Is Facebook Relying on Far-Left Media Matters to Circumvent CDA Section 230?

Elder Patriot – During the third week of January 2017, before Donald Trump even took the oath of office, 125 of the far left’s most affluent donors met at the Turnberry Isle Resort in Florida to plan the destruction of the Trump presidency.

Leading the program was radical leftist David Brock of Media Matters.  Brock had enlisted other radical leftist media organizations American Bridge, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and Shareblue to plan the Trump #resistance.

This wasn’t about finding common ground or areas of compromise.  It was about exercising raw political power to render Trump powerless.

Trump had been opposed by movement conservatives on the right and now the far left was mobilizing its resources against him as well.  If anything illustrates the way the entrenched political interests feared this non-ideological problem solver, this joint strident rejection should be it.

The Democracy Matters Strategic Action Plan resulted from that January 2017 conference.  The plan to undermining and ultimately destroy the Trump presidency had been codified in writing.:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg had flown to Lima Peru at the behest of lame-duck President Barack Obama where they met on November 19, 2016.

Karin McQuillan writing for the American Thinker put the Peru meeting in historical perspective:

“Until Obama’s intervention, Facebook corporate policy was rock solid.  Zuckerberg’s entire business model was that Facebook is a platform, not a content provider.  The company has always claimed they have no responsibility for content. The Jewish Press begged Zuckerberg to block Islamic Facebook pages teaching how to make ‘lone wolf’ knife attacks fatal.   Zuckerberg refused.  Not his problem.”

Prior to his meeting with Obama, Zuckerberg had allowed Facebook to operate as a platform rather than a content provider.  This immunized him from the responsibilities associated with undesirable content say, for example, pages extolling pedophilia.

Obama wasn’t concerned about pedophiles.  He also wasn’t concerned that Russia had used Facebook to influence of the election.=

Obama was concerned about the thousands of patriotic conservative pamphleteers who had established pages on Zuckerberg’s platform.  These websites were comparable to the pamphleteers that discussed freedom and patriotism directly to the people during the time of the first American Revolution.

Together they more than countered the effect of the mainstream media that Washington’s Uniparty relied on to influence public opinion.

Zuckerberg realized that he had a hurdle to clear if he was to heed Obama’s orders and begin cleansing conservative content from his platform.

That hurdle, Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act, places significant responsibilities on content providers that doesn’t accrue to neutral public forums that are granted immunity from such responsibility.

Enter Media Matters.

Facebook had found a partner to justify reducing views to, and ultimately deplatforming, conservative websites as fake, hateful, or containing radical thought.

Along with far-left disinformation fabricators like Politifact, Snopes, and, Media Matters positions itself as an independent third-party fact checker, not the partisan disinformation provider that it actually is.

Their findings – often incredibly contrived and based on specious and unbalanced conclusions – provided Facebook with the justification it needed to begin suspending, filtering, and ultimately deplatforming conservatives.

Within six months of their November 19th 2016 meeting in Lima, and only months after the Democracy Matters Strategic Action Plan was launched, Facebook began censoring pro-Trump and conservative websites under a number of premises including labeling them fake news or for violating their terms of service for civility.  From that point forward engagement dropped precipitously for sites questioning the wisdom of the Globalists & their movement.

As an example, from June to July of 2017 our revenues dropped by more than 50%.  By October, revenues dropped by another two-thirds. Revenues have continued dropping until today when they have diminished by more than 95% from the high in late 2016.

During Senate questioning in April 2018, after having watched conservative pages routinely and increasingly censored for many months, Ted Cruz asked Zuckerberg whether Facebook was a neutral public forum or a content provider?

Senator Cruz: “Does Facebook consider itself to be a neutral public forum? … Are you a First Amendment speaker expressing your views or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?”

After stammering and avoidance by Zuck, Cruz clarified his question in a way that Zuck couldn’t avoid the meaning of:

Senator Cruz: “The predicate for section 230 immunity under the CDA (Communications Decency Act) is that you’re a neutral public forum.  Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum or are you engaged in political speech?”

Zuck: “I’m not that familiar with the specific legal language of the law that you speak to…”

Seriously?  A Harvard graduate was aware of the single most important law that could threaten his $60B stake in the company he founded?

Add to that, Zuckerberg is surrounded by a high-priced legal team and his company spends millions of dollars annually lobbying congress but he isn’t aware of the one law that could bring his empire crashing down?

That defies credulity.  As does the contention that conservative thought – the foundational bedrock that this country was founded on is suddenly dangerous and must be censored.

Dangerous to whom?  Answer that question and you’ll know who the real enemies of the American people are.