A government private company relationship to marginalize and de platform individuals over first amendment speech is Fascism. These are the playbooks developed by Twitter to suppress opposing views to the state narrative:
All these referenced documents with links to their content are available here: https://vashiva.com/first-amendment-twitter-galvin-lawsuit/
From Dr Shiva's court filing at: Case 1:20-cv-11889-MLW Document 118 Filed 05/21/21 Page 1 of 7
Plaintiff has independently discovered
the documentary evidence
proving that Tassinari,
Cohen, NASED and
Twitter Legal jointly
collaborated to design
and build the
core infrastructure, processes,
and protocols enabling the
Twitter Trusted Partnership
Program and the
Twitter Partner Support
and others began
formulating and designing
the framework for
silently violating the
free speech rights
of US persons
by first characterizing speakers
as “Influence Operators”
(IOs) thereby fabricating a sinister
none exists, as
the ideological frame work
to justify canceling
speakers who exercise
their right to
express their opinion.
All of these finally culminated in 2020 in the final manual for state officials called the Elections Influence Operations Playbook for State and Local Officials, for which Cohen and Twitter Legal are architects.This manual is split into three parts. The first two parts are available to the public.The third part is available only to state and local officials. Part1 provides the theoretical foundation for identifying and targeting “Influence Operators,”i.e. persons who accuse state election officials of corruption or make allegations that state elections may have violated Federal law.
When ever government enlists and dictates user behaviors that are NOT desired or dictates policies to view point discriminate is known as fascism.
In 2018, Amy Cohen, as Executive Director for NASED, testified to Congress about this emerging framework that she helped to formulate and architect in 2017, in cooperation with state officials and that they created a new centralized Governing Coordinating Council (GCC) that brought together both state and federal officials to create an electronic infrastructure for surveying speech and monitoring“ Influence Operators.”
So there we have an admission by the director of NASED that the avowed purpose of this 'energing framework' is to control free speech by de-platforming those defined as 'influence' operators.
"Bruce Lund, a senior member of In-Q-Tel’s technical staff, noted in a 2012 paper
that “monitoring social media” is increasingly essential for government
agencies seeking to keep track of “erupting political movements,
crises, epidemics, and disasters, not to mention general global trends.” This statement necessarily infers that "erupting political movements" includes speech that opposes government narratives.
The article continues: “When you have private companies deciding which algorithms get you a
so-called threat score, or make you a person of interest, there’s
obviously room for targeting people based on viewpoints or even
unlawfully targeting people based on race or religion,” said Lee
Rowland, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties
This is exactly what is happening with Twitter's de platforming of views that conflict with government political agenda narratives.