Jack’s Twitter Claims the Right is NOT being #ShadowBanned … Do you Believe That?

Written by on July 27, 2018

Jack’s Twitter Claims the Right is NOT being #ShadowBanned … Do you Believe That?

by Peter Boykin @PeterBoykin

How can Twitter claim to have First Amendment rights, while also hiding behind Section 230 of our legal codes?


Section 230 says this “no provider or user of interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another,” meaning that Twitter isn’t accountable for what their users say. Although, this law does NOT allow Twitter to hide behind both Section 230 and the First Amendment.

Twitter then uses Section 230 and the First Amendment as a excuse to throttle political speech while using their own platform to also promote political speech. Which basically allows for them to create a TOS, of which they can decide when and who to impose the rules on meanwhile ignoring these same rules when those who match their politics get a pass.

Which is why conservatives have lately been railing against the social media giants who have been throttling their speech.

Including Donald Trump who recently tweeted about the issue of “Shadowbanning”

Meanwhile @Jack and Twitter claims they are NOT shadow-banning and other similar things… but the victims such as myself we know different

Meanwhile when Jack puts out they are NOT shadowbanning…

Just check for yourself!

https://shadowban.eu/ Are you Shadow banned?

Even if you don’t see any issues (such as is my case) I KNOW that I am being banned from searches, due to lack of retweets and likes that my @PeterBoykin  gets although similar very NEW accounts with the same message will get thousands (that is until Twitter catches on and slows them down or suspends them) and just look at the retweets and likes to accounts such as @FoxNews or @InfoWars or @RealAlexJones who also are followed by a LOT of people but have oddly low retweets and likes.

There are also many complaints of Twitter users where accounts they were following suddenly are NOT followed by that person or they appear to not be following someone they know they followed before. This has happened to me because accounts such as @MarchForTrump @RealPeterBoykin @MagaFirstNews @MagaOneRadioNet and @TheMagaNetwork that we maintain have suddenly not followed my twitter, or I am not following those accounts which we know is incorrect.

Its bad enough that HALF of my followers (which was 60K plus, were reduced to 38K as if Thanos himself clicked the Infinity Gauntlet) in an instant 24k were gone, although articles stated it was because they were getting rid of “bots” or “locked” accounts, but I will tell you after the loss of followers from 75k down to around 40k right after I became Verified, I had taken a LOT of time to go through all 60K plus accounts that were following me to weed out ANYONE that appeared to be a bot, so I know that the “PURGE” was a targeted hit job on conservative/right leaning accounts.

BUT it seems even more evidence is building that it is growing!

Project Veritas and James O’Keefe is one of the first ones to find real proof by going undercover and catching those that work at Twitter talking openly about what they do.

Meanwhile Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) is getting to the heart of the problem and leading a charge to attempt to hold the tech sector accountable for their actions and also defending our constitutional rights.

Gaetz gets to the heart of the problem:

My question is, when you avail yourself to the protections of Section 230, do you necessarily surrender some of your rights as a publisher or speaker? The way I read that statute now, it’s pretty binary. It says that you have to be one or the other. You have to be Section 230 protected, or you’re a speaker with a full complement of your First Amendment rights.

I’m cool with that. I would love you guys to make the choice. I come from the libertarian-leaning segment of my party. I just think it is confusing when you try to have it both ways; when you try to say that, you know, we get these liability protections but, at the same time, we have the right to throttle content. We have the right to designate content.

And — and, in the most extreme examples, when you have a Twitter attorney saying in court, we would — we would never do this, but we would have the right to ban people based on their gender or their sexual orientation. So, I wanted to clear up those comments.

Gaetz held some of the leaders of Facebook and Twitter feet to the fire while they were on Capitol Hill this past week forcing them to answer some very uncomfortable questions.

Gaetz pointed out the hypocrisy behind the social media networks banning policies.

Meanwhile left-wing pages were still active even after calling for violence against conservatives

While right-leaning pages always seem to be taken down for far less.

Example a Previous article I wrote about how my campaign account @BoykinForHouse was removed for “breaking TOS multiple times” yet I have no warning, nor any idea of just what policy I broke…. http://trumploveswinning.com/social-media-bias/stopcensoringconservatives/

“So, I guess if a page hosts repeated content that threatens violence and that references the shooting of Republicans at a baseball game, why would you not remove the page?”

Also even Prager U has sued YouTube and Google lately because of the throttling and removal of their videos and pages http://trumploveswinning.com/magafirstnews/prageru-sues-google/

These Tech Giants Google (Youtube), Facebook, Twitter, need to understand that they cannot have things both ways.

They operate monopolies over public discourse, while claiming and maintaining their own First Amendment rights, but hide in their Safe-Space safe-space of Section 203 when things go bad.

If they wish to maintain their own First Amendment privileges, they need to extend these privileges to their own users.

Which is why I have called for an Internet Bill of Rights (even if we are consumers we deserve rights)

They are all basically now public utilities for all intents and purposes and now should be treated and regulated as such.

They take money, they control media socially which has become more and more involved in the election process (just look to the complaints about Russian collusion) and their part in the whole scheme of data and communication will only grow stronger. Let’s face it.. NO other social media giant is going to swoop in and replace Facebook or Twitter anytime soon, as much as we wish and call for it… its just NOT going to happen anytime soon. We all have the Stockholm syndrome we are captured by social media, we know it treats us bad but we continue to use it because we love to and honestly we need it.

Its time to think outside the box, because right leaning individuals are out there, their message is begging to be out there, so that is why networks like TheMAGANetwork are essential for the future. The purpose of the network which full disclosure MagaFirstNews is a part of is to guide other MAGA individuals no matter what side politically you are on to a place that can direct you towards MAGA friendly events, social streams, groups, candidates, and programming. The networks intent is to help spread the message even when our social media giants will continue to limit our speech.

You can watch the full hearing below:

Reader's opinions

Leave a Reply

Current track



%d bloggers like this: