), as the document alleged to contain the
requested information does not exist. As we are unaware of these teams, we are also unable
to identify “any known/potential members of that team” and therefore your request for
4695270
2
communications between DPMC and members of that team is refused under section 18(e),
as the document alleged to contain the requested information does not exist.
You also requested communications between DPMC and “any high ranked
officials/employees at Twitter”. DPMC’s view is that “high ranked officials/employees at
Twitter” has not been expressed with due particularity. That being said, DPMC has
endeavoured to provide you with information we consider to be within the scope of your
request.
I can confirm that DPMC has had communications with the individuals listed in your request
between 1 January 2019 and 9 December 2022.
Please find attached the documents within the scope of your request. Information that is not
within the scope of your request has been marked out of scope. Some information has been
withheld under section 9(2)(g)(ii) of the OIA to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs
through protection from improper pressure or harassment.
Further information has been withheld under section 9(2)(ba)(i) to protect information subject
to an obligation of confidence, as the making available of that information will likely prejudice
the supply of similar information, and section 9(2)(j) to enable a public service agency or
organisation holding the information to carry on negotiations without prejudice.
In making my decision, I have taken the public interest considerations in section 9(1) of the
Act into account.
In addition to this information, you may find of interest two Prime Ministerial Overseas Travel
reports. I have listed them in the table below for ease of reference:
Date
Document Title
Website Address
Cabinet Decision CAB-19-SUB-
www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/cabinet-
0284: Report on Overseas
decision-cab-19-sub-0284-report-
11 Sept 2021 Travel: Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
overseas-travel-rt-hon-jacinda-ardern-
(May 2019)
may-2019
Proactive Release – Report on
www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/proactive
Overseas Travel: Rt Hon
-release-report-overseas-travel-rt-hon-
21 Sept 2022 Jacinda Ardern and Hon
jacinda-ardern-and-hon-damien-oconnor
Damien O’Connor (CAB-22-
SUB-0321/CAB-22-MIN-0321)
We further note that you are also requesting communications between “
other Ministers, or
other NZ Government officials, agencies or agents” and Twitter.
As you have not stated with due particularity which agencies or ministers you are referring to,
DPMC was not able to transfer that part of your request to the relevant agencies/offices. If
you would like to know whether a specific minister has corresponded with Twitter, you may
wish to email them directly instead. The contact details of ministers are publicly available on
the Beehive website, at:
www.beehive.govt.nz/ministers.
Part Three
You requested: “
any communications relating to requests by NZ govt persons or entities and
Twitter that seek to suppress or alter the dissemination of any information tweeted by any
4695270
3
person known or thought to be either or both a New Zealand citizen/permanent resident
and/or located within New Zealand (incl any overseas territory/overseas NZ govt controlled
location).”
For clarity, we have interpreted this part of your request to refer to any communications
between DPMC and Twitter that seek to apply content moderation to people in New Zealand
or New Zealand citizens or permanent residents. I can advise that DPMC is not responsible
for issues of online content moderation in New Zealand, and DPMC has not had any
communications within the scope of this part of your request. I further advise that DPMC
does not hold communications made by another government agency.
The Department of Internal Affairs’ (DIA) Digital Safety Group is responsible for issues of
online harms in New Zealand. As you are aware, this part of your request was transferred to
DIA for response on 20 January 2023.
If you would like to make a request for communications between other government agencies
and Twitter, you may wish to email them directly instead. The contact details of each
government organisation are publicly available on its website.
Part Four
You requested: “
all documents held that may constitute similar discussions or
communications that may be of any international public interest”. DPMC has interpreted this part of your request to refer to any discussions or
communications that relate to the first three parts of your request that may be of any
international public interest. I can confirm that the information provided in response to
Parts One and Two applies also to this part of your request.
Part Five
You requested:
“all documents held that constitute any discussion of suppression of any
information whatsoever, between the same NZ Govt persons and twitter-related persons.” As noted above, DPMC is not responsible for issues of online content moderation in
New Zealand. DIA’s Digital Safety Group is responsible for issues of online harms. As you
are aware, this part of your request was transferred to DIA for response on 20 January 2023.
As advised above, DPMC does not hold communications made by another government
agency. If you would like to make a request for communications between another
government agency or minister and Twitter, you may wish to email them directly instead.
Part Six
You requested “
all documents held that constitute NZ-govt internal policies or discussions
relating to the suppression or algorithmic alteration of the dissemination of information by
Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.” As noted above, DPMC is not responsible for issues of online content moderation in
New Zealand. DIA’s Digital Safety Group is responsible for issues of online harms. As you
are aware, this part of your request was transferred to DIA for response on 20 January 2023.
4695270
4
We note that you might be interested in the work of the Christchurch Call Community; DPMC
operates as Secretariat to this Community. The Christchurch Call’s multistakeholder
community, which includes Twitter and Meta, works to eliminate terrorism and violent
extremism content (TVEC) online. You can find more information about the Christchurch
Call, its multistakeholder community, and its work to eliminate TVEC online at
www.christchurchcall.com. In particular, you may find of interest the four Christchurch Call
Leaders’ Summits that have taken place between May 2019 and September 2022. You can
find this information at
https://www.christchurchcall.com/about/leaders-summits/. The Christchurch Call Community also works to
research and understand the role algorithms
play in the dissemination of TVEC online. If you would like further information regarding work
relevant to Christchurch Call, you may wish to visit the Christchurch Call website, at:
www.christchurchcall.com/media-and-resources/reports-and-publications/. You can find out more about the recently announced Christchurch Call Initiative on
Algorithmic Outcomes on the Christchurch Call website and in a proactively released Cabinet
paper on the Initiative:
www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications/proactive-release-christchurch-call-
research-partnership. You can also find proactively released information relating to the
Christchurch Call
at www.dpmc.govt.nz/publications. Further information about Countering
Violent
Extremism
Online
is
also
publicly
available
on
DIA’s website, at:
www.dia.govt.nz/Countering-Violent-Extremism. As you declined, in our view, to clarify your request with due particularity, we have
endeavoured to interpret and respond to your request in accordance with the OIA. I trust the
information provided is of assistance. You have the right to ask the Office of the Ombudsman
to investigate and review my decision under section 28(3) of the OIA.
This response may be published on DPMC’s website during our regular publication cycle.
Typically, information is released monthly, or as otherwise determined. Your personal
information including name and contact details will be removed for publication.
Yours sincerely
Anneliese Parkin
Deputy Chief Executive, Policy
4695270
5