Tag: social media

‘Massive legal siege’ against social media companies looms

Thousands of plaintiffs’ complaints, millions of pages of internal documents and transcripts of countless hours of depositions are about to land in U.S. courtrooms, threatening the future of the biggest social media companies.

The blizzard of paperwork is a byproduct of two consolidated lawsuits accusing Snap Inc.’s Snapchat; Meta Platforms Inc.’s Facebook and Instagram; ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok; and Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube of knowingly designing their platforms to addict users — allegedly resulting in youth depression, anxiety, insomnia, eating disorders, self-harm and even suicide.

The litigation, brewing for more than three years, has had to overcome numerous hurdles, including the liability shield that has protected social media platforms from facing user-harm lawsuits. The social media companies have filed multiple motions to dismiss the cases on the grounds that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act prevents them from being held accountable for content posted on their sites.

Those motions have been largely unsuccessful, and courtrooms across the country are poised to open their doors for the first time to the alleged victims of social media. The vast majority of cases have been folded into two multijurisdictional proceedings, one in state and the other in federal court, to streamline the pretrial discovery process.

The first bellwether trial is scheduled to begin in Los Angeles Superior Court in late January. It involves a 19-year-old woman from Chico, California, who says she’s been addicted to social media for more than a decade and that her nonstop use of the platforms has caused anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. Two other trials will follow soon after, with thousands more waiting in the wings. If successful, these cases could result in multibillion-dollar settlements — akin to tobacco and opioid litigation — and change the way minors interact with social media.

“This is going to be one of the most impactful litigations of our lifetime,” said Joseph VanZandt, an attorney at Beasley Allen Law Firm in Montgomery, Alabama, and co-lead plaintiffs’ attorney for the coordinated state cases. “This is about large corporations targeting vulnerable populations — children — for profit. That’s what we saw with the tobacco companies; they were also targeting adolescents and trying to get them addicted while they were young.”

Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center in Seattle, makes a similar comparison to tobacco litigation in the Bloomberg documentary Can’t Look Away: The Case Against Social Media. “In the case of Facebook, you have internal documents saying ‘tweens are herd animals,’ ‘kids have an addict’s narrative’ and ‘our products make girls feel worse about themselves.’ You have the same kind of corporate misconduct,” Bergman says in the film, which will be available to view on Bloomberg’s platforms on October 30.

Bergman’s firm was the first to file user-harm cases against social media companies, in 2022, after Frances Haugen, a former Meta product manager-turned-whistleblower, released a trove of internal documents showing the company knew social media was negatively impacting youth mental health. The first case, which is part of the consolidated federal litigation, alleged that an 11-year-old Connecticut girl killed herself after suffering from extreme social media addiction and sexual exploitation by online predators.

What set that case apart was how it got around Section 230’s immunity blanket. Bergman argued that his case wasn’t about third-party content, which the federal law protects. Instead, he said it hinged on the way social media companies were intentionally designing their products to prioritize engagement and profit over safety.

Keep reading

Military Personnel on Social Media Call for Soldiers to Disobey Orders – A Violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

Numerous videos have surfaced on social media depicting individuals claiming to be active-duty military personnel, in uniform, instructing troops to disobey President Trump’s orders.

Some of these videos are likely fake, created by individuals engaging in stolen valor, pretending to be active-duty service members or veterans. However, others appear genuine.

This conduct seems to violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which has long prohibited U.S. servicemen and women from making political statements or media appearances in uniform.

These posts not only violate that prohibition but could also be interpreted as insurrection or incitement.

Social media companies have explicit rules against “calls to action,” which are not protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Therefore, public calls to disobey lawful orders should be prohibited under both military and civilian law.

Yet because these posts target President Trump, social media platforms appear to ignore their own standards, while liberals applaud the so-called bravery of those who swore an oath and are now calling on others to break it.

One such video on YouTube, titled “Army Captain TELLS Troops to DISOBEY PRESIDENT’S ORDERS?!”, claims to show Army captain Dylan Blaha urging service members to defy orders if deployed under President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

The description reads, “An Army Captain is going viral after telling service members to disobey orders if deployed under Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth.

He calls their actions ‘authoritarian’ and ‘fascism,’ warning troops about unlawful orders and invoking the Posse Comitatus Act.”

Another video titled “Army Drill Sgt Calls Out Pete Hegseth?! ‘Karma’s Coming…’” features Staff Sgt. Corina Martinez, who went viral after posting a TikTok about “karma” and respect in leadership.

The description explains, “An Army Drill Sergeant, Staff Sgt. Corina Martinez, has gone viral after posting a TikTok about ‘karma’ and respect in leadership.

Now she’s being accused of taking shots at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth after his hardline Quantico speech.”

Keep reading

Graham Linehan Cleared After Heathrow Arrest as CPS Drops Case After Free Speech Controversy

Graham Linehan, the Irish writer best known for Father Ted and The IT Crowd, says police have now confirmed he will face no further action following his controversial arrest at Heathrow Airport last month.

The 57-year-old comedy creator had been arrested by armed officers after landing in London from Arizona, accused of using social media to incite violence, a claim now dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Linehan’s arrest became a flashpoint in a growing concern over the decline of free speech in modern Britain.

What might have been a brief police encounter instead exposed a deeper problem: the creeping normality of criminal investigations into words rather than actions.

The image of an airport surrounded by armed officers confronting a comedy writer for tweets struck many as absurd, even dystopian.

In a post on X, Linehan announced that “the police have informed my lawyers that I face no further action in respect of the arrest at Heathrow in September,” adding that “after a successful hearing to get my bail conditions lifted (one which the police officer in charge of the case didn’t even bother to attend) the Crown Prosecution Service has dropped the case.”

Keep reading

Texas declares war on plan to seize one of America’s richest counties and turn it into a ‘melanated’ community

Texas is suing a man state officials claim is trying to ‘overthrow the local government’ of an oil-rich county by offering black people free houses to move there and vote how he wants. 

Carpetbagger Malcolm Tanner bought two five-acre plots of land in Loving County, on the Texas/New Mexico border, according to the state’s lawsuit.

The Indiana man, who claims to be running for president in 2028, has offered the land to up to 1,000 ‘melanated people’ for free. 

‘It’s a movement going on called the “melanated people of power,” Tanner says in one Instagram reel. 

‘It don’t matter where you are on the world. It could be Africa, Asia, as long as you melanated. That’s the only thing that matters. It’s for us. It’s for us.’

‘Do not miss out on your opportunity to be a homeowner, to have a deed.’ 

Through social media posts, Tanner explains that he will take over Loving County, which he calls ‘Tanner County.’

In the state’s lawsuit, Attorney General Ken Paxton claims he will get his melanated residents to vote as he wants, easily outvoting the 64 citizens recorded by the last US census – but with a total taxable value of over $18 billion in 2024 thanks to petroleum.

Already dozens of people have taken him up on his offer to move and collect $5,000 a month, the state claimed in a lawsuit.

‘Despite there being no homes or utilities on the land, Tanner has induced dozens of people, including many women and children, to move onto and inhabit the land without any provision for the proper disposal and treatment of sewage,’ Paxton said in a press release announcing the lawsuit.

‘These individuals are forced to live in RVs or other makeshift shelters.’

Keep reading

WHO and European Commission Launch AI System to Monitor Social Media and Online “Misinformation” in Real Time

The World Health Organization has introduced a major overhaul of its global monitoring network, unveiling an AI-powered platform that tracks online conversations and media activity in real time.

Known as Epidemic Intelligence from Open Sources 2.0 (EIOS), the system is being presented as a new step in “pandemic preparedness,” but its reach extends well beyond disease surveillance.

The upgrade is part of a growing merger between health monitoring, digital tracking, and centralized information control.

Developed with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC), the new version of EIOS is designed to scan the internet for signals of emerging health threats.

According to the WHO, it now automatically analyzes social media posts, websites, and other public sources to detect possible outbreaks.

Keep reading

Canada Bill Sponsor Says Age Verification, Blocking Powers, Could Apply to Any Site, Even Social Media

A new Canadian Senate proposal on age verification has raised serious questions about the future of free expression and online access.

The bill’s sponsor has confirmed that the government would have the authority to decide which websites fall under its control, including platforms that have nothing to do with pornography.

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, who introduced Bill S-209, told a Senate committee that enforcement would ultimately be at the discretion of the federal government. “The government will decide on the scope, so the government could decide to include social media like X in its choices,” she said.

That statement cuts to the core of the controversy. The Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act was introduced as a measure aimed at sites that make adult content available for commercial purposes.

Yet, according to its sponsor, the government could extend it to any platform where some form of explicit content can be found, even if it is incidental or user-generated.

Bill S-209 completed its second reading in the Senate on June 12, 2025, and is now under committee review, which last met on October 9.

If passed, it would empower the government to impose mandatory age ID verification requirements across a wide range of online services. Those who fail to comply could face court-ordered blocking by Canadian internet service providers.

Although the proposal is framed as protecting minors, its broad wording leaves the door open for the government to demand compliance from social media companies, search engines, or discussion forums where adult material may appear in isolated cases.

Under Section 12, the Cabinet is granted full regulatory authority to determine which sites are covered and to set the rules for verification technologies.

Keep reading

Democratic Senate Candidate Graham Platner Calls For Violence In Now-Deleted Posts

Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner once urged violence as a tool for social change in a now-deleted Reddit post, according to Politico.

Platner, a former Marine and oyster farmer, wrote in 2018 that “an armed working class is a requirement for economic justice” and suggested that those who “expect to fight fascism without a good semi-automatic rifle” should “do some reading of history,” the outlet

Platner did not dispute his authorship of the posts but renounced his past rhetoric in a statement to Politico.

“As I told CNN, I was fucking around on the internet at a time when I felt lost and very disillusioned with our government who sent me overseas to watch my friends die,” Platner said. “I made dumb jokes and picked fights. But of course I’m not a socialist. I’m a small business owner, a Marine Corps veteran, and a retired shitposter.”

CNN first reported Thursday that Platner participated in the subreddit r/SocialistRA, along with other left-wing forums. Many of his posts date back roughly five years and appeared under the Reddit username “P-Hustle,” where he called police “all bastards,” described himself as a communist, and said rural white Americans were racist and stupid.

Platner deleted the posts in August, the same month he launched his Senate campaign, saying he wanted to distance himself from what he described as a darker period in his life.

Keep reading

Newsom Vetoes Digital Censorship Law

California Governor Gavin Newsom managed to get something right. He just vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to sue social-media companies on the subjective and dubious basis of “hate speech.”

Newsom vetoed SB 771 on Monday, the last day he had to act. The legislature sent him the bill on September 22. If Newsom wouldn’t have rejected it, it would have become law anyway.

The governor called the bill “premature” in a short statement attempting to explain his decision. He said:

“I likewise share the author’s concern about the growth of discriminatory threats, violence, and coercive harassment online. I am concerned, however, that this bill is premature. Our first step should be to determine if, and to what extent, existing civil rights laws are sufficient to address violations perpetrated through algorithms.”

The Bill

The bill would have allowed people to sue social-media companies for up to $1 million per violation. If the litigant was a minor, the fine could’ve doubled.

However, critics suspected the proposal’s main goal was to coerce social-media companies into implementing censorious algorithms like the ones they did during the height of the Covid era. It was designed to pre-censor, to create an digital environment where certain views were forbidden.

The proposal included subjective and vague justifications for litigation. As we pointed out in a previous report, it included the feeling of “intimidation” as grounds for suing. In the United Kingdom, officers have justified arresting people for over social-media posts that caused others “anxiety.” It’s not hard to see that’s what SB 771 could’ve opened up.

Opposition and Support

The bill had strong opposition, including from NetChoice, the tech trade group made up of Google, Meta, and Snap. Elon Musk’s X and Parler also opposed it. Among the arguments they made was that SB 771 would have violated First Amendment protections.

Right-leaning pundits also bashed the proposal for its totalitarian potential. Tucker Carlson framed it as an attempt by California’s ruling class to quash online criticism of the policies that have destroyed the most populous and beautiful state in the Union. The proposal designated a protected class that would have censored those who spoke out against illegal immigration, the deviancy of the LGBTQ mob, and critics of Islam or Israel.  

On the other hand, George Soros’ Center for Countering Digital Hate was sold on the bill, the propagandists in the mainstream media did their best to frame it as nothing more than digital companion to already existing civil-rights protection law, and more than a dozen Jewish organizations supported it as well, according to reports.

Newsom’s Motivation

Newsom made a rare and good decision here. But it’s unlikely his intentions were well-motivated. After all, he did just sign a bill to create a reparations-administration agency.  

A common suspicion is that Newsom was hardly concerned about free speech and likely more worried about having to embark on future political campaigns without financial support from the tech gurus who’ve dumped millions into his previous campaigns, including executives from Google and Meta.

Whatever his motivation, the bottom line is that this is good news for Californians and anyone who believes that the digital world should be open to all ideas, not just those approved by the elites. As we pointed out in a previous report on this bill, social media, despite its many faults and foibles, has “democratized” the flow of information and loosened the elites’ long-held grip on the narrative. This is a major reason there have been so many efforts to restrict online speech. If you want to see what the goal for the United States is, just look at various parts of Europe. The European Union is bullying member states to muzzle their citizens and creating laws to target American tech companies that provide the platforms to exchange ideas that threaten the international oligarch class.

Keep reading

WE VOTED FOR THIS: BlueSky Leftists Lose Their Minds After Trump White House Invades Their Safe Space and Savagely Trolls Them with This EPIC Video

Team Trump set the internet on fire on Friday after invading the Left’s top social media safe space and sending them into hysterics by posting an amazing video.

As TGP readers know, over-the-hill leftists have decided to mark Saturday as a day of protests across America against President Trump, whom they see as a dictator. The protest, known as “No Kings Day,” is being funded by radical billionaires like George Soros.

The White House decided that on the eve of “No Kings Day,” they would join BlueSky and serve up a little reminder of everything the left is needlessly protesting.

“What’s up, Bluesky? We thought you might’ve missed some of our greatest hits, so we put this together for you,” the White House team wrote.

“Can’t wait to spend more quality time together! ❤️”

Keep reading

UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law

If you’re going to cross an ocean to tell Americans what speech they can and can’t allow, the least you can do is not trip over your own jurisdictional nonsense on the way in.

Ofcom, the UK’s media regulator, which has lately decided to try and become an international speech cop, managed to do exactly that.

But when the regulator began sending enforcement letters to small US platforms under its sweeping online censorship law, the Online Safety Act, it probably didn’t expect to trigger a constitutional ambush.

But that’s exactly what it got.

Preston Byrne, one of attorneys representing 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and two other American companies, said Ofcom had been sending “frankly asinine letters under English law.”

His clients, he explained, “are entirely American. All of their operations are American. All of their infrastructure is American, and they have no connection to the UK whatsoever.”

Despite this, Ofcom threatened the companies with “a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties for 60 days thereafter.”

Byrne responded to Ofcom’s pressure by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C.

The lawsuit was designed not only to challenge Ofcom’s jurisdiction but to force a contradiction into the open.

Byrne said the purpose of the lawsuit was threefold. One, to show the global censors that the resistance in the United States is now prepared to fight back, and they don’t have freedom of action.

Two, to assert hims client’s claims and defenses in a US court, and make the argument in front of a US federal judge.

And the third one was to provoke Ofcom into “doing something stupid, which is exactly what they did.”

After the case was filed, Ofcom sent what Byrne called “a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious.”

Ofcom’s written response delivered exactly what Byrne says was needed: an explicit admission that Ofcom doesn’t “think US law applies on US soil and that they’re going to use [the argument of] sovereign immunity.”

This was more than a legal contradiction; it was a political one that directly undercuts the British government’s public assurances.

“This rather undermines the British government’s assertions that it’s made time and again, including to the President, to his face, that the British government is not using its sovereign power to censor American citizens,” Byrne said.

In its official notice to 4chan, Ofcom made an extraordinary admission which, in trying to assert its authority, effectively undercut its entire legal position.

The regulator wrote: “We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case.”

This reveals the fundamental flaw in Ofcom’s claim to authority over American companies.

By asserting that the First Amendment “binds only the US government,” Ofcom admits it stands entirely outside the US constitutional order, yet it simultaneously claims the right to enforce UK speech law against US entities operating solely on US soil.

Ofcom cannot have it both ways: it cannot disclaim the reach of US law while insisting that British law somehow extends across the Atlantic.

If the First Amendment has no force on Ofcom’s actions in the United States, then neither does the UK’s censorship law, the Online Safety Act, which has no legal effect beyond the UK.

Keep reading