Twitter is being sued by Devin Nunes over the platform’s anti-conservative bias, and the platform’s failure to moderate content that impersonates his mother, and his cow.
If you were to read this story from traditional media outlets, you’d have to read between the lines of their scathing bias, which wouldn’t be much of anything new if you are among those that still pays attention to them. And, naturally, they’re focusing more on the false accounts that defame him, considering that this gives them opportunity to pass along the tweets that ridicule him, as Daily Mail is doing.
But if you’re up for some old-fashioned media not giving anyone to the right of Karl Marx a chance, check out what Mashable has to say about it. The following quotation in particular caught my eye:
“Sure, maybe his feelings are really hurt, but given the fact that Trump and others have brought up strengthening libel laws multiple times — the old “you can’t take what you dish out” syndrome — it could be setting up more nefarious actions to come.”
Yeah, “nefarious actions” like making sure that the corporate media isn’t getting away with libel, which it committed against the “MAGA kids” who were falsely branded as a hate mob.
I’ve had a number of social media accounts in the past. From what I remember, impersonating someone else and posting defamatory content was against the terms of service of most of them. I know that it’s grounds for a civil case, which leads us to the story being discussed, today.
As for whether there is an anti-conservative bias in social media and the tech industry, there’s pretty much no question that there is. Shadow-banning has been a weapon of choice to ensure that conservative voices aren’t heard. If you haven’t heard of shadow-banning, that’s when a person is allowed to post, but far fewer people see the poster’s content. It’s a way to silence someone without them knowing what’s going on. It’s one of the expressions of the left-wing establishment’s control over social media.
If you’re wondering what it’s like to be a conservative voice in social media, imagine that you’re playing a game of chess against a child. Imagine that in this game of chess, you’re not allowed to move your pieces to the other side of the board. Not only that, you’re not allowed to capture the opponent’s pieces. Worse yet, the child gets to change the rules of the game while the game is in progress. More disturbing still, the child is convinced that you’re a hateful, evil person who deserves to lose for disagreeing with them about anything.
You may have wisdom and know how the game is played, but the child owns the board and can set things up so that you don’t stand a chance.
One point of view on the matter is that Twitter is a private company, and if they wanted to, they could ban conservatives altogether. Whether that’s the case or not, I would expect an American-run company to conduct itself in a manner consistent with American values, including the principles of protecting free expression on a platform conductive to the free and open exchange of ideas.
In any case, I think the rest of us can appreciate that liberals are making this about an attempt to regulate social media, and that they were finally made to admit that regulating something would be a bad idea.