>>18320565 /pb
Roth's logic is inconsistent and flawed.
If the argument is that within the matrix of the totality of everyone's 'free speech' there will be, if not 'properly regulated' by those who share Roth's political and philosophical views, a subset of that speech that a subset of the population defines as 'abusive speech', which Roth argues will 'drive away' people from wherever that defined 'abusive speech' takes place, it is a non sequitur to then conclude that this is in any way a 'reduction' of anyone's free speech.
The free will decision to either use OR NOT USE any platform, is in fact independent of the logic of free speech.
Nobody's free speech is violated if they freely decide not to use a platform on the basis of a personal preference to not view certain patterns of other people's speech on that platform.
In fact, by Roth's own warped logic, everything he did to impact the content on Twitter was a violation of the free speech of all those who 'were driven away' from Twitter 1.0 because they disliked the visible speech that was on that platform.
Anon can therefore argue that if Roth's argument is valid, which of course it isn't, then he himself violated the free speech of every single person who was 'driven away' from Twitter 1.0 because of the resulting content that Roth's filtering brought about.
Indeed, the fact that Roth did not censor the Ayatollah's a viciously nti-semitic tweet calling for the wholesale destruction of Israel, Roth therefore violated the free speech of everyone who was driven away from Twitter 1.0 because they preferred not to view such hateful abusive content.
In conclusion, Roth's last ditch attempt to justify the fascistic collusion between public and private orgs to violate the free speech of the people, on the basis that without it free speech would allegedly be infringed upon, BY HIS OWN LOGIC he is guilty of what he just described.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/former-twitter-safety-executive-yoel-roth-argues-free-speech-threat-free-speech