Nunes: Twitter “Lawsuit the First of Many”

Elder Patriot -Yesterday we reported that California Congressman Devin Nunes had filed a lawsuit against Twitter seeking $250 Million in compensatory damages and another $350,000 in punitive damages.

Nunes alleges Twitter engaged in “defamation, conspiracy, and negligence”.  He not only seeks damages, but Nunes also seeks an injunction compelling Twitter to turn over the identities behind numerous accounts he says have harassed and defamed him.

Last night Rep. Nunes appeared with Sean Hannity to explain:

“This is the first of many, Sean.”

“We are actually going after Twitter first because they are the main proliferator and they spread fake news and slanderous news.”

[..]

“This is an orchestrated effort.  People were targeting me.  There were anonymous accounts that were developed.  These accounts aren’t supposed to exist. Twitter says that they don’t have accounts that do this.

“This is the first of many lawsuits that are coming.”

“They are a content developer.”

At the heart of the complaint is Twitter’s use of shadowbanning to limit, or stop completely, a person’s tweet (communication) from being seen across the platform.

Sean then adds:

“It’s incalculable how much that assists a narrative or point of view.”

Robert Epstein, a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology actually did study the potential for another social media company to shift voting preferences of the all important undecided voter.

What he found in studying Google is scary.  

Politico:

Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated.

Given that many elections are won by small margins, this gives Google the power, right now, to flip upwards of 25 percent of the national elections worldwide. In the United States, half of our presidential elections have been won by margins under 7.6 percent, and the 2012 election was won by a margin of only 3.9 percent—well within Google’s control.

Now consider that Hillary Clinton and the PACs that supported her campaign spent in excess of $2 Billion to influence those say undecided voters.

Twitter is another significant influence peddler.

At issue is here is the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that provides immunity from liability for the content on their platforms as long as they operate as open forums that provide equal access to all opinions and news sources..

Nunes” complaint contends that by its actions Twitter crossed the line from an open public forum into the realm of content provider thereby opening itself to legal action for

“knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory.”

Many small publishers, like the one you’re now reading, have suffered severe financial losses or gone out of business altogether because of the stifling actions of social media censorship.

Not coincidentally, conservative publishers have been the most severely affected at the same time that leftists have attacked advertisers on established publisher Breitbart and Fox News.

To say these Silicon Valley power brokers – Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube – lean left is a massive understatement.

Given the opportunity early last year, Ted Cruz grilled Facebook Global Policy Management Head Monika Bickert, Twitter Public Policy and Philanthropy Director Carlos Monje, and YouTube Public Policy and Government Relations Global Head Juniper Downs.  

All three representatives claimed to abide by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) that essentially holds harmless for their content companies that operate as unrestricted open public forums.

 

EFF explains:

 

“… online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish.

As conservative posters, commenters, and internet users know, their ability to speak freely, and to be heard, has not been allowed to flourish for a number of years.

The understated congressman from California, Devin Nunes, might have saved President Trump’s presidency from the corrupt cabal running Obama’s intelligence agencies.

Now he may save the internet – and the country – from becoming the dystopian political censor that George Orwell envisioned.