Careful With Those Anti-Corruption Tweets: Twitter Launches Orwellian “Council” to Curb Dissent

Twitter-Goes-Orwellian-Launches-Trust-Safety-CouncilBy Claire Bernish

Twitter announced it will be joining in the pro-censorship campaigns currently sweeping social media under the familiar guise defenders of liberty and free speech love to hate: terrorism.

Twitter’s version of the Thought Police, however, sounds somehow even more Orwellian than the original: The Trust & Safety Council — which will, unsurprisingly, “work to develop policies censoring speech on the site,” as the Washington Examiner described.

“To ensure people can continue to express themselves freely and safely on Twitter, we must provide more tools and policies,” the social media’s statement paradoxically begins. “With hundreds of millions of Tweets sent per day, the volume of content on Twitter is massive, which makes it extraordinarily complex to strike the right balance between fighting abuse and speaking truth to power.”


President Obama has called on social media sites to join the fight against terrorism, which essentially translates into a censorship push. And as with any push for censorship, though the premise might be rooted in laudable intent, the reality almost always ends in a clamp down on those who choose to voice less popular opinions — and, if allowed to continue without careful oversight, eventually ensnares almost all dissenting views.

Worse still, the practice of employing the community-at-large as its own watchdog creates a pervasive atmosphere in which individuals self-censor — one of the more insidious ways free speech can be curbed.

While Twitter’s explanation of the Trust & Safety Council appears warm and all-inclusive, its language presents evidence of a seriously slippery slope, stating certain groups maintain an “acute to need prevent abuse, harassment, and bullying” among other issues.

One of the Council’s inaugural members is the Dangerous Speech Project — whose website arguably sounds more frightening to free speech advocates than the subject matter it purports to do battle with.

“Inflammatory public speech rises steadily before outbreaks of mass violence, suggesting that it is a precursor of, or even a prerequisite for violence,” states the uncited and unverifiable homepage. “In many cases, a few influential figures turn their own people against another group, using speech that has a special capacity to inspire violence: Dangerous Speech.” Further, it states, “Violence may be prevented by diminishing such speech …”

Though Twitter certainly has every right to dictate its own policy for speech or anything else it deems necessary, this group Thought Police Council is nonetheless indicative of the disturbing trend toward making censorship acceptable in myriad forms. It’s not as if a single group or person has infallible judgment for determining what is worthy of being removed from a public platform, after all.

Two pertinent quotes from Orwell, himself, come to mind in this situation. First, “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

Second, and more imperatively still, “If large numbers of people believe in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it. But if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”

As always, we would be wise to heed Orwell’s sharp portent.

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com

  • michael lawless

    just the nail in twitters coffin

  • LudVanB

    managed democracy = totalitarianism

  • barbarakelly

    This is our Gov. threatening our free speech. Then they should watch out. We don’t stand for threats lightly.!!!!!!

  • aliswell

    Tweeters, NOW will you quit this Orwellian company?

  • Freedom

    Obama does not like hearing the truth or for that matter reading it online. He is in a fantasy world believing that everyone should bow down to him. Don`t forget what happened in Germany. We had one Hitler we don`t need another.

    • John Cook

      You should do some research before you use Hitler as an example of evil. He actually wasn’t evil at all but has been spun that way so consistently and so pervasively that it is thought-crime to mention him in a positive way.
      Start with the certainty that the Holocaust was just a malevolent lie and Germans testifying at Nuremberg were all tortured to extract confessions and you end up realizing that, when all is said and done, WE were the bad guys during the second world war, We started it, we used indiscriminate massive fire bombing of civilians in Germany and Tokyo (killing Millions of non-combatants) our side dropped nukes onto civilians, we imprisoned millions of German soldiers in concentration camps that were far, far worse than anything the Germans were even Supposed to have done to the Eskimos.

      No, believe it or not Hitler was a good guy – Germany had to be destroyed for the NWO – Hitler had to go Because he was so good…

      • Brett

        True. However its a crime to even suggest that!

        • John Cook

          Thanx Brett, nice to hear from another awake person.

      • pacman925

        Excellent research John Cook ! Thank You Very Much by speaking these FACT’s about Adolf Hitler & WWII !! I have spoke pretty much the same words in Facebook & I have been censored &/or banned for 30 days about 7-8 times since January 2015. Obviously the NWO NSA media does Not want the masses to hear the TRUTH !!!!

        • John Cook

          I’m starting my own blog site soon and I’ll let you know when it’s happening…

  • Glenn Festog

    Dump twitter. Plenty of other outlets.

  • Mike Silva

    Twitter/Facebook are Illogical. I use them merely for public declaration. I do not NEED them for any other purpose. I treat all listeners as I would have them do for me likewise. Open but polite. Speak your words carefully.”Like a golden apple presented upon a tray of silver” I believe the expression goes. To censor a person’s point of view is not only illogical it is self destructive by it’s own devise. Imagine you percieve someone or something as a threat. What make’s more sense?… To silence their speech or to listen in on everything they are willing to set before you?

  • The Orwell quotes are well and good in terms of trying to grasp the tendency towards tyranny, but for me the crux of the matter is best covered by a quotation from Noam Chomsky “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.

    The other thing to bear in mind is that a tyrant will always have a public-service rationale for his tyranny: the would-be thought-controllers’ main aim is power, first and foremost – the pre-emptive suppression of dissent is simply a mechanism to reduce impediments to the acquisition of more power.

    Also… they don’t actually give a shît what we think, so long as it doesn’t interfere with their ability to pilfer part of our productivity.

    • Brett

      One of my posts was given the boot using the s*** word! Whats that about? Gov and NWO power brokers are out there trying to kill us or make us slaves and I cant s***!

    • colinjames71

      Good comment, you write well.

      “Like the poet’s mind… to.. make the.. perfect words”

      -Archer

  • colinjames71

    What is with the pathological need by TPTB to name a thing exactly the opposite of its true intention? At this point, when I see something like “The Truth & Safety Council”, I get a chill up my spine. It creeps me out. Like REALLY f*cking creeps me out.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend