Latest news with #TwitterFiles'
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Section 230 Was Hijacked by Big Tech to Silence You
In 1996, Congress passed a well-meaning law called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to help internet platforms grow. It was supposed to protect online forums from liability for what their users said—not give billion-dollar corporations the right to shadow-ban dissidents, rig elections, and coordinate censorship with the federal government. But thanks to a judicial sleight of hand, Section 230 became the sledgehammer Big Tech used to bludgeon the First Amendment into submission. And now—at long last—the Supreme Court may have a chance to fix it. The case to watch is Fyk v. Facebook, and it might be the most important free speech lawsuit you've never heard of. So, here's The Lie That Broke the Internet: Section 230(c)(1) reads: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.' Sounds simple, right? Don't sue the platform for what someone else posts. But that's not how the courts interpreted it. They swapped out 'the publisher' for 'a publisher'—a tiny grammatical switch with massive consequences. That misquote gave platforms immunity not just for hosting content—but for what they choose to manipulate, suppress, or delete. This misinterpretation has allowed Big Tech giants to: Throttle political speech they don't like; Deplatform rival voices and competitors; Shadow-ban stories that challenge official narratives, And partner with the government to suppress dissenting opinions—all while claiming immunity. Don't take my word for it—look at the receipts. The 'Twitter Files' revealed that federal agencies actively worked with platforms to suppress content. A federal judge even issued an injunction in Missouri v. Biden to stop this unconstitutional collusion. That's not moderation. That's state-sanctioned censorship in a corporate mask. Congress intended Section 230 to protect platforms acting in good faith—hence the name of Section 230(c): 'Protection for 'Good Samaritan' blocking and screening of offensive material.' Platforms were supposed to remove truly harmful content—pornography, violence, abuse—not opinions that made their investors uncomfortable or their partners in D.C. nervous. But under the courts' bastardized reading of the law, the 'good faith' clause in Section 230(c)(2) became meaningless. If 230(c)(1) shields all moderation, then what's the point of requiring platforms to act in good faith at all? That's a textbook violation of the surplusage canon—a legal rule that says no part of a statute should be rendered pointless. In short, the courts rewrote the law. And they handed Big Tech the keys to our digital public square. Jason Fyk built a multi-million-dollar business on Facebook. With over 25 million followers, his pages drove massive traffic—until Facebook targeted and deleted his content, allegedly redirecting it to competitors and killing his revenue. When he sued, Judge Jeffrey White dismissed the case under Section 230—claiming Facebook was immune. But here's the kicker: Fyk wasn't suing over what other people said. He was suing over what Facebook did. They didn't just host his content—they manipulated it, redirected it, and destroyed his business. That's not speech. That's sabotage. Fyk's verified complaint included sworn factual allegations. Under standard civil procedure (Rule 12(b)(6)), the court was required to treat those facts as true. Instead, the judge parroted Facebook's false claims—even branding Fyk the 'pee page guy' over a page he didn't even own. This kind of judicial deference to Big Tech is exactly why Fyk's case is headed to the Supreme Court. Let's clear something up: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, not 'sovereign immunity.' That means platforms must prove their actions were lawful—not automatically escape trial. In Barnes v. Yahoo! (2009), the Ninth Circuit confirmed that Section 230 is not a blanket shield. But courts have ignored that precedent and instead created a fantasy world where Big Tech can't be touched—no matter what they do. As Jason Fyk explains in his eye-opening analysis, Section 230 for Dummies, the judiciary has created 'super-immunity' out of thin air. That's not just unconstitutional—it's dangerous. The Supreme Court has a golden opportunity here. If they take Fyk's case, they can: Restore due process by ending early dismissals based on false immunity; Reinstate the 'good faith' requirement for content moderation; Clarify the difference between a neutral host and an active publisher; And return free speech to the people, not the platforms. No new laws are needed. Just correct interpretation of the law we already have. Section 230 was designed to protect speech—not suppress it. It was written to encourage good faith moderation—not corporate censorship on behalf of the federal government. The law isn't broken. The courts broke it. Now it's time they fix it.
Yahoo
18-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Administration Blasts Biden, Fauci for ‘Outright Censorship' on Revamped Covid-19 Website
The Trump Administration on Friday unveiled a reconstructed website that said a Wuhan lab leak was the 'most likely origin of Covid-19.' The revamped site also blasted Dr. Anthony Fauci and President Biden, saying his administration resorted to 'outright censorship' by working with social media companies to suppress dissenting opinions on the virus' origin and how to treat it. 'Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions and a lack of transparency,' the updated website now reads. 'Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people's health decisions.' The site adds: 'When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to 'outright censorship — coercing and colluding with the world's largest social media companies to censor all Covid-19-related dissent.'' The Biden Administration, according to the 'Twitter Files' released soon after Elon Musk bought the platform in late 2022, had pressured Twitter executives to censor content it deemed Covid misinformation, primarily around vaccine skepticism. White House officials routinely held meetings with Twitter executives to discuss how they were policing the platform, it was also revealed. And earlier this year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg told Joe Rogan that the Biden Administration 'basically pushed' Facebook and Instagram to censor posts the government considered Covid misinformation. The updated website also rips Dr. Fauci and the mainstream media for working to 'discredit the lab leak theory.' Under a section titled 'The Origin,' the website now outlines five points backing the 'likely' lab leak, including the coronavirus possessing a 'biological characteristic that is not found in nature.' You can read the site for yourself by clicking here. The post Trump Administration Blasts Biden, Fauci for 'Outright Censorship' on Revamped Covid-19 Website appeared first on TheWrap.
Observer
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Observer
Is Trump the future or just a passing tremor?
Few figures have embodied the age of social media as fully as Donald Trump — the world's first 'Twitter President.' Since his first tweet in 2011, Trump used the platform not only to build a political identity, but to command attention in a space designed for spectacle and confrontation. His presidency, and the social media strategy that fuelled it, raises a deeper question: is Trump a sign of what's to come, or simply a temporary shock in a shifting world? In The Twittering Machine (2019), Richard Seymour explores the evolution of social media from a tool of communication to a powerful industry shaped by capitalism and control. Borrowing its title from a 1922 painting by Paul Klee, the book argues that platforms like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook are not neutral spaces. Rather, they are built to capture attention, encourage addiction and manipulate users for profit and influence. Seymour shows how social media no longer fosters organic, meaningful dialogue. Instead, it creates an environment of superficial connection and toxic engagement. Attention is the currency, and controversy is the engine. The platforms reward rage, mockery and spectacle — fuel for what Seymour calls a 'machine' that generates cruelty, division and distortion. Trump mastered this system. His online presence wasn't just political — it was performative, provocative, and perfectly suited to a space that values impact over substance. His presidency, as Seymour suggests, wasn't simply a result of political trends but also of the very design of social media itself. My return to Seymour's work was prompted by two things. First, a column published in Oman Daily (March 8), which reflected on the fading role of the intellectual. It noted that today's thinkers no longer lead public opinion, but instead watch from the sidelines, overwhelmed by a digital space that celebrates 'influencers' over minds. The second was a conversation with a friend, where I found myself explaining why I had all but abandoned social media for over a year. In the eyes of many, absence from platforms like X or Facebook is equivalent to nonexistence. But this belief — that true relevance requires constant online visibility — is deeply flawed. Many meaningful voices choose to stay away, resisting a culture that values noise over depth. The platforms reward rage, mockery, and spectacle—fuel for what Seymour calls a 'machine' that generates cruelty, division, and distortion. I wrote about this dilemma in an earlier essay titled Twitter Against Twitter (April 2023, Al Falaq). Inspired by critics like Noam Chomsky and Roland Barthes, I questioned the takeover of public discourse by corporate platforms. Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter and the so-called 'Twitter Files' revealed troubling signs of manipulation, including during moments of crisis like the war on Gaza, when content was filtered or suppressed. As Seymour warns, social media platforms are not open forums — they are industries of control. They shape public perception, filter content and steer conversations to serve their interests. Instead of open dialogue, we now face echo chambers and hostile spaces where thought is drowned by noise and engagement becomes exhausting and shallow. Even time — our most precious resource — is consumed by the endless scroll. For intellectuals, the challenge is not just keeping up, but making sense of a fragmented and fast-moving landscape. Most either burn out trying or retreat entirely, only to be dismissed as detached. Today, social media is rarely a space for building knowledge. It has become a stage for self-promotion, quick reactions and empty trends. Even discovering new, thoughtful voices often requires personal connections — returning us to the old gatekeeping systems. Users are left to choose between isolated bubbles or aggressive, chaotic arenas, where depth is buried beneath spectacle. Are we trapped in this cycle? Is the screen destined to remain a space for control rather than freedom? Maybe not. Despite the noise, some still fight to share ideas, spark thought and imagine a better digital future. Perhaps, beyond the moment's glare, lies a wider horizon waiting to be reached. Translated by Badr al Dhafari The original version of this article was published in Oman Arabic newspaper on March 23, 2025
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Fox News host hypes ‘free speech' college as place where ‘protests are essentially not allowed'
Fawning over a new 'free speech' college on Friday morning, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade simultaneously described the University of Austin as an institution that won't 'tell you what to think' and a place where 'protests are essentially not allowed.' Kilmeade brought up the University of Austin, which was first announced in 2021 by The Free Press' Bari Weiss and started classes last fall, while his show discussed the ongoing pro-Palestinian protests at Barnard College. Demonstrations have unfolded this week at the independent women's school after the college expelled two Barnard students who allegedly disrupted a Columbia University class on Israeli history. After the Fox & Friends crew spent several minutes raging against the protesters and blasting the New York governor for 'capitulating to the goons' and 'legitimizing' the demonstrators, Kilmeade introduced a short video package he had prepared on the University of Austin, which is still unaccredited. 'This is one of the reasons why the University of Austin was launched last year,' Kilmeade declared. 'And it was put together by Bari Weiss – people like Niall Ferguson, conservatives, libertarians, Joe Lonsdale. A lot of big-time supporters! They want to revamp upper-education and higher education, and they want to make it tuition-free.' Kilmeade noted that the first endowed professor at the college is anti-woke author Michael Shellenberger, adding that he recently spoke to Shellenberger for an interview that will be aired on Sunday night. In a preview clip that Kilmeade shared, Shellenberger — who was one of Elon Musk's handpicked 'Twitter Files' disseminators — characterized the school as a 'sanctuary of truth-seeking and truth-telling.' Claiming that the majority of American universities have become 'the exact opposite of that' and merely havens of 'censorship' and 'cancel culture,' Shellenberger told the Fox News host that he was interested in creating a college that would be a 'place of free thought.' After airing the clip, Kilmeade offered up some more details about the school's principles and teaching methods before curiously lauding it for apparently banning an activity that runs contrary to the First Amendment. 'That's what they want. They teach the classics. They don't tell you what to think. They present it all. Protests are essentially not allowed,' he proudly asserted. The University of Austin, described by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression as 'a new university devoted to free speech,' states on its website that it stands for 'the fearless pursuit of truth' and 'freedom of inquiry.' In a recent article claiming that UATX was 'founded on free speech,' the school's chief of staff, Mike Shires, insisted that the college was created to show how 'discourse and civil discourse can happen in a university environment.' Meanwhile, the First Amendment explicitly states that Congress shall make no law 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether Kilmeade's description of the school's policies was accurate and, if so, how they align with the college's commitment to free speech absolutism.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Fox News host hypes ‘free speech' college as place where ‘protests are essentially not allowed'
Fawning over a new 'free speech' college on Friday morning, Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade simultaneously described the University of Austin as an institution that won't 'tell you what to think' and a place where 'protests are essentially not allowed.' Kilmeade brought up the University of Austin, which was first announced in 2021 by The Free Press' Bari Weiss and started classes last fall, while his show discussed the ongoing pro-Palestinian protests at Barnard College. Demonstrations have unfolded this week at the independent women's school after the college expelled two Barnard students who allegedly disrupted a Columbia University class on Israeli history. After the Fox & Friends crew spent several minutes raging against the protesters and blasting the New York governor for 'capitulating to the goons' and 'legitimizing' the demonstrators, Kilmeade introduced a short video package he had prepared on the University of Austin, which is still unaccredited. 'This is one of the reasons why the University of Austin was launched last year,' Kilmeade declared. 'And it was put together by Bari Weiss – people like Niall Ferguson, conservatives, libertarians, Joe Lonsdale. A lot of big-time supporters! They want to revamp upper-education and higher education, and they want to make it tuition-free.' Kilmeade noted that the first endowed professor at the college is anti-woke author Michael Shellenberger, adding that he recently spoke to Shellenberger for an interview that will be aired on Sunday night. In a preview clip that Kilmeade shared, Shellenberger — who was one of Elon Musk's handpicked 'Twitter Files' disseminators — characterized the school as a 'sanctuary of truth-seeking and truth-telling.' Claiming that the majority of American universities have become 'the exact opposite of that' and merely havens of 'censorship' and 'cancel culture,' Shellenberger told the Fox News host that he was interested in creating a college that would be a 'place of free thought.' After airing the clip, Kilmeade offered up some more details about the school's principles and teaching methods before curiously lauding it for apparently banning an activity that runs contrary to the First Amendment. 'That's what they want. They teach the classics. They don't tell you what to think. They present it all. Protests are essentially not allowed,' he proudly asserted. The University of Austin, described by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression as 'a new university devoted to free speech,' states on its website that it stands for 'the fearless pursuit of truth' and 'freedom of inquiry.' In a recent article claiming that UATX was 'founded on free speech,' the school's chief of staff, Mike Shires, insisted that the college was created to show how 'discourse and civil discourse can happen in a university environment.' Meanwhile, the First Amendment explicitly states that Congress shall make no law 'abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.' The university did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether Kilmeade's description of the school's policies was accurate and, if so, how they align with the college's commitment to free speech absolutism.
