Meet Yoel Roth - Twitter's "Head of Site Integrity"

[Paul_Thomson]

So, Yoel Roth is not making themself known by their tweets that invite followers? Talk about incoherent thought!

[wiley8425]

Yeah, Yoel Roth is a veritable Kathy Griffin. You bet.

[Smyrna]

Oh…he’s “neutral”. Ask any lib here?

[wiley8425]

As “neutral” as Trump is “Conservative.”

[JayJay]

@Paul_Thomson

@toreyj01

Singling this guy out is just inviting crazed followers of Trump to target him, which is tantamount to intimidation. Bad mojo.

So, individual anti-Trumpers cannot be held personally accountable for their own words, but their opinions must be treated as anonymous. Does that standard apply to pro-Trumpers as well?

Sure he is.

But so are the people who ask for him to be targeted for something he didn’t even do accountable for their actions.

[Paul_Thomson]

@JayJay

Sure he is.
But so are the people who ask for him to be targeted for something he didn’t even do accountable for their actions.

I don’t see how “Sure he is,” meshes with the post you are responding to.

[JayJay]

@Paul_Thomson

@JayJay

Sure he is.
But so are the people who ask for him to be targeted for something he didn’t even do accountable for their actions.

I don’t see how “Sure he is,” meshes with the post you are responding to.

Sure he is responsible for his posts.

[Paul_Thomson]

@JayJay

Sure he is responsible for his posts.

So, there’s nothing wrong with critiquing Yoel for his stupid or misleading pseudo-fact-checking.

[JayJay]

@Paul_Thomson

@JayJay

Sure he is responsible for his posts.

So, there’s nothing wrong with critiquing Yoel for his stupid or misleading pseudo-fact-checking.

Sure there is.

He doesn’t run the department that does the fact-checking.

And the fact-checking itself hasn’t been critiqued.

In place of actually critiquing the fact-checking was personal attacks on Yoel.

[wiley8425]

When you can’t defeat the message, attack the perceived messenger. Or so I’ve heard.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@JayJay

@Paul_Thomson

@JayJay

Sure he is responsible for his posts.

So, there’s nothing wrong with critiquing Yoel for his stupid or misleading pseudo-fact-checking.

Sure there is.

He doesn’t run the department that does the fact-checking.

And the fact-checking itself hasn’t been critiqued.

In place of actually critiquing the fact-checking was personal attacks on Yoel.

They only fact check one side.

[JayJay]

@Mountain_Soldier

@JayJay

@Paul_Thomson

@JayJay

Sure he is responsible for his posts.

So, there’s nothing wrong with critiquing Yoel for his stupid or misleading pseudo-fact-checking.

Sure there is.

He doesn’t run the department that does the fact-checking.

And the fact-checking itself hasn’t been critiqued.

In place of actually critiquing the fact-checking was personal attacks on Yoel.

They only fact check one side.

So naturally the solution to that is to personally attack so,Rome who wasn’t even responsible.

Were the fact checks wrong?

If so…how?

[wiley8425]

Hey my toaster doesn’t make pizza. Thanks Obama!

[Rodeo]

@merickson

When the personal integrity of a fact checker is challenged, that’s a big hint that the facts that they report are likely correct. “If you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger

When the personal integrity of the fact checker can be so easily proven non existent because the fact checker can be so easily shown to be a pajama boy with an agenda, that’s a big hint the fact checker’s reports cannot he trusted.

By the way, when is Twitter going to start fact checking the lying liberals who just gave us a fake impeachment based on a phony dossier orchestrated by a collection of leftists…I wanna know when Comey, Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and AOC are going to get “fact-checked” for starts.

What a joke!

[Rodeo]

I agree with Marco Rubio. This is from a Washington Times story, i think it’s ironically a tweet, but the Senator makes this point…Twitter might wanna be careful what it wishes for.

“The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers. But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law.”

[TommyLucchese]

@Rodeo

I agree with Marco Rubio. This is from a Washington Times story, i think it’s ironically a tweet, but the Senator makes this point…Twitter might wanna be careful what it wishes for.

“The law still protects social media companies like @Twitter because they are considered forums not publishers. But if they have now decided to exercise an editorial role like a publisher then they should no longer be shielded from liability & treated as publishers under the law.”

That is not how any of this works.

[TommyLucchese]

I’ve seen the draft of this EO and. It. Is. A. Hoot.

Bet it was written by Stephen Miller.

[toreyj01]

@mwevans1234

@toreyj01

Ack…why???

A single face is easier to hate than a concept or group.

The Goldstein Effect reflects a more general point, which is that people are especially likely to respond to an identifiable perpetrator-just as they are especially likely to respond to an identifiable victim. Joseph Stalin understood the point: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. What is true for victims has close parallels in the context of perpetrators. If a wrongdoer has a clear identity-a face and a narrative-the public is far more likely to support an aggressive response. With respect to risks of all kinds, political actors show an intuitive understanding of this point, mobilizing public reactions by giving a face to the source of the problem. Terrorism is only the most vivid example.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12391&context=journal_articles

And it’s the same reason marketers use buyer personas, why politicians pull up “Mary Jones with her 3 jobs and 4 kids” to talk about living wage during stump speeches, and why I use individual stories to drive clients to respond to what the data say.

Faces and names are powerful motivators!

Interesting post! Thanks for taking the time, I appreciate you.

[PurpnGold]

@Mountain_Soldier

They only fact check one side.

Is it possible that only one side needs fact checking?

[WuWei]

@mwevans1234

@toreyj01

Ack…why???

A single face is easier to hate than a concept or group.

The Goldstein Effect reflects a more general point, which is that people are especially likely to respond to an identifiable perpetrator-just as they are especially likely to respond to an identifiable victim. Joseph Stalin understood the point: "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. What is true for victims has close parallels in the context of perpetrators. If a wrongdoer has a clear identity-a face and a narrative-the public is far more likely to support an aggressive response. With respect to risks of all kinds, political actors show an intuitive understanding of this point, mobilizing public reactions by giving a face to the source of the problem. Terrorism is only the most vivid example.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=12391&context=journal_articles

And it’s the same reason marketers use buyer personas, why politicians pull up “Mary Jones with her 3 jobs and 4 kids” to talk about living wage during stump speeches, and why I use individual stories to drive clients to respond to what the data say.

Faces and names are powerful motivators!

Excellent post.