Reason Roundup

Devin Nunes Milks Fake Cow Account on Twitter For Nonsense Lawsuit

Plus: SCOTUS declines Hawaii lesbian case, UC stands by professor in free speech standoff, and ACLU warns of "privacy Trojan horse."

|

A prominent member of the House Intelligence Committee is suing Twitter over conspiracy theories in an effort to overhaul fundamental federal tech policy and force the doxxing of his critics, including a fake cow. In a new lawsuit, Rep. Devin Nunes (R–Calif.) is accusing Twitter of engaging in systematic "shadowbanning" of conservatives, allowing defamation against him, and basically orchestrating a conspiracy against him by…well, existing.

Shadowbanning is the nefarious term aggrieved users have cooked up for algorithmic processes that lead to some posts showing up in more timelines than others, or some accounts getting put in a time out (based on things like multiple reports to Twitter support) in which users can still tweet and people can still read their tweets but their content may not be broadcast into feeds for a period of time. Some conservatives convinced their content isn't getting the attention it deserves have latched on to the idea that they're part of targeted Twitter action to suppress conservatives. Perversely claiming the mantle of free speech, they want the government to force a private company to somehow redistribute attention to them (or pay them for not doing so).

Nunes is seeking $250,350,000 on behalf of himself and a few other Twitter users, claiming (without evidence) that they have been systematically censored. He is claiming conspiracy, that Twitter was negligent with regard to "insulting words" aimed at him, and that it both permitted and "created" defamatory posts about him.

In the suit, "Nunes claimed Twitter wanted to derail his work on the House Intelligence Committee, which he chaired until 2019," reports Fox News. Nunes is ranking Republican member on the committee.

The lawsuit was filed in Maryland state court—which means that on the defamation claim, Nunes runs up against Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (the one that says web platforms aren't to be treated as the speaker of user-posted content for state and civil legal liability purposes). Under Section 230, Twitter does not need to determine itself what is or isn't defamatory content, it only needs comply if legal authorities say it must take something down.

Perhaps Nunes knows all this; some congressional Republicans have been itching to dismantle Section 230 further under the guise of promoting ideological fairness on social media. Based on a complete misreading of the law, folks like Nunes and Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) have begun arguing that in making any content decisions at all, Twitter and its ilk should be excluded from Section 230 protection. But this is directly opposite of how the law works and what all sorts of judges have written on it.

Nunes also offers an absurd reading of what it meant to "create" content. Under Section 230, platforms and web service providers lose protection if they create or substantially edit the criminal content. Nunes suggests that Twitter somehow "created" the content (that was authored and posted via myriad individual users) because it made "a publicly available commodity" that people could use to spread words, and "unscrupulous political operatives" had used some of those words against him.

Even if the lawsuit isn't searching for a Section 230 challenge, it's still a fishing expedition of sorts. Nunes' claims may ultimately be declared nonsense, but Twitter defending the lawsuit would mean it has to turn over all sorts of internal company documents and process information as part of discovery.

This is the same process officials pulled with Backpage and other internet companies. With access to enough internal communication, maybe they'll find that at some point Twitter staff or leadership made some misstep with regards to a specific content moderation decision. That can be all it takes to order congressional hearings and command misleading headlines.

Or perhaps Nunes is more simpleminded and petty than all that. As part of the suit he's seeking the identities of people behind specific accounts that were critical of him—including accounts using the name @DevinCow and claiming to be Devin Nunes' Cow and also @DevinNunesMom—and which he says are guilty of legitimate harassment and defamation. Maybe this is all a ploy to find out who his biggest Twitter enemies are.

Any or all of the above motivations don't bode well coming from an elected official who helps oversee national intelligence policy.

FREE MINDS

UC–Davis stands by professor. Folks on the right complain a lot—and rightfully so—when liberal college students demand censorship of each other or their teachers in the name of being kept safe from "dangerous" (or simply disagreeable to them) ideas. But give chattering-class conservatives a chance to pull the same speech-stifling silliness on someone they find taboo, and time and again they will take it. Our latest example of this comes from the University of California-Davis, where English professor Joshua Clover tweeted a few years ago about dead cops.

His words "are horrifying statements, but they are also protected by the First Amendment," writes Robby Soave. "Clover's general endorsement of violence against the police is not a true threat, or incitement to lawless action." Read more on the situation here.

FREE MARKETS

SCOTUS declines Hawaii lesbian case. The Supreme Court won't hear a case in which a Honolulu bed and breakfast was found in violation of Hawaii anti-discrimination law by refusing to allow a lesbian couple to stay there. Comparisons to Masterpiece Cakeshop aren't quite right, here, pointed out Reason's Scott Shackford yesterday.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was clear that he wasn't refusing to sell cakes to gay people or to gay couples. He argued that his religious opposition to gay marriage recognition meant that he shouldn't have to make a cake that would be seen as celebrating same-sex marriage.

"Reasonable people can debate whether baking a cake counts as a form of expression," Shackford continues. But "renting a room or a home is not seen by most as requiring a personal or moral approval of the renting party's romantic relationships." (Libertarians may disagree, but we're talking about prevailing popular opinion and legal interpretations here.)

One more note: many people think the bakery case—which SCOTUS did take on, ruling in favor of Phillips—hinged on Phillips' right to free expression under the First Amendment. At oral arguments, "they publicly debated what counted as speech or expression in the producing of a consumer good and whether forcing Phillips to bake a cake was compelling him to engage in speech, but they didn't ultimately decide the case on that issue," notes Shackford. More here.

QUICK HITS

• Congressional Democrats are pushing for an investigation into a woman who owns massage parlors and took selfies with the president.

• A "privacy trojan horse"? The American Civil Liberties Union is sounding alarm about bills pushed by Hu-manity.co that are making in headway in some states. "Hu-manity.co's strategy is to use legislation to artificially generate a robust market for 'customer information sales agents' who will facilitate—and profit from—the sale of patients' medical information," the ACLU blog says.

• Pennsylvania lawmakers just introduced a bill to legalize recreational marijuana sales.

• Leaders in Cincinnati, Ohio, sure seem like they're trying to harass this downtown hotel out of business.

• Catherine Oxenberg, star of the '80s TV hit Dynasty and mother of a young woman who got caught up in NXIVM founder Keith Raniere's weird lady group, has a new book out about "a mother's crusade to save her daughter from a terrifying cult."

Hudson Yards will own your soul and you will gram it.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

174 responses to “Devin Nunes Milks Fake Cow Account on Twitter For Nonsense Lawsuit

  1. Congressional Democrats are pushing for an investigation into a woman who owns massage parlors and took selfies with the president.

    Personal, hands-on investigation.

    1. Has anyone made a “happy ending” joke yet?

      1. If someone has, she hasn’t released it yet.

      2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

        So I started….>>>>>>> http://www.Just4Work.com

    2. She must have rubbed someone the wrong way.

      1. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

        >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.payshd.com

  2. Pennsylvania lawmakers just introduced a bill to legalize recreational marijuana sales.

    I’m sure what they come up with will kill the black market for weed in the Keystone State. State stores for weed that triple the cost and halve the selection.

  3. Catherine Oxenberg, star of the ’80s TV hit Dynasty and mother of a young woman who got caught up in NXIVM founder Keith Raniere’s weird lady group, has a new book out about “a mother’s crusade to save her daughter from a terrifying cult.”

    “How ya gonna keep ’em down on the mansion once they’ve seen Keith Raniere.”

  4. (Libertarians may disagree, but we’re talking about prevailing popular opinion and legal interpretations here.)

    (Since when do libertarians limit their discussion to legal opinion.)

  5. “Libertarians may disagree, but we’re talking prevailing popular and legal interpretations here.”

    Any case involving Wickard, Raich, Kelo, etc precedents.

    1. What ENB is literaly saying here is THE LAW IS THE LAW

      Reason continues its goose-step march down the tolled public highway of center-right authoritarianism.

  6. Patriotic Americans should hope Mueller removes Drumpf from office for colluding with a hostile foreign power. But if that doesn’t happen, recall there are other legal ways to remove a President.

    George Conway, husband of Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway, has an urgent warning about the president’s mental health

    Some mental health professionals that year publicly called Trump psychologically unwell. After Comey’s firing, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein mentioned the Constitution’s 25th Amendment outlining procedures for removing a president on grounds of incapacity, according to former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe.

    Read the whole thing.

    #NotMyPresident
    #Resist

  7. “House Intelligence Committee”

    One word too many

    1. One of these things is not like the others.

    2. 3 words too many.

  8. Beto O’Rourke gets mad props from me for being a verified member of Cult of the Dead Cow back in the day. His role was apparently limited to writing their screeds, but that was what led me to reading CDC’s stuff.

    http://arstechnica.com/informa…..-as-a-kid/

    Who knows who wrote what, but much of what they were publishing back then was satanic, hilarious, sophisticated, and juvenile. I don’t know anything about the guy other than his association with CDC and I’m not about to cast my vote for anyone whose win might advance the agenda of socialist SJW progressives, but finding out that a legitimate contender for president was a member of Cult of the Dead Cow is bigger than finding out that the lead singer of Black Flag is now a featured regular on a TV show for teens.

    Never underestimate what can change over time.

    1. Attacking him for this will backfire. It’s the only thing he’s done that is legitimately cool

    2. CDC was like Anonymous before Anonymous–rude, crude, wild, and ideologically free.

      They even went after Scientology like Anonymous did–but Cult of the Dead Cow did it like ten years before Anonymous.

      The chance of Beto O’Rourke never having written anything deplorable in that environment is practically zero. He’s written something at some point that the SJWs will find unacceptable, or my name isn’t Boaty McBoatface.

      1. The Galway gringo.

      2. Fantasy writings of running over children weren’t bad enough for SJWs?

    3. Beto has changed over time. he’s dropped satanic and sophisticated but remains juvenile and hilarious, if your idea of hilarity is laughing at retards.

    4. >>>lead singer of Black Flag is now a featured regular on a TV show for teens.

      TV party tonight!

      1. Henry Rollins a phony sellout douchebag. No real punk whines about wanting government health care and welfare.

        Fuck him.

    5. Ken, if you haven’t seen Henry Rollins in He Never Died , you might want to give it a look. Not bad. Not bad at all.

  9. The ‘ethical’ porn film made by MOTHERS worried about effects of hardcore films on their children

    These are the first behind the scenes shots of a pornographic film shot by a group of five mothers which they would be happy to show their children.

    The women made their own X-rated film as part of new Channel 4 documentary Mums Make Porn after being disgusted by the adult movies they found online.

    It’s time to go to war with England.

    1. that might actually be a good way to get your kids to hate porn

      1. Ha! Moooooooommmmm, stop!

        1. Well, that’s certainly better than “Mom, don’t stop!”

          1. Maybe that’s what fucked up PB and Pedo Jeffy.

    2. This is wonderful. I appreciate healthy attitudes toward sex. Something you would have to look very hard to find in the puritanical United States.

      1. Those kids may have their sexuality scarred and twisted for life.

        Is not one Crusty in the world more than enough?

      2. “Don’t watch that Jimmy, here, you can watch the scheisse video that your father and I made last week. Your Mum’s still got it”

        Meanwhile, at Reason: This is wonderful. I appreciate healthy attitudes toward sex. Something you would have to look very hard to find in the puritanical United States.

        I haven’t laughed so hard in years.

    3. Their children won’t be happy to be shown that by their mothers.

      1. No, but I bet their children’s friends will be happy.

        1. That is one of the major reason’s for their children’s mortification.

        2. Like Jenna Jameson’s son’s friends.

    4. As Greg Giraldo would say, “Remember when being the cool Mom meant bringing oranges to soccer practice?”

  10. “Shadowbanning is the nefarious term aggrieved users have cooked up for algorithmic processes that lead to some posts showing up in more timelines than others, or some accounts getting put in a time out (based on things like multiple reports to Twitter support) in which users can still tweet and people can still read their tweets but their content may not be broadcast into feeds for a period of time.”

    How is shadowbanning not an accurate description of the process of: “users can still tweet and people can still read their tweets but their content may not be broadcast into feeds for a period of time.”?

    And it’s not quite accurate to say that people can still read their tweet. The tweet doesn’t show up in subscribers feeds. Which is the whole point of twitter.

    This reminds me of the classic Douglas Adams joke:

    “But the plans were on display?”
    “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
    “That’s the display department.”
    “With a flashlight.”
    “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
    “So had the stairs.”
    “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
    “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

    1. Technically you could read the tweet. If you knew it existed. But since it was shadowbanned from the subscriber list, then how are you supposed to know it’s available to read?

    2. HOW CAN I CONTINUE TO LIVE IF I MISS ONE OF CAPTAIN JACKOFF’S TWEETS?!?!?!?!?!?!!

    3. Sounds like what the Washington Post does to stories they don’t want to be read, like the “editors note” about their errors in coverage of the Covington, Ky. teens. The only way to find it was to do a word search, and even then “Covington” wouldn’t get a hit. You had to search “Lincoln Memorial” to find it.

      The Post buries a lot of stories that way, especially reposts of AP stories that don’t fit their narrative.

  11. Our hillbilly republican legislature will not let legal weed pass any time soon

    1. Hillbillies smoke weed too, it’s not just for beanie wearing, latte sipping betas

    2. After oxy, Fentanyl, and meth, weed just isn’t as scary as it used to be. They may be looking back to the scourges of buds and suds like it was the good ol’ days.

    3. Very few republicans give a fuck about weed.

  12. “The last year has seen a slew of brutal and terrifying warnings about the threat climate change poses to life. Far less talked about but just as dangerous, if not more so, is the rapid decline of the natural world. The felling of forests, the over-exploitation of seas and soils, and the pollution of air and water are together driving the living world to the brink, according to a huge three-year, U.N.-backed landmark study to be published in May.”
    http://www.huffpost.com/entry/…..a6d3bb2d44

    In case, like me, you missed it.

    1. Crop yields are the highest in recorded history and forest globally has increased the last 50 years… what the fuck is huffpost ranting about?

      1. What you just said doesn’t get eco marxists to click on their bullshit.

  13. Andrew Yang, Upstart Democratic Presidential Candidate, Comes Out Against Circumcision

    The Democratic candidate revealed in a little-noticed tweet last week that he was against the ritualized practice of cutting a newborn’s foreskin. But in an interview with The Daily Beast, he said that if he were elected he would incorporate that view into public policy, mainly by pushing initiatives meant to inform parents that they don’t need to have their infants circumcised for health reasons.

    “It’s sort of pushed on parents in many situations,” Yang said, describing pressure to circumcise a child as a “cultural onus” imposed on families.

    Big Anteater is out of control.

    1. he was against the ritualized practice of cutting a newborn’s foreskin

      What if people do it just because and there is no ritual?

      1. If they are following a prescribed set of steps, it’s a ritual.

        1. You mean grab penis, cut skin is a ritual? I’m not buying it.

          1. You’ve clearly never performed a circumcision. There is a lot more to it than that.

            1. I’m sure there’s a procedure that I wouldn’t call a ritual.

              1. You two sure are snippy.

                1. Hey now? Cut it out!

            2. Here’s a tip: Get a room.

    2. “describing pressure to circumcise a child as a “cultural onus” imposed on families.”

      I blame Israel

      1. I think his grandfather started the whole thing.

    3. He’s right, you know.

      1. The only cultural pressure is in the Jewish tradition. He’s basically saying that the government should outlaw a religious practice. You’re cool with that?

        1. We are talking about a “religious practice” that involves maiming a child.

          1. That’s ridiculously extreme. To maim means to injure. Male circumcision isn’t like female circumcision in that it injures and permanently disables the organ. To say that is honestly insulting to people who have actually been maimed

            1. A cirumcision is certainly an injury to the organ. And it does have consequences. It reduces the sensitivity of the penis.

              1. If it’s an injury it’s not one that results in permanently depriving the child of the use of that part of the body, which is what maiming entails. And the consequence of “OMG sex might be slightly less awesome” is not sufficient to justify imposing a law that goes against the first amendment

              2. It reduces the sensitivity of the penis.

                Having had my penis since I was a wee lad, I would beg to differ with that conclusion. If it were any more sensitive than in its current foreskinless state, I would probably not be able to leave my house.

                And, if the grad student conducting the study is cute, I would also like to volunteer for the “penis sensitivity” experiment.

            2. The point is that if a circumcision is to be performed for some barbaric religious ritual, it should be performed when the child is old enough to choose whether or not to proceed with it.

              1. There are also noted health and cleanliness aspects of circumcision. Let’s wait until kids are adults before we vaccinate too.

          2. so, yes.

        2. Muslims circumcise too.

  14. Jim Carrey is becoming one of my favorite celebrity activists. Apparently his best movies came out before I was born. But his criticism of Drumpf is really insightful.

    Jim Carrey’s Grief Over New Zealand Turns To Anger Against Trump

    We must emphasize that Drumpf is the main villain in a massacre that occurred on the other side of the planet. The appropriate response for us Americans is to vote Democrat and demand common sense gun safety legislation.

    #GunSense
    #LibertariansAgainstTheNRA

    1. Isn’t he a Canadian citizen? Has he been voting?

      Isn’t it against the law for Canadians to vote in U.S. elections?

      Is he trying to influence an American election?

      Should we have Mueller expand his probe to look into allegations that Canadians in Hollywood are trying to influence U.S. elections?

      1. “Is he trying to influence an American election?”
        I’m sure he’s colluding with some D or other.

      2. Does he murder people? Does he control an evil intelligence agency? Is pointing nuclear weapons at us?

        1. Suggesting that Canadians influencing U.S. elections would be a problem was supposed to be funny, but then, yeah, the idea that Russia might influence U.S. elections and that’s the reason everybody hates Hillary is ridiculous on its face, too–regardless of whether Putin is a big meany and Pajama Boy wants to save the polar bears.

          Is that how logic works in your world? You just figure out who the good guy is and then pretend that whatever he wants to do makes sense?

          1. No, I’m badass at figuring things out. Smarter than you. Not on your level so you might have trouble comprehending.

            1. Yeah. Too smart for us to grasp your genius, That’s it.

        2. “Does he murder people? Does he control an evil intelligence agency? Is pointing nuclear weapons at us?”

          How precious!
          Grow up.

          1. Sev, fuck man, you can’t see difference between colluding with Valadmir Putin and Jim Carey?

            1. What about colluding with Jim Carey in the role of Vladimir Putin?

              Or the Canadian version, Vladimir Poutine?

            2. “Sev, fuck man, you can’t see difference between colluding with Valadmir Putin and Jim Carey?”

              Can’t you see how stupid you look clinging to the hope that there was ever any chance at all of ‘colluding with Putin’?

      3. “Isn’t he a Canadian citizen?”

        I got curious after his last diatribe (the one before this one) so I looked it up. He’s got dual Canadian and American citizenship.

        1. A double-agent!

          1. Pretty sure somebody in Congress just lectured us about the danger of citizens with dual loyalty!

            1. Captain Kirk and Mr Spock were both Canadian and Jewish. So that would be triple loyalty at least.

      4. He’s a foreign terror operative. The CIA should eliminate Mr. Carrey as a national security threat.

        He’s also really annoying.

  15. “(Libertarians may disagree, but we’re talking about prevailing popular opinion and legal interpretations here.)”

    I think it’s fair to say that the brand of libertarianism pushed by Reason is very much based upon popular opinion rather than a principled position. So, thanks for being honest.

    1. Ooooohhhh! Sick burn!

    2. Is it, really? Just which mainstream opinions is Reason promoting? Let me take a look at the front page…A celebration of smugglers? Defending free speech from the various forms of attack upon it? Restoring sanity to school lunches? A celebration of Dick Dale, whose death wasn’t mentioned in any major news outlets AFAIK? A tattooed libertarian on the Arizona Supreme Court? Oh, so very mainstream.

    3. Looks like the chipper little eunuch is all riled up, just sayin

  16. Suspected mob boss killer writes ‘MAGA Forever,’ QAnon symbol on his hand

    The man suspected of gunning down mafia kingpin Francesco “Franky Boy” Cali showed off a hand covered in scrawls related to President Trump and the conservative QAnon movement at his first court appearance on Monday.

    Anthony Comello, 24, who even yawned during the highly anticipated appearance in a New Jersey courtroom, held up his left palm and revealed a large, bold “Q” written in blue ink in the center of his hand.

    It was surrounded by the phrases “MAGA Forever,” “United We Stand” and “Patriots in Charge USA.”

    My God.

    1. Birds of a feather.

      1. Both trying to drain the swamp?

    2. What is the appropriate punishment for someone who kills a mob boss?

      Witness protection?

      1. You get to advance to the next level. Maybe get a new weapon.

        1. That gold 870 is so sick.

      2. Can’t murder a murderer. Worst you can do is take someone else’s opportunity for justice away from them.

    3. Let’s see how long it takes for an article blaming Trump for the takedown of the mob.

    4. Totally unrelated… has anyone seen LC1789 this morning?

      1. I have been lurking at Glibertarians more. Less time to scroll past trolls, Reason intern socks, and spammers on Reason.

        That and I helped some other area Georgians identify more illegals, that ICE promptly scooped up.

        Adios caballeros!

        1. Less illegals is always good.

  17. ? Hudson Yards will own your soul and you will gram it.

    New York City’s newest luxury neighborhood, Hudson Yards, officially opened on Friday and visitors are already scrambling to photograph or mock its gilded pinecone landmark structure dubbed the Vessel.

    But, as Gothamist points out, Hudson Yards seemingly claims rights to all such photos of the $200-million giant honeycomb floating above an active train yard, so long as they’re taken in and around the Vessel.

    The Gothamist highlights two clauses in the Hudson Yards Terms & Conditions, which state that Hudson Yards has the right and license to use any content related to the structure:

    Makes sense.

  18. If Elizabeth Warren keeps this up, she might overtake Kamala Harris as my #1 choice for 2020.

    Elizabeth Warren backs plan to get rid of the Electoral College at CNN town hall

    The Russian attack on our 2016 election would not have succeeded without the Electoral College. Clinton still won by 3 million votes.

    #StillWithHer

    1. Warren is saying all the right things about racial justice too.

      Warren backs congressional plan for reparations study

      Like all anti-racists, I support a robust affirmative action policy. But that isn’t nearly enough. African Americans are still owed trillions of dollars in reparations for slavery. And since the Koch Brothers care so much about the well-being of POC (that’s why they support immigration, after all) I’m sure they’d be happy to help pay that debt.

      #LibertariansForWarren
      #LibertariansForReparations

      1. #LibertariansForWarren
        #LibertariansForReparations
        ………………………………………….
        Sorry, took me a while to get off the floor, fell off the chair laughing so hard.
        Descends aren’t owed anything, the ones that “maybe” owed something, are dead. Would rather have their descends living in the ____hole called Africa? Some of my Ancestors were White, who were sent to be slaves in Africa, is Africa going to pay Reparations to me?

        A statist like Warren is completely the opposite of Libertarianism. You seem to be incapable of understanding what a Libertarian is.

        1. Ask Gillespie about reparations

      2. Like all anti-racists, I support a robust affirmative action policy.

        Try harder OBL. It’s not enough to say that anti-racists support affirmative action. You have to make the connection that to not support affirmative action is in and of itself racist.

    2. Haha, you are funny, you have no proof whatsoever that Russians played any part in electing Trump, but keep spouting the propaganda.
      You also have no proof that Clinton won by 3 mil votes, but I’m going out on a limb here and say you would rather have popular vote, or as it’s better known, mob rule. Where 51% get to force their agenda on the other 49%.

      1. Finally, someone is willing to stand up to OBL!

        1. Write for yourself. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that I am one of the few who regularly engage with him.

          1. What an awesome thing to brag about.

            1. Nothing like a healthy sense of self-esteem.

      2. Would you say each state elects its governor by “mob rule”? Because that’s how I think Presidents should be elected ? nationwide popular vote. Which Clinton won by 3 million.

        And just wait until Mueller concludes his investigation. You can’t possibly believe he’d work this long and fail to uncover something truly earth-shattering. If there was nothing especially juicy to reveal, he would have wrapped up his investigation a long time ago.

        1. Elected by mob rule.

          What mob? There ain’t no such thing. Been watching too many movies kid.

        2. ” You can’t possibly believe he’d work this long and fail to uncover something truly earth-shattering”

          Unless you’re old enough to remember Ken Starr, who dug and dug for years, and finally found… nothing in the matter he was originally charged to investigate, but DID finally find an offense made two years after he started investigating.

          1. Fuckin’ Pollock. Spewing hate and lies again. Quit sucking off the Media Matters tit.

            Blasphemous dope fiend soyboy twat! You think you so slick. Aintchyou just a bitch!

      3. “you have no proof whatsoever that Russians played any part in electing Trump, but keep spouting the propaganda.”

        There’s no shortage of proof that they tried.
        What we haven’t seen is any proof that they included him in any of the decision-making. I’m guessing they didn’t, for the same reason they wanted him to win… he’s completely ineffective.

        “You also have no proof that Clinton won by 3 mil votes”

        Sure, unless someone, you know, counted all the votes.

    1. Damn your eyes, for making me look!
      Oh, it’s Crusty.

    2. My God.

    3. That deserves a kick to the Big Anteater.

    4. Damn you

    5. I’m certain the student was a chick. Probably some equally unattractive bulldyke. The article carefully avoided the use of gender pronouns and described no specific activity.

      Total rug muncher.

  19. Why are half the stories on Reason, completely unreasonable? You have some really poor journalist.

    1. That is, an interesting question. I hope you, get answer.

      1. -1, all words spelled correctly.

    2. They’re all cucks and progressive cosmotarians, or something.

    3. Not poor enough, Suderman buy $20 cocktails on the regular

    4. Parody or irony, AntiOrwellian is the most brilliant screen name ever.

      1. You’re being remarkably modest.

    5. “Why are half the stories on Reason, completely unreasonable?”

      Because you have partisan bias, and they don’t?

  20. “Trump’s cuts to Medicare hospital payments trigger an outcry”
    […]
    “WASHINGTON ? Democrats are accusing President Donald Trump of going back on his campaign promise to protect Medicare after he introduced a 2020 budget that calls for steep cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals.”
    http://www.startribune.com/out…..507031982/

    I’ll say!
    Open the dead-tree version of the news this morning and there’s four-color, full-page ads on pgs 3,5 and 7 (the most expensive they’ve got) urging readers to contact three different congress critters to tell them to oppose Trump’s disastrous cuts to med subsidies.
    But for reasons which remain mysterious, the ads all have a bit of honesty which really doesn’t help the cause; the ads all admit the cuts amount to “0.01%”.
    Yep, a cut of one hundredth of one percent is enough to trigger three full page ads.
    Man, I knew cutting welfare was gonna be tough, but I didn’t know how tough.

    1. Hopefully they don’t look into how “single payer” is supposed to save us a ton of money :/

      1. I believe the theory is that if you take out a middleman who extracts profits from handling transactions, along with all the staff of people who keep track of who to bill, there’s some money either freed up to lower costs or provide more services to people who need them but can’t afford them.

        1. Middlemen usually add value and replace the cost of retail employees. Government workers normally represent a cost increase as they are typically inefficient, relative to the heir private sector counterparts.

  21. Shadowbanning is the nefarious term aggrieved users have cooked up for algorithmic processes that lead to some posts showing up in more timelines than others, or some accounts getting put in a time out

    If you think that shadowbanning isn’t a real thing, or that it was “cooked up by aggrieved users,” then you are simply ignorant. Shadowbanning has been an openly discussed and publicly admitted tactic used by several major tech companies for years now. Forums like reddit and games like League of Legends have admitted to using it, but only to prevent “toxic” users and to reduce bullying and harassment, of course!

    The notion that it’s some crazy conspiracy that maybe Facebook and Twitter are using it as well, and that maybe they’re using it against political speech they deem is inherently hateful and offensive is hardly some huge leap of logic.

    In any case, why are you so against transparency? This lawsuit may potentially lead to social media companies having to actually be honest and transparent about their moderation policies. Why is that such a bad thing?

    1. “This lawsuit may potentially lead to social media companies having to actually be honest and transparent about their moderation policies.”

      I just don’t believe that. The purpose is to dig up and expose anything they can to leverage it and use it to intimidate social media into compliance and/or subject them to legislation and regulation–none of which the government has any business of doing.

      The one question I have is about Twitter (and other platforms’) obligations to their content creators. It doesn’t matter if the ToS say they can change the terms whenever they want, that language is always ignored by the courts–because one party being free to change the terms of a contract whenever they like means that there are no enforceable terms.

      Meanwhile, content creators invest their time, money, energy, effort, and name brands in creating content for Twitter, et. al. with the expectation that Twitter will allow them to remain on the platform. Twitter has an obligation to abide by that contract, certainly after they’ve built a successful business on the backs of content creators.

      1. This suit doesn’t seem to make any of those points or bring up any of those questions. It’s just a fishing expedition. The libertarian solution to the problem of Twitter is not lawmakers going on fishing expeditions against media to justify intimidation and regulation. The libertarian solution to shithead companies like Twitter is contract enforcement and competition. If your contract rights have been violated, the libertarian thing to do is to seek damages in court, which is there to protect your rights. If you think Twitter sucks, then the libertarian thing to do is to avoid using their services and tell all your friends and family how much they suck.

      2. Meanwhile, content creators invest their time, money, energy, effort, and name brands in creating content for Twitter, et. al. with the expectation that Twitter will allow them to remain on the platform.

        I still think that ultimately, the way to get these companies is via fraud. The service they promise (a neutral open platform free from bias and politically motivated censorship) is materially different from the service they actually provide (which is rife with politically motivated censorship).

        The issue isn’t “they aren’t allowed to censor stuff they don’t like.” Instead it’s “They have to be honest about what they are, which is a heavily curated and moderated platform that specifically excludes certain points of view.” I predict that if someone forced them to be fully transparent about their policies (including accounting for disparate impact in terms of bans/punishments of right vs left wing extremist speech), it would result in massive PR hits to these companies.

        1. “The service they promise (a neutral open platform free from bias and politically motivated censorship)”

          You were never promised any such thing. If you want a platform that is biased your way, go build it. But whining that someone else won’t let you take over theirs just sounds foolish.

    2. HOW CAN WE LIVE IF TWITTER DOESN’T BAN US BUT STOPS PEOPLE FROM SEEING SOME OF OUR TWITS?!?!?!!!!???!?!!!

  22. Married teacher, 25, arrested for having sex with her 17-year-old student multiple times while she was supposed to be tutoring him

    Brooks is said to have had sex during off-campus tutoring with one of her 17-year-old students from Archer High School. The woman was the teen’s physical education teacher, at the time.

    I’m more disturbed that this kid either needed a phys ed tutor and was still able to crush that puss, or a phys ed teacher was hired to tutor the kid in another subject.

    1. And that’s why you should wear sunscreen.

    2. Sex seems like a perfectly logical subject for a phys ed teacher to be tutoring.

      1. If that’s how you teach “abstinence-only” sex-ed…

    3. Extra credit in biology lab.

    4. Nice.

  23. I want to point back to a Shikha article from two days ago because I think the initial reaction was overblown due to confirmation bias.

    here

    I reacted poorly, partly because Shikha pisses me off, but mostly because the article concludes that the right’s identity politics is more dangerous than the left’s. But…. She’s right. First she says the right’s identity politics is a reaction to the left’s, which I agree with. Most people on the right want to be left alone, and don’t play the intersectional game. What really bothered me was the term “dangerous.”

    Then I realized yesterday that that isn’t a bad thing. When it comes to conflict, you want to be more dangerous. This article is essentially saying that the left wing is filled with weak, emotionally driven, powerless punks. And I agree.

    Shikha’s conclusion is that leftism is fringe, weak, bullshit, that would get crushed in any real conflict. Thank you, Shikha, I’ll try to sit on your next article a while before I get fired up.

    1. My sarcasm meter is going back and forth on this one. Some of it’s serious, some of it isn’t?

      The problem with the wussy left theory is their willingness to use the coercive power of law enforcement for purposes of social control.

      The people who are doing the actual enforcement aren’t wussies–just the SJWs who support them.

      1. I’m serious, perhaps I didn’t use proper verbiage.

        Leftist individuals, and their ideas, are weak. They’re willing to use the power of emotions, as groups of aggrieved weaklings, to try to gain power. But as Shikha points out, they’ll never gain control in America, for the very reason you stated:

        “The people who are doing the actual enforcement aren’t wussies–just the SJWs who support them”

        The people doing the enforcement are nothing without their followers, and no leader can gain power when the followers are not only weak and fragile, but who are also divided on who is even allowed in the group.

        1. In case you haven’t noticed, that’s how religions work.

          1. And in the same way religious leaders can gain fortunes, they can’t gain any real power otherwise, at least in countries that allow religious freedom.

            Which is why the left targets traditional religions, as well as individual liberty.

            Leftism is a religion.

    2. I also think it was a great article, but for different reasons.

  24. I still can’t tell. Is shadowbanning actually happening or not?

    1. Here is a hint. You can’t have shadows in total darkness.

    2. It’s been verified by enough different sources that it seems ridiculous to call it a conspiracy theory. Vice News (a source not friendly to Republican’s confirmed that it was happening. Published an article and then the shadow banning went away the next day. This is not just an algorithm.

      Vice

      1. Although the fact that their core business includes mysterious and unexplained/shady algorithms that filter content based on what Twitter thinks you most want to see is certainly convenient. Makes it incredibly easy for them to influence social trends by promoting/hiding certain topics in ways that are completely undetectable.

      2. As always, you have the question of one person’s right to speak vs. another person’s freedom to not hear it.

        Hint to Righties (and also Lefties):
        If you find that a private corporation isn’t running its business in a way you find satisfactory, feel free to fund/build a competitor, of your very own, that you can run in exactly the way you wish.

        It’s kind of weird hearing the righties complaining about how capitalism works, but not really surprising.

  25. Christ, what an asshole.

  26. UC?Davis stands by professor. Folks on the right complain a lot?and rightfully so?when liberal college students demand censorship of each other or their teachers in the name of being kept safe from “dangerous” (or simply disagreeable to them) ideas. But give chattering-class conservatives a chance to pull the same speech-stifling silliness on someone they find taboo, and time and again they will take it. Our latest example of this comes from the University of California-Davis, where English professor Joshua Clover tweeted a few years ago about dead cops.

    His words “are horrifying statements, but they are also protected by the First Amendment,” writes Robby Soave. “Clover’s general endorsement of violence against the police is not a true threat, or incitement to lawless action.” Read more on the situation here.

    Actually, most of us are more irked by the blatant double standard in what “free speech” is permitted. Thank you for specifically chronicling a rather egregious example.

    Note: When the students demand limits on speech, the colleges GIVE IT TO THEM.

    1. Indeed.

      There is nothing remotely inconsistent about saying: “The ideal is free speech, but until we reach that ideal, at the very least, we expect you to restrict speech on a fair and equal basis.”

      But according to the left-libs at reason, I guess if the government passed a rule saying “Democrats no longer have to pay taxes” then Republicans should cheer and celebrate and not complain because hey, they favor lower taxes, right?

      1. When I was younger, the belief that “Nothing gets a bad law repealed faster than equal enforcement of it” was not some radical belief. Apparently, it is now.

    2. Colleges fucked up when they stopped having private security and cops beat dirty hippies with nightsticks. Which may also be used during the daytime.

  27. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

    >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://WWw.TheProCoin.CoM

  28. Just a few thoughts.

    Nunes: Are you sure it was a fake cow? Some of these bovines can be very sneaky.
    http://tinyurl.com/yyanv7jm

    Massage parlor lady: So are they all closed now or are there franchises open elsewhere? Asking for a friend.

    Cincinnati: I know Cincinnati. Give it up you will never ever be cool.

    Lesbian ladies: First mistake Honolulu. Stick with Maui. Way more chill.

    Few other links have been posted.

    Yang on Circumcision: There is already a joke there so nevermind.

    Mob boss killer: He can act as nutso as he wants. They are already taking bets on how long until he gets whacked once they lock him up.

    1. “Nunes: Are you sure it was a fake cow? Some of these bovines can be very sneaky.”

      On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. But, even on the Internet, people do tend to have pretty good bullshit detectors.

  29. on Saturday I got a gorgeous Ariel Atom after earning $6292 this ? four weeks past, after lot of struggels Google, Yahoo, Facebook proffessionals have been revealed the way and cope with gape for increase home income in suffcient free time.You can make $9o an hour working from home easily??. VIST THIS SITE RIGHT HERE
    >>=====>>>> http://www.Aprocoin.com

  30. Serious question:

    Does Twitter need more than a 12(b)(6) motion to send Rep. Nunes packing?

  31. I am making 80$ an hour? After been without work for 8 months, I started freelancing over this website and now I couldn’t be happier. After 3 months on my new job my monthly income is around 15k a month? Cause someone helped me telling me about this job now I am going to help somebody else?

    Check it out for yourself ======?? http://www.Theprocoin.com

  32. Is anyone else laughing because, after receiving the link to this article in our e-mail, in order to read it we had to click away an annoying pop-up whose “go away” button read “No thanks, I don’t need Reason”? Hello, I already *get* Reason!?!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.