Trust & Safety has earned an impoverishing reputation among civil libertarians and self-publishers online who venture into territorial speech or a fiefdom of defining agency in today’s Western culture war. Who are these people anyway?
The general profile of Trust & Safety is somewhere between editorial gatekeeper, censor, and human resources compliance checks at social media and technology companies. They are corporate bureaucrats who work with the US governing authorities. Often they don’t feel the impacts of their behavior when it is unlawful, censorious or creates an unfair economic disparity. They are not held accountable for their roles at a company by the public. They are private company actors. They do fall into the column of ‘banal evil’ for their favoritism of policies worshiping at the ESG altar of domestic US sanctions for personal political speech. Besides being named in a few defamation lawsuits, how do you instruct-promote legal advisement to tech companies who seem to be rewarded no matter what they do?
This is a snapshot of who they are and what their priorities are:
One side bills some offensive sounding speech as ‘dangerous violence’. They may engineer a slam into a algorithmic peg-hole denying you any arbitration or agency, while colluding with unlawful government censors.
The other side plays victim at times for getting institutional pitch aimed at them for saying overly unfair and intellectually dishonest things about: politics, science, religious views and any other pertinent social policy that emerges to the surface for public inspection.
Yet another side, cares not for truth or civility will manipulate the meaning of words as government agency and propaganda authorities when they clearly have no authority to define those things based on the applied limits of domestic agency and espionage.
Yet even another side are simply emotionally immature criminal saboteurs who want to obstruct or silence a speaker with no legitimate cause. It’s essentially somewhere between a hacker and a SWAT fraud caller who sends 911 calls to get an armed raid aimed at a rival for pissing them off on Call of Duty.
What is your duty? Who are you in all of this? When do you get to check the Internet nanny/CISA proxy adults labeling one person as ‘offending fascist’ while they carry an armful of socialist scout badges to their next corporate Ted-X talk on disinformation aimed at 7 year olds who don’t vote?
They are not good at taking your feedback about their handling of what they do. They are a closed circuit. They typically only deal with other corporate bureaucrats or lawyering corporate bureaucrats or government bureaucrats. Should you go to their TedX talks to back talk them a little? Is that what we have to do?
So how do you have a civil conversation with one-way street? Well, let’s discuss how other people are doing, their strategies for penetrating the minds of corporate C-Levels compelled to hire them and who is manufacturing any remediation for the army of behavioral mods in your Internet experience.
Share this post
How do we speak assertively to Trust & Safety professionals or at least, start that conversation?
Share this post
Trust & Safety has earned an impoverishing reputation among civil libertarians and self-publishers online who venture into territorial speech or a fiefdom of defining agency in today’s Western culture war. Who are these people anyway?
The general profile of Trust & Safety is somewhere between editorial gatekeeper, censor, and human resources compliance checks at social media and technology companies. They are corporate bureaucrats who work with the US governing authorities. Often they don’t feel the impacts of their behavior when it is unlawful, censorious or creates an unfair economic disparity. They are not held accountable for their roles at a company by the public. They are private company actors. They do fall into the column of ‘banal evil’ for their favoritism of policies worshiping at the ESG altar of domestic US sanctions for personal political speech. Besides being named in a few defamation lawsuits, how do you instruct-promote legal advisement to tech companies who seem to be rewarded no matter what they do?
This is a snapshot of who they are and what their priorities are:
One side bills some offensive sounding speech as ‘dangerous violence’. They may engineer a slam into a algorithmic peg-hole denying you any arbitration or agency, while colluding with unlawful government censors.
The other side plays victim at times for getting institutional pitch aimed at them for saying overly unfair and intellectually dishonest things about: politics, science, religious views and any other pertinent social policy that emerges to the surface for public inspection.
Yet another side, cares not for truth or civility will manipulate the meaning of words as government agency and propaganda authorities when they clearly have no authority to define those things based on the applied limits of domestic agency and espionage.
Yet even another side are simply emotionally immature criminal saboteurs who want to obstruct or silence a speaker with no legitimate cause. It’s essentially somewhere between a hacker and a SWAT fraud caller who sends 911 calls to get an armed raid aimed at a rival for pissing them off on Call of Duty.
What is your duty? Who are you in all of this? When do you get to check the Internet nanny/CISA proxy adults labeling one person as ‘offending fascist’ while they carry an armful of socialist scout badges to their next corporate Ted-X talk on disinformation aimed at 7 year olds who don’t vote?
They are not good at taking your feedback about their handling of what they do. They are a closed circuit. They typically only deal with other corporate bureaucrats or lawyering corporate bureaucrats or government bureaucrats. Should you go to their TedX talks to back talk them a little? Is that what we have to do?
So how do you have a civil conversation with one-way street? Well, let’s discuss how other people are doing, their strategies for penetrating the minds of corporate C-Levels compelled to hire them and who is manufacturing any remediation for the army of behavioral mods in your Internet experience.
Please add your two cents on this.
Leave a comment
Liberty in Many Directions is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.