Skip to main content
Can You Sue Social Media for Misleading "Fact Check Labels"? Dissecting Net Neutrality, and Section 230

Can You Sue Social Media for Misleading “Fact Check Labels”? Dissecting Net Neutrality, and Section 230

Yes, you can, under several valid legal theories. But you must be very careful, or the court can turn your case into a word salad. “Try sharing a [critical] article about big pharma, let alone any article not by a scientist or doctor receiving a clawback or royalty, and see what happens.” This is the main concern of many doctors and nurses we have heard about regarding keeping an online presence and not losing followers.

No one wants their hard-earned social media throttled, especially by someone receiving millions in ad spending and government subsidies with no way to fight back. After all, cases like Issac’s or John Stossel’s (discussed below) failed to proceed, so there is no way to win, right? This is the argument you see everywhere from the pro-censorship crowd regarding suing and winning against social media for defamation.

Here’s another one. “You can sue all you want, but finding a judge to make the proper call is becoming increasingly more difficult as politicians appoint judges that support their viewpoint discrimination,” according to a retired special needs teacher and Orange County School Board member (and Marine vet) Robert Hammond. So what about suing social media conglomerates and their allies for altering your copy with misleading “fact check” labels? It’s a question many of us have pondered as we increasingly encounter these labels across various platforms. But we saw many influencers and even a former president get their accounts messed with over this, often at the behest of FBI officials or officials from another administrative agency inside DC. (Hunter Biden Laptop, etc.)

In my opinion, a goal of Section 230 (discussed below), as well as Net Neutrality, was to make sure the original poster could freely share their ideas and, in exchange, prevent the content host from being sued if the poster defamed someone. In other words, the hosting platform, or in this case, the social media company (was protected), would not get sued if they didn’t censor or “alter” the content.

But here, on more than one occasion, social media companies have labeled true information false, defaming the ACTUAL content posters/creators themselves through inference and innuendo and then hiding behind the section designed to make it fair for all parties despite their patently unfair inducements.

You are a Hateful Bigot Says Social Media Companies?

Imagine having your content falsely labeled “hate speech.” Internet companies are getting away with it, and many courts are letting them present patently false misinformation about your content, which is why I wrote this. Then there is that pesky issue now decided by at least one court that our own government has urged content and entire accounts to be censored.

“This is the worst First Amendment violation in our nation’s history. We look forward to dismantling Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise at the nation’s highest court,” Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey said in a statement.

Source: Politico

Obviously, we know former president Donald Trump agrees, but I digress. When read along with Net Neutrality, it is clear that many fact checks are designed to harm the reputation of the original publisher, lifting the protections of Section 230 et. seq. According to the tangible evidence released in the Twitter files, more often than not, true stories about Democrat politicians and their ideas are attacked most vigorously, raising concerns to many civil rights lawyers such as myself. Despite good faith efforts to appeal a social media account suspension, Most politically suppressed posters complain the process is unfair. As will also be discussed, many fact-check labels make up ideas not expressed in the actual checked piece and label them false as well.

Are Fact Checkers Really Independent?

Absolutely NOT if they are being paid, especially by someone who shares their same viewpoints – BIAS.


“We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.

“Doing this takes time and many, many words.”

We know that Zuck, for example, pays a so-called “independent fact checker” to label your facts, and by extension, you, as well as your research, as “false” or “fake.” We know from the Twitter Files that career and appointed bureaucrats in US agencies put pressure, either directly or indirectly, to take down accounts expressing viewpoints about the Hunter Biden laptop, even though the govt knew all along it was not connected to a “Russia Hoax.”

Most So-Called Fact Checkers Lean Left, Yes

Factcheck.Org leans left as another example. Although most non-partisans agree Snopes is off the scale, far left, it only received a rating of leans left. Here is a tool to help you see opinions on where other for-profit media sites lean, including left or right.

This video sums up how many conservatives, libertarians, and anyone else who does not support the so-called globalist view feel about social media companies and their campus crusader-style fact-checks.

We know that many FBI agents get jobs with big tech, particularly at social media companies. Once this connection and its implications on elections, etc, we started seeing legacy media take down stories about it. The Commerce Department has gotten nowhere, and it appears our Administrative agencies have become centers of revolving-door employment, giving social media companies enormous influence over the Justice Department and other agencies. Conservatives complain that social media companies are so powerful they were able to alter the results of the last presidential election by defaming the true Hunter Biden Laptop story. (Discussed more below).

Can Adding Speech Be Considered Altering Speech?

Absolutely. Adding speech, especially in a way to disparage or falsely characterize something you wrote, is NOT NEUTRAL and definitely not in GOOD FAITH (See Sec. 230 ) when the intent is to create the impression the author is a liar or hateful.

  • Augmentation: Depending on the nature and purpose of the speech, adding speech to an original article can be a form of augmentation or enhancement rather than alteration, especially if the added content complements or expands upon the original text
  • Alteration: If the added speech – or, in this case, a misleading fact check label – significantly changes or misrepresents the meaning or intent of the original article, it may be considered a form of alteration.

As always, as a lawyer, you must consider the context and purpose of the speech addition. If the speech aligns with the overall message and intent of the original article, it may be seen as a permissible modification or enhancement. On the other hand, if the added speech distorts the original message or introduces new ideas that conflict with the author’s original intent, it could be viewed as an alteration.

Here is an Example of an Attorney / Section 230 Expert Who Says Social Media Companies Don’t Alter Speech

Within seconds of me posting this on Twitter, a gentleman described as:

“Once in conservative media before it went insane. Also once a foreign service officer and an attorney. My passion is S. 230”

Tweeted me. Here is our colloquy.

Please follow this guy; his passion is S. 230. I generally think everyone should express how they feel free of censorship. Keep in mind, if you engage him, he has a tendency to take your conversations out of context, and cite unpublished cases as “mandatory authority.” (An unpublished case is NOT binding authority – Published in legal jargon means it is “citeable.” So even if it’s “published” online, that does not mean the same thing as “published” for use in a court case.)

Mr. Goober also has zero ability to brief or distinguish facts from cases he cites. He also refuses to consider alternative facts or theories argued in this document other than his dogmatic, you are a “Goober,” and you don’t “know the law.” Be advised.

But What About Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc.

In Mac Isaac v. Twitter, Inc., 557 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (S.D. Fla. 2021), Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a claim for defamation per se on a “Motion seeking to dismiss the Amended Complaint with prejudice because the Explanations do not meet any of the elements required of a defamation per se claim.” Plaintiff lost because he failed to adequately plead defamation per se, entitling the defendant to attorneys fees: In other words, had Plaintiff adequately pled statutory negligence, SLAPP would not have acted as a mechanism to award attorney’s fees.

“… the instant suit arose from Defendant’s protected First Amendment activity—i.e., preventing the dissemination of the NY Post Article on its platform for violation of its content moderation policies.” (See also, Corsi v. Newsmax Media, Inc., 519 F.Supp.3d 1110, 1128 (S.D. Fla. 2021).)

Yes. I am an expert on SLAPP/ANTI SLAPP; see also STUART v. TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT here. (Attorney(s) appearing for the Case-Parker & Covert, Henry R. Kraft and Michael T. Travis for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Michael P. Ehline and Michael P. Ehline for Plaintiff and Respondent.)

What About John Stossel’s Lawsuit?

In a nutshell, the court, without objections I could find, used the words “fact” and “opinion” as if they were interchangeable words, a gift to defense counsel, according to many legal theorists. (Need a copy of the final complaint and any depositions from experts as to this issue)

Here is what the court said about it in BLACK and WHITE.

“Meta argues that the complaint incorporates this webpage by reference. Dkt. No. 27 at 3 n.2. Mr. Stossel does not object to the Court’s consideration of the contents of this webpage for purposes of deciding defendants’ motions. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 49 at 5-6 (quoting statements from webpage).”

Stossel literally allowed the court to click through the site and use Meta’s buried definitions of fact and opinion, as opposed to expert testimony as to the viewing public’s accepted view of a fact versus an opinion. The court even pointed out that someone seeing a big label that says “FACT” could click to another page. Imagine if someone sold you a cure for cancer, but when you clicked the word cancer, it defined cancer as hanging toe nail. That is what occurred here for lack of a better description.

In any event, Stossel also failed to allege anything the fact checker said was false, and even if he had, the court simply was able to rely on Meta’s definitions, etc. in “deciding defendants’ motions.” Here, “U.S. District Judge Virginia DeMarchi also found that Facebook couldn’t have defamed Stossel because its fact-check program “reflects a subjective judgment about the accuracy and reliability of assertions” made in the content that’s been checked.

Simply because the process by which content is assessed and a label applied is called a ‘fact-check’ does not mean that the assessment itself is an actionable statement of objective fact,” reads the order.” (Source.)

Obviously, an expert witness or the court taking judicial notice could have proven that most people will see a fact check label as an objective fact because that is how the word is used in the commonly accepted English-speaking world. These labels are designed to discredit certain authors, whether facts are objectively true or NOT. (It’s clearly an unfair business practice under California Business and Professions Code Sec 17200, et esq.)

Stossel sued over defamatory fact-check labels, which is similar to my argument. However, in addition to other potential errors, I found that Stossel’s lawyers did not plead inducement, inference, or innuendo because people who see these labels do NOT CONSIDER them to be opinions. I think the court was flawed in ignoring the normally used definition of fact versus opinion and simply letting loose that one can be the other. I think nuances like this make the difference.

While courts generally take judicial notice of facts that are commonly known, including common, everyday terms, it’s important to note that the specifics can vary based on jurisdiction and the nature of the case. Judicial notice is a legal doctrine that allows a court to accept certain facts as true without requiring formal presentation of evidence. These facts are typically well-known, indisputable, or easily verifiable.

Common, everyday terms that fall within the realm of general knowledge may be subject to judicial notice.

However, there are factors and limitations to consider:

  1. Common Knowledge: Courts should sua sponte, take judicial notice of facts that are so widely known or indisputable that they do not require formal proof. Everyday terms that fall into this category may be eligible for judicial notice.
  2. Relevance: The court must determine whether the common, everyday terms are relevant to the issues at hand in the case. If the terms are not directly related to the legal matters being considered, judicial notice may not be appropriate.
  3. Dispute: If there is a genuine dispute about the meaning or understanding of common terms, the court may choose to hear evidence or argument rather than taking judicial notice. Here, Stossel’s counsel agreed the Meta website would decide the motions – there was no dispute.
  4. Notice and Opportunity: In some jurisdictions, parties may have the opportunity to object or present evidence opposing the court’s decision to take judicial notice. This ensures fairness and due process.

In any event, if the allegations about Stossel were true, then they are true facts. The issue on appeal would seem to be the court’s findings of fact since no objection was apparently raised to these issues I have brought forth to my knowledge. (Still, they DO NOT say “opinion,” check. The checks are also backed by force, and account bannings occur even if the facts are true, making them seem like they are the true and ONLY facts.) In my opinion, this was a flawed ruling, and I think it was wrongly decided.

What About Wilson v. Twitter, Inc.?

Wilson-2 argued that in Wilson-1, plaintiff Wilson apparently complained he was being discriminated against for being heterosexual, but he did not know how to draft a complaint, so we’ll never know. The Court found that the pro se Plaintiff did “not have adequate available funds to pay the filing fee upfront. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs. (ECF No. 1). (Source.) Here, the unrepresented, destitute plaintiff gave absolutely “no factual allegations to support a civil rights violation by Twitter.” (Source.)

In other words, he did not know how to draft a complaint to defeat a demurrer, motion to strike, or summary judgment motion. “Wilson asserts that his complaint is brought pursuant to Title II of the CRA, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000a.” (Supra, Wilson, 4.) But since “Title II does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,” he failed to state his claim. Wilson also argued his “Christian affiliation” was being discriminated against under the same section. “Wilson has yet to submit facts corroborating that belief, notwithstanding the written decision in Wilson I, which explained that supporting factual allegations were required to state a plausible claim against Twitter.” Besides, in pro per, litigant Wilson failed to provide “evidence apparent from the record that Twitter applied this policy to Wilson’s tweets in a discriminatory manner.”

Part Two, Section 230

Here, Wilson attempted to “hold Twitter liable as a publisher for its refusal to allow Wilson access to Twitter’s platform.” What he failed to do was to point out that the word “fact” means things. In this case, when Twitter or another platform declares the publisher to be spreading false information, and that declaration is NOT IN GOOD FAITH under the plain language of Section 230, the case can move forward. You must plead sufficient facts or lose the right to move forward.

Section 230(c) provides, in relevant part:

“Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker: 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.

(2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of –
(A) any action voluntarily TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or [EMPHASIS]

“In summary, as Wilson’s complaint is devoid of a factual basis demonstrating that Twitter violated Title II of the CRA, the undersigned FINDS that Wilson fails to state a plausible claim for which relief may be granted.” “For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the presiding District Judge DISMISS the complaint, with prejudice, (ECF No. 2); and REMOVE this matter from the docket of the Court.”

He didn’t know what he was doing, Wilson lost. HE NEVER PLED THE ACTIONS TAKEN WERE NOT IN GOOD FAITH either. It’s that simple.

What About Loomer v. Zuckerberg?

The plaintiff, a female, sued Facebook and Twitter over several bans. She also argued, “Procter & Gamble (which advertises on those platforms) and unnamed government officials constitute a racketeering enterprise.” “by engaging in interference with commerce by threats or violence, interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, wire fraud, providing material support to terrorists, and advocating overthrow of the government.” She filed an RICO action. Getting this so far?

How Did Zuck Get the Case Tossed?

“The Twitter and Facebook defendants contend that the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and all defendants contend that the plaintiff cannot plausibly plead RICO claims. In addition to opposing the motions to dismiss, the plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint to add new allegations, which are mostly about internal Twitter documents that allegedly show coordination between Twitter and the federal government.”

Here, the court granted Zuck and the other defendant’s motions to dismiss “with prejudice” because res judicata barred the claims against Twitter and Facebook, and in addition, § 230 also bars those claims as an alternative ground for dismissal, and the RICO claims were also futile. As I have argued, the court properly found that “Under the Communications Decency Act, website operators generally are immune from liability for third-party content posted on their websites and for removing such content, but website operators are not immune when they create or develop the information, in whole or in part. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) & (f)(3).”

However, as noted herein, when social media companies intentionally and in bad faith mislabel a person, even an expert, regular folks believe the fact checker, and they fear suspension if they disseminate true but now maliciously mislabeled copy. (“website operators are not immune when they create or develop the information, in whole or in part…”) The Act itself covers bad faith alterations as excepted from Section 230 protections. In any event, the plaintiff failed to plead that Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Zuckerberg acted based on their own personal conduct outside of the protected corporations they manage, or run. Since she argued apparently that this was their official capacity and, with no arguments, proferred that the content had been altered with unclean hands, they were “immune under § 230 to the same extent as Twitter and Facebook.” (Source.)

What About Brianne Dressen, et al. v. Rob Flaherty, et al.?

Major advertisers, aka partially tax-funded/subsidized, immune from being sued pharma companies, were alleged to have worked hand in hand to censor accounts in conspiracy with social media giants.

“The Plaintiffs have all been heavily censored on social media for sharing their personal experiences, exchanging advice, medical research, and support with others who were medically harmed after taking the vaccine.”

Their social media accounts are at constant risk of being frozen or disabled just for engaging with other users in private support groups open only to vaccine-injured individuals and sharing perspectives the government deems misinformation. (Source, NCLA.)

Here is a copy of the original complaint. The government is now trying to delay the matter since they LOST their “demand for preliminary injunction in NCLA’s Missouri v. Biden case against social media censorship.” I will keep an eye out for any outcomes. Media Inquiries: Judy Pino, 202-869-5218


In Freedom Watch, the plaintiff failed to allege colorable legal claims in its complaint. Freedom Watch, Inc. v. Google, 368 F.Supp.3d 30, 36–37 (D.D.C. 2019). On appeal, the three-judge panel reached the same conclusion. However, nothing I am arguing is saying we are suing for the First Amendment. Defamation is NOT FREE SPEECH. It is defamation once proven. And if a court finds the defamatory content is not defamatory, it can be subject to SLAPP/Anti-SLAPP provisions, etc. In Freedom Watch, it appears no FOIA requests were made to uncover a conspiracy, nor was sufficient evidence of state action or involvement to defeat a dismissal of the pleadings.

Words Mean Things – A Fact is Not an Opinion

A fact is NOT an opinion in America and the accepted English language. So, judicial notice must first be addressed. Words mean things.

The key difference between a fact and an opinion lies in their nature and verifiability:

  1. Fact:
    • Definition: A fact is a statement that can be proven or verified to be true or false. It is an objective and concrete piece of information.
    • Characteristics:
      • Factual statements are based on evidence, observation, or reality.
      • They are objective and not influenced by personal feelings or interpretations.
      • Facts are universally accepted and can be independently confirmed by others.
      • Example: “Water will boil at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level” is a factual statement that can be tested and verified.
  2. Opinion:
    • Definition: An opinion is a personal belief, judgment, or interpretation that may vary from person to person. It reflects an individual’s perspective or feelings about a particular subject.
    • Characteristics:
      • Opinions are subjective and are influenced by personal experiences, values, or emotions.
      • They are not necessarily verifiable or provable since they represent personal viewpoints.
      • Different individuals may hold different opinions on the same matter.
      • Example: “Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor” is an opinion because it reflects a personal preference and is not universally true.

Facts are objective and verifiable statements based on evidence. Opinions are subjective expressions of personal beliefs or preferences that may not be universally applicable or provable.

With some basic legal research, you will see that nothing in Isaac changes anything I just discussed as a claim.

Industry Jokes

The industry jokes are that:

  • Former US Navy SEALS do podcasts and write their biographies
  • Discredited and retired FBI agents get jobs with big tech, social media companies or for-profit legacy media.

For instance, MSNBC deleted this gem from public view:

“Hundreds Of Former Feds Have Flocked To Jobs In Big Tech

Diana Glebova

Google, Twitter, Meta, and TikTok’s executive ranks have included over 200 former employees of surveillance government agencies, creating an employment pipeline between the government and Big Tech companies, a Daily Caller investigation found.

The technology companies recruited 248 employees from the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and DHS, a LinkedIn search revealed. The hiring occurred mostly between 2017-2022, with several filling top director positions after having decade-long careers in surveillance agencies.

Google hired 130 former DOJ, DHS, CIA, and FBI employees, the Daily Caller’s key term cursory search on LinkedIn found. Meta, the company that owns Facebook and Instagram, employed 47 people for those three entities who were previously at the DOJ, FBI or DHS. TikTok, the Chinese-based app embattled with national security concerns, employed 25 former DOJ, FBI, DHS or CIA employees. Twitter had 46 executives who had previously spent time working for the three-letter agencies.

Reed Rubinstein, former deputy associate attorney general under President Trump, told the Daily Caller that Americans should be “concerned” about “terrifying” integration of Big Tech companies and federal agencies. 

“The revolving door has been a feature of D.C. for as long as I can remember. Any business that is heavily regulated is going to be concerned about managing the regulators, and one way to do that is by purchasing them,” Rubinstein said.

“As we saw with [Jim] Baker, they are still wearing — sometimes — two hats. They still talk informally to folks who are in the [intelligence community], and so it’s not necessarily a clean break. In fact, what they pay for, is those relationships,” Rubinstein added.

“The integration of Big Tech and the national security state … really it’s dystopian, it’s terrifying. They have enough data to show that that power, which is immense, will be abused. And right now, there is no effective check on it,” he said.

These are just some of the excerpts from this article. I encourage you, real journalists and researchers, to use the wayback machine here and make a copy of the entire article. I only used quotes and did not add the entire piece. Keep in mind that large, for-profit media and social media companies are experts at removing things, even from web archives, so read it here as a cached version on Yahoo! while you can.


The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop

How the FBI & intelligence community discredited factual information about Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings both after and *before* The New York Post revealed the contents of his laptop on October 14, 2020

In Twitter Files #6, we saw the FBI relentlessly seek to exercise influence over Twitter, including over its content, its users, and its data.

In Twitter Files #7, we present evidence pointing to an organized effort by representatives of the intelligence community (IC), aimed at senior executives at news and social media companies, to discredit leaked information about Hunter Biden before and after it was published.

The story begins in December 2019 when a Delaware computer store owner named John Paul (J.P.) Mac Isaac contacts the FBI about a laptop that Hunter Biden had left with him

On Dec 9, 2019, the FBI issues a subpoena for, and takes, Hunter Biden’s laptop.…Read the entire article, The FBI & the Hunter Biden Laptop, here.

We now also know a unit inside Twitter was apparently made up of retired FBI agents. Many pundits argue it was designed to run interference, likely due to their connections and influence inside.

We also know that the former head of Twitter’s “Trust and Safety” division, Yoel Roth, was accused of allowing child porn on his site.

Roth also wrote a thesis in college about allowing little boys access to an adult gay online dating site. To be sure, there were a lot of things we’d have never known, but Elon Musk produced the emails and other hard, physical proof. Since then, Biden Admin agencies, legacy, and for-profit media have gone all out to take down Musk, say many.

Now imagine this: was Yoel Roth involved in censoring stories that could have led to pedophile rings in government, starting with, say Epstein Island? This is what many parents are concerned about. As more and more Twitter Files are released, only time will tell. One thing is sure: Musk probably has more dirt on the Bidens and former Twitter employees than J. Edgar Hoover had on JFK. Remember him? He started the FBI and apparently blackmailed your elected leaders to stay in power for fifty years. Has anything changed?

Musk/Twitter Takeover – Newsom Moves to Force Censor Accounts?

X filed a complaint against AB 587 saying that it’s “difficult to reliably define” what constitutes “hate speech, misinformation, and political interference.” It also alleged – like something out of a George Orwell novel, that AB 587 would force social media platforms to “eliminate’ certain constitutionally-protected content.” And this is real stuff people. Cultural Marxist ideology is now part of official California policy. Final text of AB 587 here and here is a little more about it.

Here is a small excerpt of the vague and ambiguous absurdities of this knee-jerk, un-American law.

“A statement of whether the current version of the terms of service defines each of the following categories of content, and, if so, the definitions of those categories, including any subcategories:

(A) Hate speech or racism.

(B) Extremism or radicalization.

(C) Disinformation or misinformation.

(D) Harassment.

(E) Foreign political interference.”


AB 587 requires social media companies to post their terms of service online, as well as submit a twice-yearly report to the state attorney general. The report must include details about whether the platform defines and moderates several categories of content, including “hate speech or racism,” “extremism or radicalization,” “disinformation or misinformation,” harassment, and “foreign political interference.”

It must also offer details about automated content moderation, how many times people viewed content that was flagged for removal, [Obvious invasion of privacy and govt overreach] and how the flagged content was handled.” (Source.)

One thing is clear: legacy media and social media all seem to be pushing the same political viewpoints when it comes to minor children and radical transgender ideology as well. So it is clear that Newsom intends to shut down anything leftist politicians think meets these definitions, say many Christians and others.

Often, these fact-checkers hired by social media companies lean towards partisan views, primarily favorable Democrats (Politifact, Snopes, Newsweek, you name it), and are financially backed by billionaire democrats like Mark Zuckerberg. Properly, the convolution of truth stretches beyond these partisan affiliations. Although social media and other fact-check sites will say your content is false when it isn’t, they worm their way out by saying it’s “opinion,” therefore shielding themselves from civil liability in U.S. Courts.

Understanding Net Neutrality and Section 230 

Net NeutralityNet neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should treat all data on the Internet the same way, without discriminating or charging differently based on user, content, website, platform, or application. Although many argue and many courts have held that social media is not an ISP, others argue that net neutrality principles should extend to how platforms handle content and user access.Net neutrality ensures that users have equal access to all content and that ISPs do not have the power to control or manipulate the speed or accessibility of certain websites or services. It promotes an equal playing field for online businesses and innovation. In this case, the fact that social media sites are creating an impression you are a liar, for example, would be more significant in my opinion as to whether one could plead extrinsic facts via inducement or innuendo.
Section 230Section 230 refers to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 in the United States. Section 230(c)(1) provides, with some exceptions, that “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.”Section 230 has been crucial in fostering the growth of online platforms and encouraging them to neutrally moderate content to maintain a safe and constructive environment. It shields online platforms from being held liable for the content created and posted by their users. It allows them to neutrally moderate content in an unbiased manner without facing legal consequences for every piece of user-generated content.

“This sentence is sometimes referred to as the “26 words that created the internet,” because it freed websites that host third-party content from the impossible task of accurately screening everything posted by their users. For example, if your neighbor posts a tweet falsely alleging that you are embezzling money from your employer, you can sue your neighbor for defamation. But a suit against Twitter will go nowhere. As the text of Section 230 makes clear, it is your neighbor and not Twitter that bears the liability for the defamatory tweet.”

Fact Check Label Designed to Destroy-Discredit Reputation of Content Creators / Sharers?

I believe many billionaire defendants win due to systemic failures by courts, as well as plaintiffs to understand the law here. No “Inducement and Innuendo” has been argued in ANY OF THE DEPUBS I have seen so far. No cases have expressed the bad faith nature and clear intent to make the viewers think this often political content has leprosy. A Fact is NOT an OPINION. If so, it should be called an “opinion fact,” and no other actions against the account should be taken since it is being censored for being false, which is ….wait for it, FALSE.

So far, the plaintiffs have had the wrong courts, and they have failed to argue some key things discussed in the article. Most of the defensed cases seem to have been handled by amateurs or others with less crafty lawyers than big tech. We also must understand the role money plays here and where people, including elected officials with connections from the government, go for cushy jobs when they retire or quit early.

Clearly, many of these “fact checks” [often political] are obviously created to discredit the original poster, effectively labeling them crackpots with HUGE labels, hiding content, and then threatening those who share it or outright banning accounts. Many of the bannings and censoring are a direct result of pressure by the Obama and now Biden Administrations. (Judge limits Biden administration contact with social media) If you have evidence that Trump FBI asked social media platforms to censor political opponents or commentators, don’t hesitate to get in touch with me right away.

Defamatory Language and False Fact Check Labels:

Defamatory language involves making false statements that harm the reputation of an individual or entity. In the context of fact-check labels (from social media companies), if a fact-check label includes false information that harms someone’s reputation, it could potentially be considered defamatory. However, the legal interpretation may depend on various factors, including the level of malice, the truthfulness of the fact check, and the public figure status of the person involved.

Inducement and Innuendo:

  • Inducement: Is the act of persuading or influencing someone to do something. In defamation, inducement may involve convincing others that false information is true, harming someone’s reputation.
  • Innuendo: In defamation, innuendo refers to a hidden or implied meaning in a statement. In defamation cases, there could be an implied meaning that, while not explicitly stated, could damage the subject’s reputation.

Methods of Defamation:

Defamation can occur through various means, including:

  • Slander: Spoken false statements.
  • Libel: Written or published false statements.
  • False Imputation: Making false accusations or attributing false characteristics to someone.
  • Innuendo: Using subtle implications to convey damaging meanings.
  • Inducement: Persuading others to believe and spread false information.

Social media sites like Instagram warn you that your account will be removed unless you voluntarily remove the copy. Ultimately, they will throttle you so no one sees your copy or delete your account. (George Orwell warned us)

This scheme has worked well to discredit differing viewpoint news organizations like the New York Post, Epoch Times, and others who go against the official govt/social media partnership narratives.

If Zuck Says it’s an “Opinion,” Why the “Fact Check” Label?

“I believe fact-check labels are more of personal opinions rather than solid facts”— Mark Zuckerberg, during a congressional hearing.


Zuck Transcript Excerpts

“…describe what you fact check on oh sure

4:26 actually thank you for the opportunity

4:28 to clarify Facebook itself actually does

4:30 not check it does not fact check what we

4:32 do is we have feedback that people [leftists we pay called fact checkers] in

4:34 our community don’t want to see viral

4:36 hoaxes or or kind of like that maybe

4:39 clear you do no fact-checking

4:41 on any ads is that correct chairwoman

4:44 what we do is we work with a set of

4:47 independent fact checkers [false, they are paid by for Zuck] who somebody

4:50 fact checks on ads you have you contract

4:54 with someone to do that is that right

4:57 chairwoman yes and tell me who is it

5:01 that they fact checked on a chairwoman

5:05 what we do is when content is getting a

5:08 lot of distribution and is flagged by

5:10 members of our community [liberals] or by our

5:12 Technical Systems [liberal written algo] it can go into a queue

5:16 to be reviewed by a set of independent

5:17 fact checkers

5:19 they can’t fact check everything but the

5:20 things that they get to and if they part

5:23 something is false then we all right my

5:24 time has expired..”

That leads us to untangle a crucial distinction: the difference between fact and opinion. A fact is something that’s indisputable, based on empirical research and evidence. However, an opinion is an individual’s personal belief, which may be grounded in facts, but not always. Naturally, the line blurs between reality and perception when opinions are paraded as facts. 

Presenting opinions in the guise of facts leads us into the territory of inference and innuendo defamation colloquy. It’s an arena where insinuations replace facts. Corporations, usually at the behest of politicians and government agents, don’t call the label and following threats “opinion check.” In that case, they know the less educated or more viewpoint-indoctrinated among us will assume it means the information is patently false. For this reason and others, Elon Musk created “Community Notes.

Musk encourages independent research instead of the uni-party narrative approach on Meta and other corporate sponsor-influenced social media platforms, including Instagram. Newsom and Marxist politicians in California do not like the idea of the government not being able to silence their political opponents, and that is UNDISPUTABLE, say many pro-speech organizations. Conservatives and parents complain the goal of the supermajority state of California is to control what their political opponents say online, under the guise of safety, etc. If it’s about pharma, parental rights, child mutilation, or far-left gender identity indoctrination K-12 in our public schools, that is considered “hate speech” to them.

The intersection of personal opinions, put forth as facts, and these notions of net neutrality and section 230 complexities pose a significant challenge in the digital information age we live in.


First, you’ll need an understanding of the context. The fact-checking community is predominantly composed of individuals who lean towards the Democratic party and are often funded by Democrat billionaires. This might give an impression of a potential bias in interpreting and presenting data in these “fact check” labels. 

  • Fact: A fact is something that is objectively true and can be proven with evidence. It isn’t subject to debate and remains true regardless of personal beliefs or feelings.
  • Opinion: An opinion, on the other hand, is a subjective belief formed by an individual. It can be influenced by personal experiences, feelings, and interpretations, which differ from person to person.

Another tactic often used in “fact check” labels is the application of inference and innuendo defamation colloquy. This refers to the insinuation or implication of something negative or misleading cloaked within seemingly innocuous language. It’s like stating a veiled opinion or claim as a “fact check,” which is dishonest and could be misleading. 

The concept of Net Neutrality emphasizes equal access and fair treatment of all data on the internet, preventing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from discriminating or prioritizing certain data types. This same principle should ideally extend to social media platforms and their approach to fact-checking, where all information should be evaluated with unbiased fairness. 

However, the existence and operation of social media platforms are primarily facilitated by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This clause provides immunity to online platforms regarding the content posted by their users. Ironically, while it allows these platforms to moderate content to maintain user-friendly environments, the extent of this moderation and instances of potential bias remain matters of ongoing debate.


So, can you see, the question of whether you can sue social media for, inter alia, altering your copy with misleading “fact check” labels is complex and depends on various factors? It can include your location, the specifics of the alteration, and whether you can prove it caused you harm. Legal counsel should be pursued if such measures are considered. However, the broader conversation on fact-checking, impartiality, and the responsibilities of online platforms continues to evolve as we plunge deeper into the digital age.

Do you agree that using labels saying “misinformation” and then threats to the original poster and content curators over the content crosses the line into treating an opinion as fact? Do you think we need a new law or just better courts? Can an executive order decide this, or is that even fair? Bust out your tools and let me know so we can do a podcast.