This by Yoel Roth sounds very sad and sympathetic until you recognize that "moderation" and "trust and safety" mean censorship, and often government censorship. Then suddenly the whole story takes on a new cast. nytimes.com/2023/09/18/opi…
Amazing that even after a federal judge ruled that Roth engaged in govt censorship, and with that case almost certainly going to the Supreme Court, the New York Times lets him write an entire op-ed that doesn't even *acknowledge* that that's the basis of the criticism of him.
Roth would have you believe that the Twitter Files was a 4chan-style harassment campaign against him personally, instead of a journalistic revelation that helped create the evidentiary basis of what may become one of the most consequential free speech cases in US history. 
Academic researchers who *directly engage in govt censorship.* "Lawsuits" and "congressional hearings" aren't harassment, they're the legal process by which those who are censored have recourse. "Vicious online attacks" is of course free speech, which Roth disapproves of.
And in the most obnoxiously disingenuous part, Roth equates govt coercion of Twitter in India and Russia with what his critics are doing in the US — when his critics are *explicitly demanding that the US government stop coercing Twitter.*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
