Slashdot Mirror
Devin Nunes Faces an Uphill Battle in His Lawsuit Against Twitter (nbcnews.com)
Devin Nunes, R-Calif., escalated the feud between conservatives and Twitter earlier this week with a lawsuit accusing the company of defamation and negligence -- two different allegations, one of which poses a more serious question for the social media platform and technology companies in general. Nunes is claiming that Twitter negligently violated its terms of service when it allowed people onto its online "premises" to say false or disparaging things about him. He is seeking $250 million in damages due to "pain, insult, embarrassment, humiliation, emotional distress and mental suffering, and injury to [Nunes'] personal and professional reputations" brought on by what Twitter users said about him.
From a report: Defamation is an interesting legal matter to discuss, at least in theory, but suing for defamation is seldom profitable in reality. Negligence may not sound as exciting as defamation, but this theory of liability quietly drives most successful civil litigation. Relatively easy to prove, it generally requires that the defendant show conduct that came up short of what can be expected, and that this shortcoming caused the plaintiff's damages. [...] The primary reason that technology companies are not sued into oblivion is the existence of the Communications Decency Act, or CDA, and in particular Section 230, which states that providers of an interactive computer service shall not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Ordinarily, a lawsuit like this is properly filed against the Twitter user or account (like "Devin Nunes' Mom") and not Twitter itself.
Section 230 and the CDA have become the targets of growing backlash against the idea that technology companies should not be held responsible for what is published on their platforms. Technology companies have voluntarily taken steps to moderate some content, such as extremism, conspiracy theories and fake news, but most personal insults and parodies are still allowed to flourish. Section 230, however, isn't necessarily bulletproof. At least one federal court has stressed that the statute does not "create a lawless no-man's-land on the internet." That provides some basis for Nunes' claim that Twitter has been negligent in keeping its platform from being used to spread damaging statements about him. But a negligence claim against Twitter may still be precluded by the CDA. The test is whether the cause of action requires the court to treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another. In the meantime, one of the Twitter parody accounts that is mocking Nunes -- Devin Nunes' Cow (@DevinCow) -- has gained a lot of attention, with its followers count jumping from about 1200 followers last week to more than 615,000 followers -- and in doing so, surpassed the number of followers Devin Nunes has (about 399k).
Section 230 and the CDA have become the targets of growing backlash against the idea that technology companies should not be held responsible for what is published on their platforms. Technology companies have voluntarily taken steps to moderate some content, such as extremism, conspiracy theories and fake news, but most personal insults and parodies are still allowed to flourish. Section 230, however, isn't necessarily bulletproof. At least one federal court has stressed that the statute does not "create a lawless no-man's-land on the internet." That provides some basis for Nunes' claim that Twitter has been negligent in keeping its platform from being used to spread damaging statements about him. But a negligence claim against Twitter may still be precluded by the CDA. The test is whether the cause of action requires the court to treat Twitter as the publisher or speaker of content provided by another. In the meantime, one of the Twitter parody accounts that is mocking Nunes -- Devin Nunes' Cow (@DevinCow) -- has gained a lot of attention, with its followers count jumping from about 1200 followers last week to more than 615,000 followers -- and in doing so, surpassed the number of followers Devin Nunes has (about 399k).
Dude has a pretty high opinion of himself, been hanging around Trump too long.
The lawsuit isn't really about winning. He's trying to force Twitter's blatant hypocrisy into the spotlight. Try and create an account called "Obama's Cow" or "Hillary Clinton's Mom" and see how fast Twitter bans you.
Part of his lawsuit also contains discovery to try and force Twitter to admit that they shadowbanned him, causing his tweets not to show up in search results and causing his (and other conservative accounts) not to be capable of influencing what Twitter considers "trending." It's well known that Twitter routinely shadowbans prominent conservatives, to the point that Jack Dorsey has even admitted such, but there's never been any real proof or any consequence to it. I suspect the lawsuit is to more intended to generate headlines and make people aware of what Twitter's doing, than expecting to be able to actually win a $250M judgement.
It never fails to see a Republican throw out all of their "supposed beliefs" to get back at someone because their little ego's are hurt.
Just like how the republicans are all for the 2nd until they see black folks with guns... but that is all good.
...and still my impression of him is that his head is planted firmly up his ass. I think that impression comes from hearing him speak. Could it be that he really is a fucking moron and that Twitter just exposed him for what he really is?
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
Yahoo, twitter and FB et al haven't silenced you nutjobs, Alex is still 100% free to speak, just not allowed to make someone else print his bollocks. The only ones trying to suppress political speech is nunes here (he doesn't want people talking smack about this politiician, which is political speech) and trump (he keeps bleating on about how CNN et al should be investigated and libel laws beefed up to silence "the fake news media").
Makes you think when the people in his district thought he was better than the other option(s)...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No, this particular kind of lawsuit wasn't predicted by Popper circa 1945, but it's a great example of how it works in action.
I actually think Trump's so-called free-speech executive order is a slightly more sophisticated attack on tolerance. The real idea is to make is easier for intolerant people to attack tolerance. NOT to suggest that #PresidentTweety possesses the sophistication. The executive order was probably dictated over Trump's iPhone by Steve Bannon, that poster child of intolerance.
Next amusing thought of the day: Steve King is actively campaigning for Pence's job in 2020.
By the way, there are a number of cow-related Twitter accounts you might want to follow. https://twitter.com/search?q=%... is obvious, but if you search on Twitter for "DevinNunes" you'll see an entire herd of them.
Jesus H. Mother Fucking Christ, how brain-dead do you have to be to think that "progressives" are "tolerant".
Saying, "No, you don't deserve FWEEEEE STUFFFZZ!!!" isn't racist, bigoted, or intolerant.
The fact that "progressives" are so thin-skinned while being so damn easy to mock over their dreams of authoritarian, statist, forced wealth redistribution is obvious to anyone not drowning in the "progressive" Kool-aide.
this is part of the broader "left wing media bias" narrative that the right wing has worked hard to establish.
For anyone who remembers what came out about MSNBC and Bernie after 2016, or pays attention to the coverage of him now vs the establishment candidates like Beto, Biden & Harris, or remembers when the media closed ranks to promote the Iraq War or the 2008 Bank Bailout you know the media's bias is hard right when it counts: economics.
Hell, the media was center-right on Gay Marriage until around 2014 or so. Go watch them grill Bernie on Medicare for All while giving Biden a pass on his attacks on Social Security. All this before Sinclair media bought out every local TV station.
And we shouldn't be surprised about the media's biases when it comes to the economy or the stuff that really matters. Look at who owns them. Always, always, always follow the money.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's hilarious how those on the "right" are constantly going on about "snowflakes" and "safe spaces" when their representatives like Trump and his minions like Nunes are the biggest collection of whiny, thin-skinned tantrumming snowflakes around.
Free speech? There's no such inalinable right, asshole. What do YOU think about it, given you want people punished for making parody accounts and talking smack about a rightwing politician?
And Venezuela is being raped by US stooges because Venezuela still wants to transit from using US dollars to Euros for all international currency. Fuck all to do with socialism, and everything to do with capitalism trying to ensure the failure of anything it identifies, right or wrong, as socialist.
And what is your whinge about? Being called an intolerant racist asshole triggers you, hurts your feelings and you demand MUST STOP NOW. So don't come to me with your complaints about no right to not be offended, you fucking thin skinned snowflake triggered moron.
As to your RWNJ definition of socialism (government owning the means of production, which is state communism, a la Stalin/Lenin, not socialism), Venezuela is slightly less socialist than the USA, if you count by revenues as a % of GDP. So if Venezuela is socialist, then so is your country, asshat.