back to article Wondering why 'Devin Nunes herp-face' was trending online? Here's the 411: House rep sues Twitter for all the rude stuff tweeted about him

A US congressman is getting a crash course in the Streisand Effect after filing a lawsuit this week against Twitter and a handful of his harshest critics on the antisocial network. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) seeks a $250m payout from the micro-blogging site, and three tweeters who lampooned him in recent years. Nunes, a ranking …

  1. HCV

    If I mention here that this is conclusive proof that Nunes is not the sharpest doorknob in the bag, will I be getting El Reg in trouble?

    1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
      Boffin

      But he actually has a case...

      Look, all politicians are knobs goes with the territory...

      Yet if you look at his claims... there's enough evidence to show that Twitter did do this... (shadow ban)

      That they allowed accounts that were against their ToS because they picked on conservatives.

      That they claimed at times to be an open forum, yet at the same time they argued that they are a private company.

      The really cool thing is that it will address these mega platforms and their potential legal liability.

      FB and Google are going to be watching this closely.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        I see hearsay, Gumby. I fail to see any proof.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          @Jake Re: But he actually has a case...

          Wow.

          Free clue... its already been admitted by Twitter, in so many words.

          I guess you can't take the politics out of this and focus on the law.

          I'll go slow.

          Twitter did in fact shadow ban individuals.

          Twitter did in fact allow fake accounts that violated their ToS.

          Most of the claims made by Nunes are easily confirmed if you take the time to look at Google and YouTube for Twitter execs in the news or in front of Congress.

          Now that said... Twitter is going to say that they are a private company and that they have the right to filter the content, at the same time they claim that they don't filter the content and that they are immune from litigation because they don't control the content.

          This is the issue. They are sitting on the fence and putting feet in both sides of the argument.

          So Nunes has a case because they cant have their cake and eat it too. If they censor you via shadow ban, and then also claim that they don't censor content except when it violates their ToS... they have a problem.

          This is why Nunes has a case.

          You can bet that Twitter is going to first try to get this dismissed and then fight every attempt at discovery.

          This is also an issue for Google and FB.

          I'm not going to guess how it will end, but on the surface, Nunes has a case and its enough to launch a lawsuit.

      2. J27 Bronze badge

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        Twitter is not a government agency, they can promote anything they want. By your logic Fox News is illegal because they don't present opposing political views equally and fairly. That's ridiculous.

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          @J27 Re: But he actually has a case...

          Sorry, but your argument falls flat on its face.

          This isn't really a 1st amendment issue.

          It has to go to the immunity platforms have on user generated content. As long as the content doesn't fall afoul of their ToS, Its allow to stay. No editing on the part of Twitter.

          But we know that doesn't happen w Shadow bans.

          So the argument is that Twitter shouldn't have said immunity. Nor Google or FB.

          They can't claim to be an open forum and censor people while allowing others to openly violate their ToS.

          He has enough of a case to initiate a lawsuit in good faith.

      3. vtcodger Silver badge

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        I am in no way, shape or form, a lawyer. But my understanding is that under US law, it is extremely difficult for a public figure to win a defamation, libel, or slander suit. It's OK in the US to say nasty things about politicians, athletes, actors, and other public figures. Grocery store tabloids have occasionally managed to lose such a suit, but they really had to work at it -- usually by publishing blatantly false stories utterly without supporting evidence and with no element of satire or attempt at humor. Here's a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.

        I expect that Nunes is wasting his time and money.

        1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Agreed

          He's got Freedom of Speech standing on the other side. Plus the fact that he's a public figure, so people have the right to lampoon him.

          He's just proven that his hide is too thin to be a proper politician. That's a serious fail in his line of work.

          1. Rich 11 Silver badge

            Re: Agreed

            He's just proven that his hide is too thin to be a proper politician.

            He's just emulating his president, that's all. What could possibly be wrong with that?

            1. Tom 35 Silver badge

              Re: Agreed

              He has made sure a million more people laugh at that cartoon of him as the caboose of a human centipede.

          2. Vector

            Re: Agreed

            Mom!!!!

            They're picking on me!!

          3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            Re: Agreed

            I suggest you actually read his complaint.

            And take your head out of your arse. To be frank, if you take politics out of the picture, you may actually start to understand his argument.

        2. Orv Silver badge

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          I assume the goal is to intimidate Twitter and maybe threaten them financially, like happened with Gawker. Twitter is, however, a much wealthier target. It's also possible Twitter is collateral damage and the real goal is to track down who ran the offending accounts and ruin them financially with legal fees. Anti-SLAPP laws may make that harder, though.

        3. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
          Boffin

          @vtcodger Re: But he actually has a case...

          Yes you're not a lawyer, nor do you spend enough time around them... ;-)

          You are right if this were a simple defamation lawsuit, you'd be right.

          But there's more.

          Its not vtcodger posting an anti Nunes post/rant/whatever. But an anon account pretending to represent his mom. Which is a violation of their ToS.

          There's more to it and that's why he has enough of a case to be able to start the lawsuit and see where it goes.

      4. SolidSquid

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        FB and Google are going to be watching this and laughing while eating popcorn, none of what you've described is illegal or a violation of safe harbor rules

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          Except, now that Twitter so thoroughly curates their platform to police what is and is not allowed to be said there, far above and beyond what the law requires, they may no longer fall under safe harbor provisions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: But he actually has a case...

            Alternatively, the 'liberals' are much more savvy and humorous than the conservatives on twitter. And the ratio is so against the conservatives that you just can't see their petulant whining opinions represented.

          2. phuzz Silver badge

            Re: But he actually has a case...

            "Twitter so thoroughly curates their platform"

            In Germany (and other countries) where the law requires them to, they do. Everywhere else they ignore any problems until there's a big enough media backlash that they actually have to do something.

          3. eldakka Silver badge

            Re: But he actually has a case...

            Except, now that Twitter so thoroughly curates their platform to police what is and is not allowed to be said there, far above and beyond what the law requires, they may no longer fall under safe harbor provisions.

            I'd like I introduce you to 47 U.S Code § 230, aka "Safe Harbor", and specifically subsection (C) (aka the “Good Samaritan” section) paragraph (2):

            (2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

            (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

            (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

            As has been upheld in many, many cases, moderating, curating, blocking, censoring, content does not in any way threaten a sites safe harbor protection.

            As long as the specific material that is in dispute is not the original creative content of the site itself (and doesn't breach the other exceptions, e.g. (e)(5) No effect on sex trafficking law) then a site can curate to their hearts content without losing safe harbor protections.

            This has already been tested in many cases, and come through (mostly) unscathed.

          4. jfm

            Re: But he actually has a case...

            This is nonsense. Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy, decided in May 1995, was the court case that found that editorial control by a service provider changed them from a distributor of information, without liability, into a publisher with liability. Within months (Feb '96) section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed to prevent service providers from becoming liable if they screened or moderated content, and indeed encourage them to do so.

            The safe harbour provision is 230(c)(1) which reads:

            "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

            1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

              @jfm Re: But he actually has a case...

              Yup.

              There's more to the case because of the quasi official nature Twitter now has.

              But essentially there are limits to 230(c)(1)

              AFAIK, Nunes is taking aim at the cover granted to Twitter under 230(c)(1)

              If you read his complaint that's what he's aiming to do.

          5. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
            Boffin

            @AC Re: But he actually has a case...

            Exactly.

            Nunes points to others being harassed and shadow banned.

            One example was an account that pretends to be his mom.

            (It was finally taken down after she lodged a complaint. )

            The point is that no one here really understands the law and the risk Twitter faces.

            1. vtcodger Silver badge

              Re: @AC But he actually has a case...

              Devin's Mom is gone from Twitter I'm told. Or maybe "she" is back with a new handle. Accounts differ.

              But Devin's Cow -- which purportedly has a few unflattering things to say about both his animal husbandry practices and his politics -- apparently hasn't complained or its mooing has been ignored. The corresponding Twitter account has gained several hundred thousand Twitter followers overnight. Left trending cable outlet MSNBC just (1300 GMT) said the account has 340,000 followers and encouraged listeners to sign up.

      5. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        The biggest hurdle is whether or not free speech allows the abuse. If it does, particularly because he's a politician, then some kind of proof that deliberate preferential treatment based on company policy by Twitter (or any other "social media" platform) actually exists, or this thing will get thrown out.

        Of course I want him to succeed, because I suspect this kind of 'preferential ban treatment' and underhanded 'shadow banning' is actually happening. The question is, what laws has it violated?

        (I bet it's in their Terms of Service, someplace)

        /me points out that USENET is still unmoderated, for the most part, and uncensored [unless your ISP blocks it for some reason...]

        1. Throatwarbler Mangrove Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          You know what, bob, I don't totally agree with you, but I want to give you props for actually making a coherent point. Good job, bob! Keep up the good work!

        2. jake Silver badge

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          "The question is, what laws has it violated?"

          Absolutely none. Twitter's servers, twitter's rules. Period. Don't like how twitter does it? Start up a competitor.

        3. JJKing Silver badge
          IT Angle

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          So why isn't the Orange Idiot held to the same standard as those that the tail end brown nose is complaining about. Is it because Spanky suffers from Grade 5 reading level, low IQ, a narcissistic personality as well as being morally bankrupt. Does that excuse Putin's pal from the same charges?

      6. DougS Silver badge

        The mere fact Twitter hasn't banned Trump's account

        Is proof that they have no problem with a conservative posting racist, sexist, and slanderous lies 24x7.

      7. Mike Moyle Silver badge

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        If he actually gets this suit against Twitter for definition* of character** to go to trial, I would presume that everyone that the Trumpster-fire has maligned via his morning "throne room" tweets will be right behind.

        (Note to self -- Double down on Orville Reddenbacher stock!)

        (* Yes, I know the difference. I meant what I said.)

        (** OTOH, I realize that "character" is too strong a word for whatever animates Nunes, but I can't think of anything else that's close enough.)

        1. Fungus Bob Silver badge

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          " OTOH, I realize that "character" is too strong a word for whatever animates Nunes, but I can't think of anything else that's close enough."

          gas(?)

      8. Tom 35 Silver badge

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        "allowed accounts that were against their ToS"

        Like Trump's account?

        1. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          Reply Icon

          Re: But he actually has a case...

          "allowed accounts that were against their ToS"

          Like Trump's account?

          -=-

          LOL, Actually you are correct. Trump should be tossed, however, they won't because he's POTUS.

          But there is more to this than meets the eye.

          Nunes is a lawyer. He picked his target carefully and he's got proof of shadow banning. Among other things.

      9. JohnFen Silver badge

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        "there's enough evidence to show that Twitter did do this."

        So I keep hearing, but I have yet to actually see all this evidence.

      10. JJKing Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: But he actually has a case...

        Yet the Commander in Thief can use the same platform to denigrate, abuse, make false statements (lies) and libel people and that's ok?

        Kettle, meet kettle.

    2. Mark 85 Silver badge

      @HVC

      If I mention here that this is conclusive proof that Nunes is not the sharpest doorknob in the bag, will I be getting El Reg in trouble?

      Well, he's head of the "Senate Intelligence Committee". The question is are they looking for intelligence or claiming they're intelligent? As an aside, I thought the First Rule of CongressGritters was to have a thick skin.

      1. DougS Silver badge

        Re: @HVC

        No, he's the ranking republican of the HOUSE intelligence committee. A position he was using (when republicans had the majority) to whitewash the treasonous activities of Trump's minions, and possibly Trump himself. Now that he can't, he's forced to use lawsuits to try to take attention away from the inevitable downfall of his orange puppet master.

        1. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: @HVC

          Rats... my apologies for a brain fart. In defense, both houses of Congress are filled with the same types.

  2. jake Silver badge
    Pint

    ::tee hee::

    Popping corn. The keg is tapped. Let the festivities commence.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: ::tee hee::

      Unfortunately, that's my Congress-critter. Def need some popcorn.

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge
        Pint

        Re: ::tee hee::

        You might also need something stronger than beer.

        Icon: Tall glass of something stronger than beer.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: ::tee hee::

          Vodka + Ginger Ale + Lemonade would be my goto.

        2. jake Silver badge

          Re: ::tee hee::

          "You might also need something stronger than beer."

          Who said anything about beer?

          Besides, it depends on the beer (I have a brew that runs just about 20%ABV, and a couple others that hover around 15) ... and people keep other things in kegs, not just beer. Wine for example. And mead. My calvados/applejack comes to mind if you really think you want something stronger ...

      2. zuckzuckgo

        Re: Unfortunately, that's my Congress-critter

        My condolences.

  3. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

    Round 1?

    I saw this reported elsewhere and it seems like Twitter was operating with different rules if you are an elephant or donkey; at least that is what is alleged. If so, this could get very nasty for Twitter as others you think they got treated unethically might be emboldened to sue. Implicit in the suit is an accusation that Twitter was trying to influence the 2018 election in favor of the donkeys. If that gets traction, Twitter will be toast as some of the alleged actions probably are various felonies with significant time at Club Fed. Discovery could be interesting and nasty.

    Not a fan of the vapid service and I ignore it. But it does not seem to be a well run or ethically run operation regardless of the merits of this lawsuit. So I am not surprised someone is suing them for a significant chunk of change.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge
      Alert

      Re: Round 1?

      If he kills Twitter with his lawsuit, he's going to have to answer to the Donald.

      1. teamonster

        Re: Round 1?

        On obviously Trumped-up charges.

        (gets coat and leaves).

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Round 1?

      again, it might actually be in their ToS that they CAN do the discriminatory thing, and that you have to AGREE with it in order to use their service...

      However, one thing a lawsuit WOULD do is make them defend the practice, or tell blatant lies about it, that are later uncovered, forcing them to apologize etc..

      Maybe that's all Nunes wants to do... put them ON RECORD [and use the lawsuit to get discovery materials, which are probably MORE valuable than winning the lawsuit]

      I think avoiding Tw[i,a]tter and Fa[e]ceb[ook,itch] is the better plan. Git yer own web site, post what you want to USENET, and maybe comment on El Reg articles just for fun.

    3. JohnMurray

      Re: Round 1?

      "But it does not seem to be a well run or ethically run operation"

      It should get-on very well with practically all of the global political organisations then

    4. DougS Silver badge

      Re: Round 1?

      There are clearly different rules if you are president, there's no way someone who has posted what Trump has wouldn't have been banned by now if he wasn't.

    5. Orv Silver badge

      Re: Round 1?

      There's no law that says any private company has to treat people equally based on their political views. In fact, quite the opposite -- the nearest equivalent would be the Fairness Doctrine and that was eliminated decades ago. It's also very common for corporations to attempt to influence elections -- they just can't coordinate with campaigns to do it. The NRA, for example, has no problem with endorsing candidates and even has an enemies list of sorts.

      You can argue that it's unethical to pick and choose based on politics, but it's not illegal. If it were, outlets like Fox News and The Blaze would not exist, so I think Nunes might want to be careful about opening that can of worms.

  4. J27 Bronze badge

    Seeing as Devin Nunes is a politician and therefore a public person, I can't see how he has any legal standing to sue unless the remarks were downright slanderous.

    1. Tomato42 Silver badge

      not to mention that the statements weren't made by Twitter...

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        "not to mention that the statements weren't made by Twitter..."

        To be fair, the accusation I heard on TV was that there were Twitter accounts that weren't supposed to have existed that were involved in this. so either Twitter allowed them to exist [and then claimed they did not], or they were being used by people with inside knowledge [or hacking access], or Twitter was claiming to have banned them when no ban actually happened.

        There is also the alleged preferential treatment, where TOU violations by conservatives would be ban-hammered without hesitation, but those by liberals would be allowed to continue indefinitely, in a kind of preferential or at least "unequal" treatment of what a 'Term of Usage' actually is.

        [and so I think Nunes seeks to use discovery to clarify what is happening so that it becomes a matter of public record]

        1. phuzz Silver badge
          Devil

          "TOU violations by conservatives would be ban-hammered without hesitation, but those by liberals would be allowed to continue indefinitely"

          The fun part is you hear this exact argument from the other side, that people from the right can get away with posting that it's desirable to shoot Jews or Muslims, whilst others get banned for posting that 'maybe fascism isn't wonderful'.

          When you get this kind of "they're biased against us!" "No no, they're biased against us!" argument, I usually conclude that the entire organisation is a shitshow.

    2. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      'downright slanderous' is hard to make a case for in the realm of political speech.

      You could accuse a politician of the most unscrupulous and heinous activity [use imagination, maybe involving a depraved walrus and bad smelling bodily fluids, or an impossibly contorted pose], all without any proof, and it would be LEGAL because it's "political speech". Free speech rules involving politicians have very wide latitude.

      [IANAL my understanding] as far as legal precedent is concerned, there are NO limits. NONE.

  5. beep54

    Really?

    I could easily see this summarily laughed out of the courtroom. Also, I would never have known about any of this (dislike twitter) except for this lawsuit.

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Really?

      "I would never have known about any of this ... except for this lawsuit."

      That's the Streisand effect.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Really?

        *light bulb*

        the more ya know!

        (now I don't have to google the term)

    2. teamonster

      Re: Really?

      I knew nothing of this till reading about this lawsuit. I must congratulate Nunes as some of the examples provided me with a rather good chuckle. Ta!

  6. Garymrrsn

    Beware of unintended consequences

    I wonder if he realizes that if he succeeds Twitter will have to ban Trump? Of course all the defence has to do is present a list of Trumps most egregious tweets over the last 2 years and Nunes case goes out the window.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Pirate

      Re: Beware of unintended consequences

      If Twitter bans our president, let's just create a USENET newsgroup for Trump and let people re-discover the anarchy. I'd even "write an app for that", make it free. Might be fun.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: Beware of unintended consequences

        The newsgroup already exists, bob. It's called alt.politics.trump, and it's full of just as much bullshit from all sides as one might imagine. I guess some people like that kind of thing. For myself, there aren't enough hours in the day. Life's too short as it is.

        1. Kurt Meyer
          Thumb Up

          Re: Beware of unintended consequences

          @ jake

          "For myself, there aren't enough hours in the day. Life's too short as it is. "

          Aye.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What a Devin

    He needs to talk to Babs for some advice.

  8. Kevin McMurtrie Silver badge
    Trollface

    Dim the lights

    More evidence is needed? Your Honor, surely enough evidence has been presented at this point! I'm beginning to wonder what the motives are in this trial. There are now 24 standby jurors and... are they holding buckets of popcorn?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      You have now planted in my mind the image of 12 jurors with buckets of popcorn and gallon jugs of fizzy drinks loudly laughing and clapping at the various arguments bandied about in the courtroom, having great fun, and sometimes throwing some popcorn at the various participants.

      I'd pay to see that film !

      1. teamonster

        I can see them continually demanding more and more evidence to be presented - each submission greeted with hooting and soda being snorted out of nostrils as they are overcome with laughter.

        Judge: Have you reached a verdict, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury?

        Lead Juror: Yes your honour, we find that the defendant is hilarious, and we demand that he be sentenced to provide us more comedic material!

      2. Tom 35 Silver badge

        Can we make them all wear funny hats?

      3. quxinot Silver badge
        Coat

        >You have now planted in my mind the image of 12 jurors with buckets of popcorn and gallon jugs of fizzy drinks loudly laughing and clapping at the various arguments bandied about in the courtroom, having great fun, and sometimes throwing some popcorn at the various participants.

        I'd pay to see that film !<

        Shame he's from the wrong state. If it was a little further east, it could be the Rockies Horror Picture Show.

        My coat, yes.

    2. Tomato42 Silver badge

      Re: Dim the lights

      unfortunately, the US legal system is too crooked, the lie-ers can exclude anybody from the juror duty for showing half a shred of evidence for critical thinking or fragmentary spine

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: Dim the lights

        I think federal jury duty pays like $50 per day too...

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    herp-face

    Reading over Herpes simplex on Wikipedia shows that "Worldwide rates of either HSV-1 or HSV-2 are between 60% and 95% in adults"

    And: "In all cases, HSV is never removed from the body by the immune system. Following a primary infection, the virus enters the nerves at the site of primary infection, migrates to the cell body of the neuron, and becomes latent in the ganglion."

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herpes_simplex

    So if we are going to get in to technicalities, the odds of the average human NOT carrying around some latent herpes virus would be low.

    But I think it is cruel to compare anyone (with or without any latent virues) to Ted Cruz.

    1. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Trollface

      Re: herp-face

      No I think 'herp-face' was a slang term derived from commenters on some anarchistic message/image board. The 'know your meme' site describes 'herp derp' as "a rage comic face and an expression used to indicate that someone is unintelligent or making ignorant statements". Kinda like the 'troll icon' face, but dumber.

      it's probably that.

      1. dogcatcher

        Re: herp-face

        " 'herp derp' as "a rage comic face and an expression used to indicate that someone is unintelligent or making ignorant statements". Kinda like the 'troll icon' face, but dumber. "

        Which then must then apply to all politicians, including the singleton somewhere who doesn't lie.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: herp-face

        > used to to indicate that someone is unintelligent or making ignorant statements

        So the tweets are factually correct then. Case closed.

  10. DrXym Silver badge

    But in fairness

    Nunes deserves to be hauled up in front of his colleagues in congress and censured several times over for his stunts and highly questionable activities. At best he is an incompetent, political hack, at worst he is compromised.

    1. RancidOrange

      Re: But in fairness

      Is he related to Boris Johnson?

  11. James Anderson Silver badge

    Bunch of Whingers.

    I am always amazed at the sense of victimhood exhibited by "consevatives".

    They come form the most priviledged and favoured section of US Society - older white guys.

    They have god on their side -- at least according to topee waering tv evangilists.

    The electoral system is rigged so their candidate wins even though most people did not vote for him.

    They are the biggest beneficiaries of federal spening (farm subsidies, nedicare, medicade, corporate bailouts etc. etc.)

    They have their own massive dedicated absurdly biased media infrastructure.

    The cops shoot people who don't look like them.

    And still they whinge and whine.

  12. crystallake

    Do ya think it will take all the poor Judge's resolve to maintain composure? Lots of "short recesses"?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Devin Nunes is DEFINITELY a feckless cunt

    He sure proved *that* with all this nonsense

  14. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Twitter , FB and Google should be declared Monopolies...

    Look, most here don't get it but Nunes can argue that Twitter violates the safe harbor clause.

    The point is while these companies are private companies they claim to be an open platform, which they are not when they censor objectively and apply their ToS objectively at the whim of some unknown person.

    Its not a question of being held liable for end user generated content, but for denying one group fair access while allowing others to defame them.

    For those who claim Twitter has no liability, consider twitter holding back Nunes, Clinton, AOC, or whomever while someone else pummels them with a baseball bat.

    The other thing is that should be considered is that these companies are now quasi news sources. Meaning that they should be held accountable. Many Government and businesses disseminate information via Twitter in order to comply with regulations (e.g. SEC's FD law) or to send Amber or Emergency Alerts.

    Twitter posts have been shown to move markets.

    When there is so much power, they need to be held accountable and the laws granting them safe harbor need to be changed.

    1. midcapwarrior

      Re: Twitter , FB and Google should be declared Monopolies...

      Everything you say may be true (it's not but that's besides the point), it still makes nunes a very bad example to make the case.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019