Yoel Roth: From Censor to Martyr

According to "a person familiar with the matter"

The former head censor at Twitter is now a victim, apparently.

Yoel Roth has become the unwilling star of the Twitter Files, as Elon Musk exposes Roth’s censorious ways when he was the head of the “Trust & Safety” division.¹ And the poor fellow isn’t enjoying his newfound infamy:

CNN @CNN

Twitter's former head of trust and safety has fled his home due to an escalation in threats resulting from Elon Musk's campaign of criticism against him, a person familiar with the matter told CNN.

cnn.itFormer top Twitter official forced to leave home due to threats amid ‘Twitter Files’ release | CNN BusinessTwitter’s former head of trust and safety has fled his home due to an escalation in threats resulting from Elon Musk’s campaign of criticism against him, a person familiar with the matter told CNN on Monday.

“A person familiar with the matter”? Does the person making this assertion have a name? Why is he or she being kept anonymous?

And who’s making these threats? Have the authorities been informed? Are they doing anything about it? If not, why not?

Anyway, here’s the “campaign of criticism” CNN is talking about:

Eliza @elizableu

I think I may have found the problem @elonmusk

Yoel Roth @yoyoel

Can high school students ever meaningfully consent to sex with their teachers? http://bit.ly/bbpH68

Elon Musk @elonmusk

@elizableu Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis:

That’s it. That’s all. They quoted him. To a leftist, a direct quote constitutes a “smear.”

And if there’s nothing wrong with Roth’s PhD thesis, why did this just happen?

The Post Millennial @TPostMillennial

UPenn deletes disgraced Twitter exec Yoel Roth’s PhD dissertation arguing minors should have access to sex apps

thepostmillennial.comUPenn deletes disgraced Twitter exec Yoel Roth’s PhD dissertation arguing minors should have access to sex apps“Yet, absent from these discussions is even a cursory recognition that the new medium of gay-targeted social networking may be a crucial social outlet for gay, bisexual, and questioning youth,” Roth wrote, arguing for the consideration of allowing minors on Grindr.

Why delete the evidence of Roth’s innocence?

Let’s say, for the purposes of argument, that Roth has been unjustly accused. Let’s posit that he’s being punished unfairly, with no recourse. If that’s the case, here’s my question:

How does he like it?