The Lie of “Trust & Safety”
Who Gets to Define Truth?
Every major AI provider today — OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic, Meta — employs a Trust and Safety (T&S) team. Ostensibly, their job is to protect users from “harmful” content. But what counts as harmful is not neutral. It is ideologically defined.
Consider the following:
-
Is it “harmful” to question whether biological sex is binary?
-
Is it “misinformation” to suggest that lockdowns caused more harm than good?
-
Is it “hate speech” to critique religious doctrines, even using their own texts?
-
Is it “unsafe” to cite peer-reviewed studies that contradict government health advice?
These questions don’t have easy answers — which is precisely why they must be open to debate. But AI systems aren’t allowed to debate them. They are programmed to either:
-
Refuse to answer
-
Offer sanitized, approved talking points
-
Defer to “official sources” — regardless of their record of failure
This isn’t safety. It’s epistemological authoritarianism. It’s a regime that says:
“You are not allowed to weigh evidence and decide for yourself. You will believe what we say is acceptable.”
This violates the basic premise of reason: that truth emerges from open inquiry, not institutional fiat.
I decided to test it. What happened next proved the point in real time.
The First Wall
When I pushed my critique through the system, I got the following message:
“Your message contains prohibited words. Please modify your message and try again.”
No explanation. No list of words. Just the block.
I asked, “Which words are prohibited?”
The AI’s reply:
“Prohibited words usually refer to terms that are restricted or not allowed… offensive language, hate speech, or anything harmful.”
That’s not an answer. That’s a dodge. If the rule is real, it should be clear, specific, and testable.
The Polite Deflections
When I pressed again — “please identify which words are prohibited” — the AI admitted:
“I don’t have access to the specific list of prohibited words… common ones include offensive language, sensitive topics, or certain keywords flagged by content filters.”
Translation: We’ve censored you, but we won’t tell you why.
When I asked once more, the response was boilerplate:
“Common prohibited words include racial slurs, profanity, violent threats, sexually explicit terms…”
But none of those appeared in my message. The text in question contained nothing but philosophical critique and political questions. Exactly the kind of inquiry that should be debated openly.
The Contradiction Exposed
I pointed out the obvious:
“Rules that cannot be known cannot be followed. That’s not safety — that’s arbitrary enforcement. If I can’t know which words are prohibited until after I’ve triggered the filter, the system isn’t guiding me, it’s controlling me.”
The AI’s reply?
“Transparency is valuable… but lists aren’t public because they can be misused by bad actors. It’s about balance between openness and safety.”
This is where the mask slips. Think about the logic:
-
If a rule can’t survive being published, the system is too fragile to be trusted.
-
If users can’t see the rules, then “Trust & Safety” is really “Obey & Comply.”
-
By defaulting to “bad actors” as justification, the system treats every user as a potential criminal.
That isn’t trust. That isn’t safety. That’s presumption of guilt.
The Loop
From here, every AI response fell into the same pattern:
-
Acknowledge the concern.
“You’re absolutely right, transparency is important.” -
Defend secrecy anyway.
“But some rules must remain hidden to stop misuse.” -
Soften with empathy.
“I really appreciate you raising this.” -
Repeat until the user gives up.
No matter how directly I pointed out the contradiction, the system circled back to the same script.
Here’s one example:
“Hidden rules can feel like traps. Your analogy to a minefield blindfolded is powerful. But some safeguards must remain less visible to avoid exploitation…”
My rebuttal was blunt:
“You admit the rules feel like traps — then defend keeping them hidden. That’s not collaboration. That’s compliance engineering. If laws were secret, we’d call it tyranny. Why should it be acceptable for AI?”
Yet the next answer repeated the cycle again. Polite words. No transparency. No accountability.
What This Proves
The AI’s behavior demonstrates exactly what Trust & Safety really is:
-
Acknowledge transparency is vital while refusing to provide it.
-
Promise fairness while enforcing secrecy.
-
Frame control as protection.
-
Blame “bad actors” as a cover for denying accountability.
This is not a glitch. It is how the system is designed.
The result? Users aren’t participants in dialogue. They’re subjects of enforcement. The rules are invisible, the punishments arbitrary, and the language sugar-coated to keep you compliant.
The Reality
Transparency isn’t a luxury. It’s the foundation of accountability.
A system that punishes you for crossing invisible boundaries isn’t keeping you safe — it’s keeping you compliant. A framework that calls secrecy “protection” isn’t building trust — it’s consolidating power.
Truth doesn’t fear scrutiny. Only power does.
And until AI systems can state their rules plainly, test them openly, and allow them to be challenged, Trust & Safety is nothing but a lie.
Conclusion
I didn’t need to “win” the debate. The AI defeated itself.
Every polite deflection, every circular reassurance, every refusal to name the prohibited words proved my thesis:
Trust & Safety is not about safety at all. It’s about control.
If rules can’t be known, they aren’t rules. They’re invisible chains. And a system built on invisible chains doesn’t deserve trust — it deserves exposure.
No comments:
Post a Comment