What happens now?
The science has changed and Governments are losing their grip on an unhappy populous.
Let’s start the post with a smile. I love the Babylon Bee. In our crazy, crazy world, full of double standards and not enough time or energy to point every one of them out, the Bee cuts straight to the point.
But behind the humor is a dark undercurrent. After 2 years of executive orders, states of emergency and changing science (the process of science is constantly questioning but the corporate and government actors have seized on the phrase as a way to end discussion) and the result is citizens are wary and distrustful.
Instead of a “mea culpa” and hoisting figurative heads on the Washington monument to rebuild trust and bridge a massive political divide, many Governments have gone the opposite direction and are instead doubling down. Perhap you have seen “this” bulletin from the US government.
These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.
For a moment, let’s leave that be and turn our attention to Twitter, because they are inextricably linked.
On February 10th, the ‘little bird’ released earnings and reported that in Q4 they had 217 million monetizable daily active users (mDAU). Monetizable! Their annual results, which saw them generate just over $5 billion in revenue saw, included an $809.5 million charge to settle a class action lawsuit that accused (successfully) Twitter of misleading investors.
In the fourth quarter, they generated 90% of their revenue through advertisements, though indicated “ad engagement” was down 12%. Data licensing and “other” however, was a bright spot growing 15% and accounting for the other 10% of revenue.
Boring, boring, boring, right?! But boring with purpose. The reason we started here is to remind everyone that Twitter, like Google, like Pfizer, and like WarnerMedia is a business. They aim to grow revenue, increase profitability and destroy the competition using whatever strategic and tactical techniques that give them the biggest advantage. In Twitter’s case, the company generates all their revenue by targeting YOU with ads or selling (licensing) your data. Twitter may be “free,” but you are the product and the sale of your data and consumer habits and desires is the price paid so that the 217 million people who use the platform daily can share their voice. With the growth in social media, the true question is: has Twitter become more than a private platform. Alex Berenson sure thinks so, and is suing to prove it. At issue? The so called “terror threat” of misinformation identified by the U.S. government in their bulletin. Who’s the dog, who‘a the tail, and who decides?
Mr. Berenson is one of the more interesting characters from Twitter. The former New York Times reporter from 1999-2010, became best known for his vaccine skepticism. Twitter was his platform and through which, he was “the guy” calling B.S. on the narrative with a huge and growing audience.
He went on Joe Rogan, wrote a book and in August of 2021, Twitter decided to suspend his account indefinitely. Yesterday, Twitter responded to Mr.Berenson’s lawsuit and described the banning in a way that is intimately familiar to yours truly.
(The) Plaintiff has repeatedly tweeted misinformation contrary to prevailing guidance from governments, scientists, and public health experts, many of whom he has called “idiots.”
Owing to Mr. Berenson’s “fame” and in particular, the changing narrative of “the Science(TM)”, in which those banned in 2020 for saying such things as:
“cloth masks don’t work”
“you can catch and spread COVID while vaccinated”
“boosters forever is a business strategy and an inevitability due to the revenue gap that would be created,”
Are showing that maybe they weren’t as full of misinformation as some would have you believe. As a result, the court case will be an interesting one to watch.
The case revolves around two important questions. The first is the first amendment of the United States Constitution governing free speech and the second is a topic we dove into in January of 2021 here and here. Section 230 of the Federal Communications Act.
In Mr. Berenson’s lawsuit, he seeks for the court to declare that Twitter (in particular but by extension, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube etc) are public squares or ‘common carriers’ and therefore subject to first amendment protections. Courts to date have repeatedly rejected this view, saying that they are private companies and can govern content and suppression as they see fit.
In their filing seeking to dismiss the case, Twitter responded to Mr. Berenson’s argument that Twitter is a public square. The Pruneyard vs. Robins case in California involved an open air mall and the court found that the mall couldn’t evict people for sharing views in a public forum (Square). Said Twitter:
Pruneyard turned on the fact that the shopping mall in question had broadly replaced other traditional fora, like the downtown core of San Jose, where its patrons might have once congregated instead. 23 Cal. 3d at 907, 910 & n.5. Twitter, by contrast, is but “one of many alternative fora where citizens of many different states can choose to post” content online. Domen, 433 F. Supp. 3d at 607 (declining to extend Pruneyard to video-sharing site Vimeo).
Twitter went further:
treating Twitter as a common carrier would violate the First Amendment. Whereas “common carriers merely facilitate the transmission of speech of others,” platforms like Twitter instead “routinely manage content, allowing most, banning some, arranging content in ways intended to make it more useful or desirable for users, sometimes adding their own content.”
Effectively forcing Twitter to publish work as a public square would violate their Constitutional right to NOT say what they don’t want to. Not true says Mr. Berenson. He claims the first amendment applies because of influence that the US Government is having on “private actors” to encourage them to censor content they don’t like and thus circumvent the 1st amendment.
Said Mr. Berenson in the suit:
On Sunday, July 11, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden’s Chief Medical Advisor, called Mr. Berenson’s comments about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy “horrifying.” By Friday, President Biden himself piled on, blaming social media companies for “killing people” on account of their failure to adequately censor content. Hours after President Biden’s comment, Twitter locked Mr. Berenson out of his account for the first time.
It might be hard to prove, but watch this clip and say it isn’t highly likely.
Responded Twitter:
“The publicly expressed views of [federal officials]—regardless of how influential—do not constitute ‘action’ on the part of the federal government.” Daniels v. Alphabet Inc., 2021 WL 1222166, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2021) (rejecting claims that statements by Congress members supported joint action in YouTube’s content moderation). Plaintiff thus cannot establish joint action simply by pointing to public statements by President Biden, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, Dr.Anthony Fauci, and White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki decrying the spread of COVID-19 misinformation and urging social media companies to take action. (¶¶ 118–126)
It’s an interesting debate and will be fascinating to see how the court rules. As it pertains to the court of public opinion? Ir’s hard to not believe the White House plays a substantial role influencing these companies, many of whom have leaders that are large contributors to Democratic campaigns and they fill roles in the administration.
The second important piece revolves around the protections under section 230.
Section 230 has two key subsections that govern user-generated posts. The first, Section 230(c)(1), protects platforms from legal liability relating to harmful content posted on their sites by third parties. The second, Section 230(c)(2), allows platforms to police their sites for harmful content, but it doesn’t require that they remove anything, and it protects them from liability if they choose not to.
This is a double edge sword. Social media companies have both the protection from liability for anything said, but then are protected from deleting any content THEY disagree with.
Since the communications act of 1996 was penned, social media has changed the internet. But what happens when “the Science” begins to look more like a corporate profit strategy and what accountability due these companies have when THEY support the spreading of corporate driven misinformation that turns out to be wrong “when the Science changes.” When it comes to climate change, it will be the $131 trillion issue of our time.
Ive got a way to solve this issue....disconnect from all that silly shit and it has no voice. Long ago that happened for me. Whats its use, ask yourself that....
From what I understand, the federal government was instrumental in giving Twitter its start. I also have read that politicians and agencies have direct phone access to Twitter management (that they use). Something I do not have…I can only tweet; hey @jack only to get a non response. I need a new conspiracy theory…mine have all panned out true.