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

[JayJay]

@STODR

Saying there is no evidence when there was evidence means they got it wrong period or it was a bald face lie, you choose what you believe. All the other stuff you wrote had nothing to do with their deception.

Everything I wrote was extremely relevant.

[STODR]

Please explain how whether or not those ballots changed the outcome had anything to with them lying about there being no evidence.

[Paul_Thomson]

@JayJay

Decades of data say “Yes- the safeguards are fine”

Actually, the data does not say, “Yes- the safeguards are fine”.

How do you suggest post in ballots be verified when every ballot is mail- in? Which of the methods listed here? Policy Research

[Rodeo]

@TommyLucchese

That is not how any of this works

Uh yeah it is. I can listen to a Senator, lawyers I heard on Tv today, and draw on my own experience in the communications industry…or I can believe some guy on the internet.

Sorry

[PurpnGold]

@Rodeo

Uh yeah it is. I can listen to a Senator, lawyers I heard on Tv today, and draw on my own experience in the communications industry…or I can believe some guy on the internet.

Sorry

But it isn’t how any of this works.

[wiley8425]

You missed the point. It’s ok. I can explain it to you if you ask nicely.

[Rodeo]

@Mountain_Soldier

You’re right. Democrats never need to be fact checked.

You can keep your health insurance.

George Bush got special treatment.

William Barr stopped mid sentence when talking about his decision.

Credibility matters. The same people now telling us this fact checking thing is cool are the ones who told us Hillary would win in a landslide, deluged us daily with the Trump Russia collusion lies, claimed Christine Blasey Ford was credible but now ignore Tara Reade, who believed Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler were pillars of integrity during that stupid worthless impeachment, and who called Trump a Xenophobic Racist when he did the right thing and shut off China travel. Those people are a collective joke IMHO.

[Rodeo]

@PurpnGold

But it isn’t how any of this works.

Did Rachel Maddoe give you guys one answer tonight?

[PurpnGold]

@Rodeo

Did Rachel Maddoe give you guys one answer tonight?

Who? It’s been explained several times on this board.

[hwyflier]

No longer content with coming into the bedroom, so-called conservatives now strive to take over my HR department.

[Rodeo]

@PurpnGold

Who? It’s been explained several times on this board.

I m sure it has, by people who are wrong most of the time.

So thanks.

[PurpnGold]

@Rodeo

I m sure it has, by people who are wrong most of the time.

So thanks.

You know if section 230 is modified in the way Trump wants… I could sue… this board for example… if they delete one of my posts or mask a bad word.

Why in the world would any website want that? It would mean that their T&Cs would be null and void. The government would be in control.

Conservatives want this? Because Trump, of all people, said so?

What?

[SeaManatee]

It depends, did he say it in all caps?

[WuWei]

@wiley8425

You missed the point. It’s ok. I can explain it to you if you ask nicely.

That was nice, not an invitation to debate.

[Paul_Thomson]

@PurpnGold

You know if section 230 is modified in the way Trump wants… I could sue… this board for example… if they delete one of my posts or mask a bad word.

Why in the world would any website want that? It would mean that their T&Cs would be null and void. The government would be in control.

This board is not so large that not having access to it puts me at a commercial or political disadvantage. When companies choose to grow so big by swallowing competition, that they dominate a market, or a group of companies act as a cartel to dominate the market, they have a social duty to make their service accessible to everyone without political or economic favour.

When a company is small, market forces will regulate their censorship choices. When a company is so big, or has formed a cartel with others, such that they are impervious to pressure from market forces, that company needs to be restricted for the common good by we the people through government.

[PurpnGold]

@Paul_Thomson

This board is not so large that not having access to it puts me at a commercial or political disadvantage. When companies choose to grow so big by swallowing competition, that they dominate a market, or a group of companies act as a cartel to dominate the market, they have a social duty to make their service accessible to everyone without political or economic favour.

Section 230 doesn’t care about size of the website or influence. Nor should it. Would this site get a pass if it was peddling child pornography? Nope.

@Paul_Thomson

When a company is small, market forces will regulate their censorship choices. When a company is so big, or has formed a cartel with others, such that they are impervious to pressure from market forces, that company needs to be restricted for the common good by we the people through government.

If Twitter can get sued by its hundreds of millions of users because they are offended by a word, phrase or image… Twitter would cease to exist. Along with most websites.

[TommyLucchese]

Site integrity. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[TommyLucchese]

@PurpnGold

If Twitter can get sued by its hundreds of millions of users because they are offended by a word, phrase or image… Twitter would cease to exist. Along with most websites.

Also, hilariously, Trump would be one of the first accounts banned.

[Samson_Corwell]

@TommyLucchese

@PurpnGold

If Twitter can get sued by its hundreds of millions of users because they are offended by a word, phrase or image… Twitter would cease to exist. Along with most websites.

Also, hilariously, Trump would be one of the first accounts banned.

And one of the first to sue.

[Paul_Thomson]

@PurpnGold

If Twitter can get sued by its hundreds of millions of users because they are offended by a word, phrase or image… Twitter would cease to exist. Along with most websites.

Then they should stick to reporting to law enforcement criminal behaviour of posters, and not arrogate to themselves the roles of legislator, law enforcer and judge.