After rejecting disinformation hobbyist Renee DiResta, emails show Roth and other Twitter executives embraced her once Stanford University gave her an academic baptism.
We are in a unique time in history where the narrative is being written by the powerful in real time, and the media is the tool. Absent any traction of a factual counter, the powerful will literally write the history they choose and future generations (if any) will suffer the consequences.
Ah yes, the revolving door of fart-sniffing Silicon Valley do-gooders from Stanford to Big Tech to VC who all seem to know what’s best for us lowly, knuckle dragging plebes.
I don't see any evidence of underhandedness by Roth or anyone else here. It isn't some giant secret that having an academic position generally renders you more credible. I get that you don't like censorship on twitter. I don't either. But that has very little to do with this. There was going to be censorship either way. The question was simply whose recommendations would be followed in implementing said censorship. Would you prefer if they relied on avowedly left wing hacks like media matters?
What was "wrong" with the actions Roth took? Rene DiResta is the embodiment of an avowed left-wing hack who elevated the now debunked Russian interference narrative while, at the same time, was actually involved in the subversion of our democratic process (most obviously in the referenced Alabama election scandal). Roth, along with countless others in the Twitter intelligentsia, must have been aware of that, but instead chose to leverage her newly bestowed veneer of academic gravitas to suppress disfavored views and promote their narrative.
We are in a unique time in history where the narrative is being written by the powerful in real time, and the media is the tool. Absent any traction of a factual counter, the powerful will literally write the history they choose and future generations (if any) will suffer the consequences.
Ah yes, the revolving door of fart-sniffing Silicon Valley do-gooders from Stanford to Big Tech to VC who all seem to know what’s best for us lowly, knuckle dragging plebes.
I don't see any evidence of underhandedness by Roth or anyone else here. It isn't some giant secret that having an academic position generally renders you more credible. I get that you don't like censorship on twitter. I don't either. But that has very little to do with this. There was going to be censorship either way. The question was simply whose recommendations would be followed in implementing said censorship. Would you prefer if they relied on avowedly left wing hacks like media matters?
Very confused by what point you're trying to make. Sorry.
I'm saying that the behavior which you describe in the post isn't inherently problematic. What was *wrong* with any of the actions which Roth took?
What was "wrong" with the actions Roth took? Rene DiResta is the embodiment of an avowed left-wing hack who elevated the now debunked Russian interference narrative while, at the same time, was actually involved in the subversion of our democratic process (most obviously in the referenced Alabama election scandal). Roth, along with countless others in the Twitter intelligentsia, must have been aware of that, but instead chose to leverage her newly bestowed veneer of academic gravitas to suppress disfavored views and promote their narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/