Facebook and Twitter have both taken action to prevent the spread of the Hunter Biden bombshell story from the New York Post. Twitter prevents people from posting the New York Post link altogether, kicking back an error message when a person attempts to do so. Twitter has also blocked several high profile accounts of people who linked the story before the block feature was enabled, including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany.
A Facebook executive got on Twitter and posted a status update saying since the Hunter Biden story is unverified, they will “reduce its distribution.” So anytime a page posts the Hunter Biden story, an automatic algorithm sets in that will limit the number of people who will actually see the story by scrolling their timeline.
Censorship from “Big Tech” that specifically targets conservatives is nothing new. Facebook is one of the worst offenders. Several conservative Facebook pages have been targeted for demonetization, reach reduction, and post removals. Some of the aforementioned pages are even blocked from paying for advertising on Facebook. The counter-argument is that conservative media dominates liberal media on Facebook. That’s not exactly true because mainstream media and local media have large presences on the platform. Subversive and violent groups like ANTIFA also have an unimpeded presence on Facebook with no talks of changing their status.
Twitter head-honcho Jack Dorsey released a statement saying that the Hunter Biden story was handled improperly. But what does that truly mean? Was the locking of the White House Press Secretary’s account for sharing a reputable news website’s story regrettable? Or was it the blocking of links on Government websites? Dorsey probably regrets the former simply because he now has to attend a dog-and-pony show called a House Hearing.
All of “Big Tech” censorship boils down to a lack of clarity on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This particular law is what gives social media “platforms” a shield from lawsuits when it comes to content that users generate on their websites. Since, in theory, websites like Twitter and Facebook do not create original content, then they cannot be held liable for lawsuits. However, if these websites were to create original content and curate, editorialize, and manipulate user-generated content, then they may be pushed into the realm of becoming a publisher instead of a platform.
The reason why Nick Sandmann was able to successfully sue CNN is because CNN is a publisher, and not a platform. They have writers, editors, producers, and more who are responsible for whatever goes on their airwaves and website. They are publishers, therefore not shielded against civil liability. They can be sued. Section 230 makes sense to apply to social media websites because everything is based on user-generated content. How could Twitter be sued for something a random person says? But when Twitter also creates their own content, they begin to relinquish those rights and that shield is broken.
Facebook, Twitter block The Post from posting
Kayleigh McEnany: Twitter had me at ‘gunpoint’ by locking account | TheHill
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey says blocking New York Post story was ‘wrong’
New York Post Exposes Hunter Biden With Drugs and Dirty Money! | Anthony Brian Logan