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).
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.
Yeah, I seriously doubt that'll do anything. Searching "Obama parody" brought up dozens of accounts. Feel free to create the first "Obama's cow" one. Given Twitter still hasn't booted off the swastika waving self-proclaimed Nazis that are happy to use its platform I seriously doubt they're going to throw someone out for creating a parody account of a Democratic politician.
Pretty much the only account name banned right now is Elon Musk, you'll have your account suspended immediately if you put Elon Musk in the name or in any way make it look like Elon Musk's account to Twitter's filters.
The reason is fairly reasonable: there's been a bunch of cryptocurrency scams where fake Musks have responded to Elon Musk (making it look like they're Musk continuing the thread) with some scam about giving everyone X bitcoins if they send him (wallet number included) 0.01X bitcoins. Given they're focussing on Musk for this (I'm guessing nobody would believe it if they targeted Paul Krugman), the ban isn't entirely unreasonable.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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.