Donald Trump: Tech Lawsuit ‘Will Prove Censorship Is Unlawful, Unconstitutional’

[Unforgiven]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/07/07/donald-trump-tech-lawsuit-will-prove-censorship-is-unlawful-unconstitutional/

 

Former President Donald Trump announced Wednesday a class action lawsuit against Facebook,

Twitter, and Google in the Southern District of Florida to “order an immediate halt to social media

companies, illegal, shameful censorship of the American people.”

 

Hopefully this is the beginning of retaking the country from deranged leftists.

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, Unforgiven said:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/07/07/donald-trump-tech-lawsuit-will-prove-censorship-is-unlawful-unconstitutional/

 

Former President Donald Trump announced Wednesday a class action lawsuit against Facebook,

Twitter, and Google in the Southern District of Florida to “order an immediate halt to social media

companies, illegal, shameful censorship of the American people.”

 

Hopefully this is the beginning of retaking the country from deranged leftists.

Compelling private businesses to serve unruly customers? Soon airlines will have to allow violent passengers to wreak havoc on planes. Not very Conservative. 

[LeGOATski]

I don't think so. Trump likely knows he will lose, but he won't actually lose anything from it. 

 

Like the article says, had they been able to position the other pieces earlier (section 230; regulation laws; etc) then they would have a chance.

 

This is posturing and a possible way of setting up those pieces, just in a different order.

[frostbitmic]

 

WAAAAAAHHHH

[Westside]

Once again, liberals show their immaturity. Another reason not to engage in mentally handicapped liberals.

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Compelling private businesses to serve unruly customers? Soon airlines will have to allow violent passengers to wreak havoc on planes. Not very Conservative. 

Like people that supported the COVID Lab origin theory for over the past year and all got censored and de-platformed?  And suddenly it all seems credible and all these social media sites are back peddling.  Why are all the liberals that used to distrust the government and big corporations suddenly their biggest supporters and apologists?  Can you explain please?

[B-Man]

https://scottrasmussen.com/47-believe-big-tech-companies-actively-supported-biden-in-2020-10-say-they-supported-trump/

 

 

THIS IS THE BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH TRUMP IS SUING BIG TECH COMPANIES:

 

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters believe Big Tech companies actively supported Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 10% think they actively supported Donald Trump.

 

Twenty percent (20%) believe that the companies remained neutral and 23% are not sure.

 

In every measured demographic group, more voters believed that the companies supported Biden rather than Trump. Even Democrats, by a 3-to-1 margin, held that view.

 

Other data showed that 78% of voters believe tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google could swing the results of the election to benefit their preferred candidate. Additionally, 62% believe technology companies have too much influence on our politics and political campaigns.

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives big tech companies special immunity from prosecution for things posted on their platforms. Since they received this immunity from the government, 63% of voters believe they should they be required to abide by the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.

 

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters believe it is more important to ensure that social media companies operate fairly rather than protecting the companies from government interference. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 19% disagree and believe protecting social media companies from government interference is the higher priority.

 

 

 

Big Tech has done a truly outstanding job of getting people to hate it.

 

[Frat-Train]

The things that will be on the record, permanently….  This is a VERY interesting move.  Trump has nothing to lose, unlike big tech that will now have everything they’re doing on the record, under the threat of perjury.  I’ve noticed the selective feeds on my accounts, but not to the extent it’s being claimed by some.  But friends of mine that lean right definitely feel something is up with their posts.  This could be something…

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, Bidens_basement said:

Once again, liberals show their immaturity. Another reason not to engage in mentally handicapped liberals.

BILLSFANS.CON

[US Egg]

Social media is an oxymoron.

[The Frankish Reich]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

https://scottrasmussen.com/47-believe-big-tech-companies-actively-supported-biden-in-2020-10-say-they-supported-trump/

 

 

THIS IS THE BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH TRUMP IS SUING BIG TECH COMPANIES:

 

Forty-seven percent (47%) of voters believe Big Tech companies actively supported Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that just 10% think they actively supported Donald Trump.

 

Twenty percent (20%) believe that the companies remained neutral and 23% are not sure.

 

In every measured demographic group, more voters believed that the companies supported Biden rather than Trump. Even Democrats, by a 3-to-1 margin, held that view.

 

Other data showed that 78% of voters believe tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google could swing the results of the election to benefit their preferred candidate. Additionally, 62% believe technology companies have too much influence on our politics and political campaigns.

 

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives big tech companies special immunity from prosecution for things posted on their platforms. Since they received this immunity from the government, 63% of voters believe they should they be required to abide by the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.

 

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of voters believe it is more important to ensure that social media companies operate fairly rather than protecting the companies from government interference. A Scott Rasmussen national survey found that 19% disagree and believe protecting social media companies from government interference is the higher priority.

 

 

 

Big Tech has done a truly outstanding job of getting people to hate it.

 

I hate your product! How dare you preclude me from using it!! I'm gonna sue!!!!!

[Doc Brown]

For all those cheering his latest political stunt with this frivolous lawsuit, he could've gone after big tech when he was president with the majority in both houses.  It would seem he didn't care about monopolies until it impacted him personally.

[Big Blitz]

2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

For all those cheering his latest political stunt with this frivolous lawsuit, he could've gone after big tech when he was president with the majority in both houses.  It would seem he didn't care about monopolies until it impacted him personally.

 

 

I said this in January 2017

 

He needed to quit Social Media right then and there and say why.  

 

 

But now, they need to bake the cake or we need to find a way to treat them as hostile foreign nations because they are.  

 

This isn't NBC Nightly News giving you lib spin on events anymore in 22 minutes of air time.  

 

These companies are the biggest threat to democracy, free thought, free expression, and free speech on the planet.

 

Never forget they know this:

 

2016

 

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election

Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548/

 

 

That was 2016 now after 2020 they want you to think that claim was actually bogus.  

[Doc Brown]

12 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I said this in January 2017

 

He needed to quit Social Media right then and there and say why.  

 

 

But now, they need to bake the cake or we need to find a way to treat them as hostile foreign nations because they are.  

 

This isn't NBC Nightly News giving you lib spin on events anymore in 22 minutes of air time.  

 

These companies are the biggest threat to democracy, free thought, free expression, and free speech on the planet.

 

Never forget they know this:

 

2016

 

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election

Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548/

 

 

That was 2016 now after 2020 they want you to think that claim was actually bogus.  

It won him the primary and the election.  What was his incentive to do it?

[Big Blitz]

14 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

It won him the primary and the election.  What was his incentive to do it?

 

 

Trump's own people knew there was a change but Trump's people aren't politicians and didn't foresee or at least had their heads in the sand over how they were never ever going to let 2016 (which included Brexit) happen again:  

 

 

They knew this in 2017.

 

 

They knew Social Media companies completely changed their algorithms in 2017:

 

Decoding the Facebook Algorithm: A Fully Up-to-Date List of the Algorithm Factors and Changes

 

ALFRED LUA - 18 OCT 2017

 

https://buffer.com/library/facebook-news-feed-algorithm/

 

Europe has fined Google $2.7 billion for manipulating search results

 

Google has 90 days to change its practices or face further penalties.

 

Jun 27, 2017, 6:13am EDT

 

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/27/15878980/europe-fine-google-antitrust-search

 

 

 

 

.....In June 2014, Harvard Law scholar Jonathan Zittrain wrote an essay in New Republic called, “Facebook Could Decide an Election Without Anyone Ever Finding Out,” in which he called attention to the possibility of Facebook selectively depressing voter turnout. (He also suggested that Facebook be seen as an “information fiduciary,” charged with certain special roles and responsibilities because it controls so much personal data.)

 

In late 2014, The Daily Dot called attention to an obscure Facebook-produced case study on how strategists defeated a statewide measure in Florida by relentlessly focusing Facebook ads on Broward and Dade counties, Democratic strongholds. Working with a tiny budget that would have allowed them to send a single mailer to just 150,000 households, the digital-advertising firm Chong and Koster was able to obtain remarkable results. “Where the Facebook ads appeared, we did almost 20 percentage points better than where they didn’t,” testified a leader of the firm. “Within that area, the people who saw the ads were 17 percent more likely to vote our way than the people who didn’t. Within that group, the people who voted the way we wanted them to, when asked why, often cited the messages they learned from the Facebook ads.”

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/what-facebook-did/542502/

 

 

 

 

After 2016, they all aligned to never let "Trump" happen again.  This is fact.   His team needed to say "thanks, and we're out" in January of 2017.

[Big Blitz]

Shadow banning, sometimes known as “Stealth Banning” or “Hell Banning,” is commonly used by online community managers to block content posted by spammers. Instead of banning a user directly (which would alert the spammer to their status, prompting them to create a new account), their content is merely hidden from public view.

 

For site owners, the ideal shadowban is when a user never realizes he’s been shadowbanned.

 

Twitter and other platforms such have Reddit have twisted shadow banning from a tool to fight spammers into a tool to prevent tweets and content from spreading naturally. Followers do not see tweets from the shadow banned individual in their timeline, and therefore do not engage with the tweets by responding, liking, or retweeting them. The shadow banned user is essentially tweeting to themselves, unless a follower directly visits their account.

 

Former Twitter software engineer Abhinav Vadrevu, as recorded by Project Veritas, confirmed that Twitter was doing this or had at some point done it in the past. Vadrevu told Project Veritas,

 

....According to the source, Twitter maintains a ‘whitelist’ of favored Twitter accounts and a ‘blacklist’ of unfavored accounts. Accounts on the whitelist are prioritized in search results, even if they’re not the most popular among users. Meanwhile, accounts on the blacklist have their posts hidden from both search results and other users’ timelines.

 

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/01/11/twitter-censorship-what-is-shadow-banning/

 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Big Blitz

[The Frankish Reich]

10 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I said this in January 2017

 

He needed to quit Social Media right then and there and say why.  

 

 

But now, they need to bake the cake or we need to find a way to treat them as hostile foreign nations because they are.  

 

This isn't NBC Nightly News giving you lib spin on events anymore in 22 minutes of air time.  

 

These companies are the biggest threat to democracy, free thought, free expression, and free speech on the planet.

 

Never forget they know this:

 

2016

 

How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election

Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548/

 

 

That was 2016 now after 2020 they want you to think that claim was actually bogus.  

So ... we can declare war on them? Bomb Menlo Park? What on earth are you talking about? These are U.S. companies, not "hostile foreign nations." 

 

Anyone who wanted to know what Trump has to say could've simply gone to the From the Desk of Donald J. Trump website. Apparently few did.

[LeGOATski]

@Big Blitz rants about how social media is a "hostile foreign nation" while at the same time screenshotting and posting a link to Twitter.

 

This is gold.

[Tiberius]

Quote

 

His complaint against Facebook — presumably prepared by actual lawyers, hard as that may be to believe — claims that it “rises beyond that of a private company to that of a state actor. As such, Defendant is constrained by the First Amendment right to free speech in the censorship decisions it makes regarding its Users.”

It goes on to use the word “unconstitutional” again and again to describe Facebook’s decisions, despite the fact that only government action is or isn’t constitutional.

 

That's a really stupid argument 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/07/07/trumps-latest-ridiculous-lawsuit-shows-how-small-he-has-become/

[716er]

3 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

@Big Blitz rants about how social media is a "hostile foreign nation" while at the same time screenshotting and posting a link to Twitter.

 

This is gold.

Dude has so many layers of foil on he’s in a Reynolds Wrap box.