Twitter targets conservatives – not with any publisher liability

If Twitter is going to “fact check” the leader of the free world, the hard left on behalf of the party is doing so, it should be considered as a publisher – with all the responsibility.

On Tuesday, Twitter added a fact-check label to a presidential tweet about the risk of fraud with mail-in voting. Just below that, it expressed a surprise request for users to “get information about the mail-in ballot.”

The link headlined the CNN story: “Trump has unequivocally claimed that the mail-in ballot will lead voters to fraud.” This is the opinion of experts, especially experts on CNN and many other mainstream books. “Experts say mail-in ballot is rarely associated with voter fraud,” the story SSK-TSD – The Experts apparently lost thousands by the New York Times last month, Missing and forgotten album-mail failure failed.

CNN’s “Tell the Experts” publum wasn’t enough to convince you that Orange Man Bud, a Twitter blue-check tweeter, removed several tweets to insult the president, even making derogatory accusations of Trump’s “plan to suppress voters.” . “

None of this comes as a surprise to conservatives on Twitter. Over the years, the Twitter platform has censored increasingly conservative voices, even pretending to be neutral. The same agency that suspended actor and right-wing firebrand James Woods for slapping, and publicly available, a drug-addicted-his-mind-and-mind picture of Andrew Gillam, a failed Florida gubernatorial candidate, has suspended suspended left-wing Jews. Twitter has consistently refused to suspend Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

And now we know why: Joel Roth, one of the main actors in Twitter’s censorship operation, has turned so hard left with an ideology that would intimidate Nation Magazine’s editorial board – and blessed by Silicon Valley Synagogue (“Head of Integrity of the Site”) Allows arbitrary reprimand.

It was Roth who, along with a colleague, introduced Twitter’s new “fact-checking” policy. “Serving public conversations,” the pair wrote a few weeks ago, “our goal is to find credible information on Twitter and limit the spread of potentially harmful and misleading content” (read: Conservative Ideas).

“Starting today,” Roth and his comrades added, “We are introducing new labels and warning messages that will provide additional context and information on some tweets containing controversial or misleading information about COVID-19.” The far-reaching, left-wing views, beyond the epidemic, include the fight against the views of the commander-in-chief, including “efficiency”.

Roth is also frustrated with Trump and the 3 million Americans who voted for him.

He tweeted in November 2016, “I’m just saying” We’ve flown to states that voted for racist Tanzarin for whatever reason. “

In January 2017: “Today we meet in the press today to talk to Joseph Goebbels for the first 100 days. —— When I hear [Trump aide] Kellyanne [Conway] Is a news show. “

In July 2017: “How to Reproduce Personality Free Bags [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell actually won the election? ”

Etc. However, it is seen that Twitter is playing with fire. Lawyers can call for the revocation of a company’s legal immunity under a vague federal law that allows big tech companies to eat their cake and it also bears no liability when acting as censors, editors and publishers.

Here’s the deal: If I make objectionable claims to the post, my victims can hold the post accountable in court. However, Twitter is protected from such lawsuits under the 1996 Communications Act. Article 230 of the Act states that “no supplier or user of any interactive computer services shall be deemed to be the publisher or speaker of any information provided by any other content provider.”

But note the underlying assumption: that online bulletin boards – and that Twitter is a glorious bulletin board – do not act as a “publisher”. But Twitter is acting like a publisher, policing conservatives and “fact-checking” the Republican president of the United States. So why should one class of publishers, such as the Post, be held accountable, and another simply escape its liability because its “editors” are strictly left in California?

Sen. Josh Howley of Missouri got the right idea last year when he introduced legislation that would remove Section 230 from technology companies if they did not prove that “their algorithms and content removal methods are politically neutral.” Amen.

Meanwhile, as of this writing, Twitter still has Mayor Bill de Blasio’s tweet up to “fact-check” to “encourage New Yorkers to take your life and get out of town despite the coronavirus.” Numerous allegations of Russian alliance still remain. What a joke.

Sohrab Ahamari is the op-ed editor of the post on Twitter: @SohrabAhamari

About the author: Dale Freeman

Typical organizer. Pop culture fanatic. Wannabe entrepreneur. Creator. Beer nerd.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *