For so long social media companies have been disguising themselves as a method of free speech to hide their true corporate nature. This is why they have avoided censoring @realDonaldTrump and others.

Social Media companies want us to see twitter/Facebook/Reddit/Instagram like a public-use bulletin board when they are really more analogous to the Target intercom system. This keeps the users from realizing they are generating content for corporations for free.
But, most importantly, when social media corporations disguise themselves as public-use bulletin boards they confuse the public into thinking first amendment protections should apply to user-generated content AND THEREFORE we should not regulate social media as a whole.
Plainly, twitter (et al) wants to be seen more like your right to self-publish a manifesto and less like a corporation for whom we work for zero wages while they steal our data. They are hiding behind the Bill of Rights which, simply, does not apply to them whatsoever.
As a result, users like @realDonaldTrump are allowed free range to “say whatever they want” in “the name of free speech.” That right is not guaranteed by the BOR, but rather, it is promised by the terms and conditions of this corporate entity.
(I promise the irony of this thread on Twitter is not lost on me)
So, Donald Trump has spent the last 9 weeks informing his supporters that the election was stolen and democracy is broken. How did the vast majority of citizens encounter this disinformation campaign? Social media.
Social Media corporations are welcome to question the government. THAT is actually protected free speech. But, these social media corporations (who profit from posts by DJT) do not want us to see their publication of disinformation as *the corporation exercising free speech.*
They want us to hold them blameless (like a fax machine utilized to send copies of a manifesto from one person to another) and to see their publication of DJT’s disinformation about our democracy as a utility performing its natural function.
But the ugly truth is that Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Parler, Instagram, and many others are corporations who have intentionally allowed DJT to inject disinformation that is dangerously detrimental our democracy into public discourse because they (1) like ad dollars and...
(2) Want to avoid regulation.

These capitalist, corporate-owned “platforms” are spreading lies about an American election for the purpose of increasing click revenue.
As long as social media corporations give a platform to those who would destroy our democracy for personal gain, they are responsible for the destructive outcomes.

In my opinion, this means the US Congress has a valid tort claim against each of these social media corps.

More from Trump

Allow me to offer some commentary on several SCOTUS cases that are NOT the #moab, but which, considered in aggregate, will reveal my impressions on the #TRUMPSMASH #lawOfFunny

Can someone give me a google number or something? I want a party line.

https://t.co/SlJCsjWMUa


I'm sorry, but #lawOFFunny #nominologicaldeterminism.

#thomists


This one is important:

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.