Twitter just got a new leader for their Ministry of Propaganda, and she recently gave the world a glimpse into her agenda. Spoiler alert, it ain’t good, folks. 

Protocol, a tech news site, recently published a profile of Christine Su, the company’s senior product manager for conversation safety at Twitter. In the piece titled, “How a Young, Queer Asian-American Businesswoman is Rethinking User Safety at Twitter,” Su discussed her plans for Twitter’s policies regarding the policing of speech on the platform. 

According to Protocol, Su, who was hired six months ago, is responsible for “keeping everyday users safe online and rethinking the fundamentals of the platform along the way.” To accomplish this, the Twitter employee indicated that the company’s censorship policy will focus on “transformative and procedural justice.’ 

According to the article, Su, who previously owned a tech company named PastureMap, wished to be involved in “mission-driven” work in the tech industry for years. “As a queer woman of color who is an Asian American in tech in rural America, that experience is a very intersectional one. I’ve had plenty of experiences moving through spaces where I wanted more safety,” she told the news outlet. 

According to Protocol, “transformative and procedural justice” are ideas designed to deal with problems related to various types of bigotry. The author wrote:

“The once radical concepts challenge the notion that we should just punish people who cause harm, instead offering an alternative: a pathway to repair the harm that has been done and to prevent its recurrence (transformative justice), and a set of fair rules that make harm rarer in the first place (procedural justice).”

The author also pointed out that this concept “has recently gained attention for its role in addressing sexual assault on college campuses.”

Su’s objective seems to be the usual far-left progressive fare but on steroids. It will likely be intended to place more censors on certain types of speech ostensibly to protect helpless minorities from becoming victimized by certain viewpoints. 

“Women and people from marginalized groups have documented disproportionate levels of abuse and harassment on the platform for years, and, until recently, Twitter did little to change that,” the author wrote. “Its content rules stayed stagnant, and time and again, people reported incidences when abuse went ignored and harassment continued unabated. 

Su explained that monitoring, reporting, and moderating “harmful posts” doesn’t address the “damage” that has already been caused to people who read them. She stated that she would give users more control when it comes to dealing with people who express different opinions. 

“The point is not to make the entire world a safe space: That’s not possible. The point is to empower people and communities to have the tools to heal harm themselves and to prevent harm to themselves and put them in control,” Su explained.

So what would this look like? According to the article, it could involve “rooms” where users could determine who is allowed to remain in the group. The author explained:

“The product team gave some clues about what that user control could look like when they described the upcoming audio hangout function, Spaces, in a press call last week. Spaces will allow users to determine who is allowed in the audio room and who can speak, and the team is rolling out the function to women and people from other marginalized communities first, to test out how effective these safety functions can be in practice.”

Su also stated that in order to implement “transformative justice,” her team is looking at creating private avenues for “apologies, forgiveness and deescalation,” according to Protocol. She said that these tools would be part of “a set of controls that people can take with them around digital spaces, and be able to use them when and if circumstances warrant.” 

Despite Su’s apparent far-leftist bent, some of these ideas don’t sound too shabby at first glance. In fact, allowing users more control over what they see and don’t see instead of simply censoring conservatives would probably make both sides happy. 

The problem is that neither Su nor the rest of Twitter’s leadership will stop the biased censorship. While the new censorship czar and her team are positioning these new measures as a plan to tamp down on bigotry on the platform, we already know that many of these folks believe that any viewpoint they don’t like is an indication of (insert form of bigotry here). 

To put it simply, these people won’t stop censoring news stories that are harmful to high-profile progressives. They will not stop enforcing their terms and conditions based on political affiliation. This is not about addressing bigotry, and it never has been. 

This is about control. 

For many progressives, preventing people from being exposed to opinions that conflict with far-leftist ideology is of the utmost importance because it is much easier than having to compete on the battlefield of ideas. These folks aren’t concerned with maintaining a platform that allows for the spread of ideas; they are fixated on ensuring that their views are front and center. 

This is why they hate Parler. It is also why Facebook decided to change its algorithm after Election Day to boost stories from establishment media outlets while suppressing those from conservative sites. 

If Twitter’s leadership allows Su to enact her full list, the platform will become much worse than it already is. While progressives and the corporate press pretend to be concerned about alternative social media outlets becoming echo chambers, they encourage this trend by refusing to treat conservatives differently from left-wingers. In essence, they are deliberately creating the problem they deceptively claim to oppose. 

Let me know what you think in the comments below!

Follow me on Twitter and Parler: @JeffOnTheRight