Yoel Roth, the former Global Head of Trust and Safety for Twitter, exposed the widespread scientific censorship at Twitter.
The “Twitter files” and Twitter’s radical left-leaning political agenda are now publicly known thanks to Elon Musk’s purchase of the company and the continued disclosure of those documents. Additionally, it appears that some of the key players in the platform’s censoring model are open to sharing their goals and strategies. Given their disclosed misrepresentations and trespasses against their clients and site users, one might expect them to adopt a more remorseful stance, but this is certainly not the case.
Former Twitter employees, particularly former moderators and Trust and Safety staff, are unrepentant for their political bias-tainted suppression attempts and appear to despise Elon Musk for opening the door to fair debate on the social media site.
Yoel Roth, a Twitter official, made recent news when he admitted that Twitter made a “mistake” in aggressively censoring the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Roth, the former global head of trust and safety, actively participated in the news’ repression, which resulted in the deletion of the New York Post account for no other reason than it provided accurate reporting.
However, it appears dishonest to characterise the incident as a “error” stemming from the company’s worries about “misinformation”. As we now know, Twitter and the DNC were in constant communication, and requests were made to ban any mention of such damaging news by DNC officials. here was round-table debate at Twitter, but it was not about whether it was morally right to censor the information. Rather, Twitter execs debated whether or not they could get away with it.
Subscribe to GreatGameIndia
The largest issue is that the trust and safety elites within Big Tech corporations have no qualms about the legitimacy and righteousness of their cause. The following interview with Roth at the Knight Foundation puts the horrific character of the philosophy of scientifically exact censorship on full display. Roth has no issues with the idea of suppressing free speech.
Watch the video below:
Roth compares blocked content to “malicious campaigns,” creating the impression of a nebulous group of “trolls” working behind the scenes to spread venom and untruths. It’s projection, then. The only coordinated and shady attempts were made by Twitter’s leadership to quiet opposition, some of which were done in an effort to help their Democratic Party allies win the 2020 election.
Roth, who describes the general choice made by Big Tech corporations to place a significant emphasis on campaign and election influence after the 2016 election, even makes a hint at this. As justification for this plan to censor election material, Roth points to the long-debunked claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election.
The Democrats and Twitter have a very clear history of working together to rig elections, which is exactly what Roth warns about. Beyond the concern of possible political manipulation, Yoel Roth’s psychology is alarming. For instance, Roth continues by calling the humour present in groups like Libs of Tikok and the Babylon Bee “dangerous” and explicitly alleging that it endangers the lives of members of the transgender community.
Remember that satire and humour are typically the first targets of any authoritarian regime vying for power because the best comedy gets to the heart of lies and expresses realities that many people would otherwise be scared to address. If a joke is based on falsehoods it’s usually not very funny. As far as Libs of TikTok is concerned, all they do is re-post videos of leftists’ own arguments and confessions, and for that they are labeled “dangerous.”
The former and safety executive continues by criticising the removal of covid censoring and describing it as “wrong and destructive” without providing any further context. One can only speculate that the leftists on Twitter collaborated with authorities to stifle any and all facts and information that conflicted with the dominant pandemic narrative. A lot of this information, like the Biden Laptop, was branded as “conspiracy theory” and outlawed before being later proven to be fact.
The Trust and Safety Cult’s two main poisons are as follows: First, it is being done increasingly precisely and scientifically. It is not only based merely on community flagging; these folks are using algorithms and computer modelling in the hopes that they may build predictive suppression. They think they can “measure hate events” as if they are hurricanes and batten down the hatches before the waves hit. The thing is, much of the “hate” they fear is all in their minds. The “malicious campaigns” they see are often merely people disagreeing with them on the basis of facts and principles.
One reason is that “hate” is impossible to quantify accurately, and when it is viewed through a prism of delusion based on prejudice and zealotry, we face a peril that is even more dangerous than hatred: the prospect of dictatorship disguised as technocracy. They are preventing free speech rather than preventing hate.
The actual question to be addressed is whether or not measurements for trust and safety should even exist. What makes us require them? Roth never doubts the legitimacy of his old position or the reasons supporting it. The conclusion is as follows: The justification for Big Tech censorship is the claim that individuals cannot be trusted to generate their own opinions based on the information they are exposed to. Social media leaders think that THEY should be the arbiters of information in order to protect people from themselves.
What gives them the right to wield such influence? Nothing. No one is competent, wise, or impartial enough to moderate the opinions of millions of people, and since Big Tech has a virtual monopoly on contemporary communications, their decisions have an impact on society as a whole. Twitter is merely a small part of the total problem, but the Roth-promoted method of cold, calculated suppression is currently being used by the bulk of Big Tech firms. If this type of intellectual monopoly is allowed to continue, it will eventually lead to the eradication of free speech as we know it in America (and throughout Western culture).