Our pro-Trump, conservative 100 Percent Fed Up Facebook page had almost 1 million followers when it was unpublished by Facebook only ten days before the 2016 election. Breitbart News wrote an article about our page being shut down without any explanation and contacted Facebook to ask them why they unpublished our page.
Shortly after their story was published, our page was re-published. The only explanation we received from Facebook was a message telling us “it was a mistake.”
One month after President Trump’s inauguration, we lost over 90% of our traffic and Facebook. The massive amount of traffic we used to see on our popular Facebook page was never restored. We’ve traveled to Washington D.C. twice to meet with Republican legislators to disucuss our case. Although the lawmakers we met with all expressed concern over the widespread censorship of conservatives on social media, and on Google’s search engine, no concrete action was taken to address the issue.
If Facebook and Twitter have the ability to limit or even completely remove content that’s in opposition to the political views of the far-left employees working for their company, and a large majority of Americans are getting news from Facebook and Twitter, shouldn’t Facebook and Twitter be held accountable for affecting the outcome of our elections by engineering the news cycle?
On May 29, 2020, President Trump signed an executive order that put tech giants who have a monopoly on information disseminated on the internet, on notice. President Trump’s action has offered conservatives hope that something will be done about the silencing of conservatives by far-left tech companies with an agenda.
On May 28, Attorney General Barr spoke out on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook who are censoring content they don’t agree with. “These companies grew because they held themselves out as public forums—as free public forums where a variety of voices & diverse voices could come on and be heard,” AG Barr said.
"These companies grew because they held themselves out as public forums—as free public forums where a variety of voices & diverse voices could come on and be heard," AG Barr said.
"They've now switched & they are using that market power to force particular view points." pic.twitter.com/FDRwVpuTyk
— The White House 45 Archived (@WhiteHouse45) May 28, 2020
President Trump also spoke out about how taxpayer dollars should not go to social media giants that unfairly repress free speech, saying they bully users. He added that there will be a lawsuit and that lawmakers will begin legislation against the tech giants.
The Trump Administration is making sure your taxpayer dollars don't go to social media giants that unfairly repress free speech. pic.twitter.com/L3FiJ0eG5L
— The White House 45 Archived (@WhiteHouse45) May 28, 2020
In less than 24 hours, Twitter did something they have never done to a sitting President before, they added a warning label to one of President Trump’s tweets that warned violent protesters they would be met with force, saying that it “glorifies violence.”
After 3 days of violent riots, fires, looting, a takeover of the Minneapolis Police 3rd District, and copycat protests taking place in major cities across the United States, President Trump took to Twitter to let the feckless Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and the violent rioters know he’s had enough.
Shortly after President Trump tweeted a message to Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and the violent protesters about putting innocent citizens and law enforcement officers in danger, Twitter warned users that the President’s tweet “violated Twitter Rules about glorifying violence.” Twitter added that they “determined that it may be in the public’s interest for the Tweet to remain accessible.”
Here is what the tweet looks like.
Fox News’ Tucker Carlson spoke with Human Events editor Raheem Kassam who discussed how he was banned by Facebook and because of government intervention, he has no legal recourse.
WSJ – The sweeping protections now enjoyed by tech companies were established by Congress in the internet’s early days, through a provision known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Under that law, tech platforms are generally not legally liable for actions of their users, except in relatively narrow circumstances. Internet platforms also are given broad ability to police their sites as they see fit under the current law.
Tucker Carlson asked Kassam why Republicans haven’t moved to pass legislation to strip social media and big tech companies of special protections that protect them from being sued by users for censorship? Kassam cited Donald Trump Jr. as an important voice that’s made a serious effort to draw attention to the censorship of big tech.
— Woj Pawelczyk (@Woj_Pawelczyk) March 6, 2019
Today, the DOJ announced they will be taking serious action to address the censorship issues with big tech.
Wall Street Journal reports – The Justice Department is set to propose a rollback of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than two decades, in an effort to make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content, according to a Trump administration official.
The department’s proposed changes, to be unveiled as soon as Wednesday, are designed to spur online platforms to be more aggressive in addressing illicit and harmful conduct on their sites, and to be fairer and more consistent in their decisions to take down content they find objectionable, the official said.
The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be adopted by Congress.
The move represents an escalation in the continuing clash between the Trump administration and big tech firms such as Twitter Inc., Alphabet Inc.’s Google unit and Facebook Inc.
Internet companies would lose immunity if they have knowledge that unlawful conduct is taking place on their platforms or show reckless disregard for how users are behaving on their sites. Without those legal protections, tech companies could be exposed to claims for monetary damages from people allegedly harmed by online fraud and other illegal activity.
The department also wouldn’t confer immunity to platforms in instances involving online child exploitation and sexual abuse, terrorism or cyberstalking. Those carve-outs are needed to curtail immunity for internet companies to allow victims to seek redress, the official said.
Attorney General William Barr has repeatedly voiced concerns about online-platform immunity, citing, for example, a terrorism case in which courts ruled Facebook wasn’t civilly liable because its algorithms allegedly matched the Hamas organization with people that supported its cause.
The proposal’s restrictions on platforms’ content-moderation practices would be extensive.
For instance, the department will propose to strike from federal law a provision that allows platforms to delete content that they merely deem to be “objectionable.”
The proposal also would give some teeth to an existing “good faith” standard that platforms are supposed to use in their content-moderation decisions. The aim would be to require platforms to adhere to their terms of service as well as their public claims about their practices. Platforms also would have to provide reasonable explanations of their decisions.
Section 230’s broad protections have drawn increasing criticism from both the right and the left in recent years. Many critics contend the protections are outdated and no longer needed in an age of internet giants.
The Wall Street Journal explains: