Why @Twitter has failed us…

Twitter is a dangerous place for the faint of heart. Gang thuggery can devastate a delicate sensibility and even damage professional reputations beyond repair. Sarcastic allegations of misbehavior border on defamation and baseless charges of criminal behavior can be defamation per se. Whether such acts can be disputed, ignored or litigated depends on their severity and degree of malicious intent. The civil courts of late are demonstrating their impatience with irresponsible behavior of the most egregious kind. I personally have been victorious in this arena, while others less inclined, or for various reasons unable or unwilling to fight back, have fared less favorably. Anonymity, the foundation Twitter’s business model and appeal, supports the more venal in our midst, as it has supported those cowards who would snipe from dark corners since the advent of the written word. Before the the written word, malicious whisperers claimed their victims in a different but equally poisonous fashion.

Yet as difficult as it was in the early days of my experience with the gang assaults, I now find Twitter’s latest jihad against those who don’t tow the political line more dangerous by far. I took my case to court, I won the SLAPP judgment (admittedly against lawyers who lose on such a regular basis, losing might as well be a mantra), and justice was served. How would one fight the good fight, however, against Twitter’s latest gambit? Deciding that thousands of their clients’ opinions are not to Twitter’s political taste, they banged their corporate noggins together and virtually silenced those voices by terminating the “offending” accounts permanently.

No explanation. No appeal. No discussion.
Big Brother has spoken. Eat it and goodbye.

One teensy weensy problem implicit in this decision, however, may metastasize into a cancer that will eat Twitter alive. You see, Twitter and other huge corporate social media “portals” basically enjoy immunity from litigation for republishing defamatory comments made by their users. The argument is quite simple. In order to preserve the hallowed American right of free speech, having to “vet” every sentiment expressed by every user, from the POTUS down to the “pajama boy” hurling grenades from his mommy’s rumpus room, would place an undue burden on these “outlets of free expression.” Twitter, FaceBook, etc. in turn are then obligated by law to remain objective providers of free speech and not purveyors of news. News providers are explicitly NOT protected in this way. News organizations are expected to be objective and apolitical in their news reportage, yet ironically granted the luxury of editorial opinion, where expressly identified as such (editorial pages, commentary pieces). Now the Rachel Maddows of this arena, for example, while good for a chuckle, clearly disappoint by these standards to an alarming degree. They are actually bitter entertainers masquerading as journalists, and are recognized as such by all but their most ardent and slavish acolytes. Germane to this discussion are actual purveyors of journalistic “fact,” as responsible as they can reasonably be. If they mess up or fail in their due diligence, they often end their careers in disgrace (Dan Rather comes to mind as a biased embarrassment even Hollywood couldn’t resuscitate).

So here is where Twitter’s recent digital “Kristallnacht” against thousands of its users becomes alarming to those of us who still believe in free speech and crippling to Twitter as a portal impervious to actionable litigation. If they are using algorithms to ferret out those with whom their corporate goons disagree politically, are they now still an objective portal, not involved in the news and issues and OPINIONS of the current political zeitgeist? Indeed are those algorithms, in this case against conservative political thinkers labeled as ”alt right,” (the easier to round them up into political boxcars) not the same effective mechanisms as editorial pages in objective media outlets (guffaw) such as the New York Times?

I’m not a lawyer, but a lawyer I respect has agreed it is probably a matter of time before a class action is filed against Twitter for its decision to abdicate objectivity regarding its clients’ right to free speech. Clearly the corporate honchos at Twitter don’t care much for Voltaire’s famous dictum about defending to the death another’s right to say that with which one may disagree. So be it.

Arrogance runs rampant at these liberal corporate websites. They think they can do whatever they want and no one will ever stand up to them. After all they have all the power, don’t they?

Sure they do. Just ask Gawker…

6 thoughts on “Why @Twitter has failed us…

  1. Fred says:

    Hello

    The science behind CO2/global warming fell apart just before Al Gore released his movie. Ever since, Democrats have been patching holes in a ship which has no chance of staying afloat. Current politicians have no feel for this. RI Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is a pompous buffoon, and sees his job as giving weekly lectures to the Senate about climate change. It will take the Democrats years to realize that they are all on board a sinking ship. The quickest way to sink it is to defeat Sheldon Whitehouse in 2018. You are the only person that I’m aware of who has an extremely good chance of this. If you are truly not interested in this, who would you recommend? I appear to have created interest in a coordination of the RI Senatorial election with Gretchen Carlson for CT and Geoff Diehl for MA. If you would prefer other people, who? Thanks!

    Fred Wysocki, living with the Democrats @
    503 Manville Road
    Woonsocket, RI 02895

  2. Fred says:

    Hello

    My licenses consider social media to be a form of advertising, which require pre-approval and monitoring. The company I’m affiliated with has a mechanism for this. After reading “Twitter for Dummies”, I figured on opening a Twitter account for the sole purpose of coaxing you to run for Senator. A few days ago I submitted my request to do so to my company’s Compliance Department, noting that I am not affiliated with any political party. Lacking a quick answer from them, I think the issue is being considered by the company’s version of the Supreme Court. So there’s a delay in trying to draft you by popular demand to run for Senator for RI.

  3. Fred says:

    Twitter won’t happen anytime soon.

    I’ll try to get a formal invitation from the right people. If not, I’ll collect a few thousand RI signatures on an invitation.

    3 states? While the General’s smile is nice, I’d rather look at a couple of battalions of tanks before going into battle. I’d put money on at least 2 states.

  4. Fred says:

    The global warming people have a losing hand, but they can bluff their way to victories for many years to come. Even though the vast majority of climate science research grants push CO2 catastrophe, the substantial increase in the number of such scientific studies will eventually produce enough solid science to overturn the CO2 nonsense. Additionally, a few more decades without global warming would eventually seal the deal.

    My guess is that a theory of cloud nucleation by cosmic particles, affected by the solar magnetic fields, will become the prevalent accepted theory of global climate variations. Cloudy days are cool (except for Antarctica, where clouds cause warmth). Read “The Chilling Stars”, by Svensmark and Calder. While the book itself is largely speculative, the natural muon “SKY” experiment and CERN’s artificially created muon “CLOUD” experiment show the basic theory to be on solid ground.

    A strategy: First sell the people on the basic direction of global warming or cooling. Geologically, we are in a brief interglacial warm period sandwiched between much longer cold glacial periods. Perhaps 80% – 90% of the time, during the last million years, we were in the cold parts of the cycle. There was a mile thick sheet of ice over New York City, maybe 20,000 years ago. By any geological comparison, we are currently well past the midpoint of the current warm period, and will head back into the cold part of the ice age. So why are we worried about it getting too warm? The quarterback is throwing the football in the wrong direction. This is easier to sell to the public than the real CO2 story. Climate models that say they have accounted for ice ages are mere fairy tales. They’re loaded with many parameters for unknowns and unknowables, just to make the math work.

    You will be dragged into the CO2 story. This will be easier to win once the idea if ice ages is placed into people’s minds. Sure CO2 causes global warming. How strongly? Water vapor is far more powerful. Think of CO2 as the 4’ 8” player on the basketball court. Climate change people want us to think that he’s the high scorer.

    I’ve recently read more than a dozen books on ice age geology, climate change, and such, these being largely modern college textbooks. Many years ago I was a Geology major at Harvard, and much of what I’ve recently read wasn’t even known back then. If you do much similar reading, get “Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences” by Allaby & Allaby.

  5. Fred says:

    If a traffic light on 126 turned red a second earlier, I would have chosen a different route home, and I would have driven right past Chan’s front door while you were there. Say hello next time you’re around, and I’ll take you to a meal at Grumpy’s, the best food on the planet, just over the border in Bellingham.

  6. Fred says:

    After indicating that he doesn’t do formal politics, James Woods has been visiting RI. So there is hope. I’ve got a few polite refusals from alternates, but nothing positive that I can sink my teeth into.

    David Cicilline (US House for RI) has attempted to act as a distraction. He’s pushing a “better deal” on nothing burgers. If he starts using real meat products, I’ll see what I can do to give him a competitive election.

    Geoff Diehl, the “real Diehl”, is a bundle of energy. I figure him to be the Republican candidate for MA. I’m 100% behind Geoff.

    Hopefully Gretchen Carlson will decide to run for CT. I keep her informed.

    I’ve been developing info on RI Republican State Senators and Reps. I’m slowly getting to know their internet persona, and will dig deeper as appropriate. Being paid 300/week, not many of them consider politics as their day job. The big hurdle seems to be moving to DC.

    While I know the topic of climate change “cold”, I’ve never done formal politics before. So I’ll be reading a pile of books on this for the next few months. During that time James Woods or a suitable alternate will hopefully formally run for office, and I’ll re-focus my priorities appropriately.

Leave a Reply

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