Gabbard vs Google
After a delay (at first sight) inexplicably long, the organization of the campaign of Tulsi Gabbard for the presidential of 2020, Tulsi2020 (orTulsiNow Inc., the official name of the organization) has announced that it is filing a lawsuit against Google. The complaint concerns an unexplained six-hour interruption in the identification of his campaign site, including access to support donations, immediately following the 26 June TV debate between ten candidates for the 2020 Democratic primaries leading to the presidential election . In spite of the unfavorable orientations of the various presenters and press organizations, Gabbard was largely ahead in the rankings of interest of the listeners according to various polls of alternative sites. Tulsi2020 forwarded the press release presenting its complaint in New York Times, which earned him a long article from the New York daily on July 25 on a legal act that is the first of its kind, presented this way:
" Representative Tulsi Gabbard, a long-standing Hawaiian presidential candidate, said in a federal complaint filed against Google that the company had violated her freedom of expression by briefly suspending her campaign's advertising account after the first debate of Democratic candidates in the United States. primary in June.
" The lawsuit, filed Thursday in a federal court in Los Angeles, is the first legal case where a presidential candidate sues a major Internet technology company.. "
Gabbard seeks various remedies from Google and also $ 50 million in damages for the estimated loss of donations during the six-hour period. According to the organization Tulsi2020, Google's reactions to his claims during the incident were " confused and contradictory until the moment of reactivation of the advertisement and the account, carried out abruptly and without giving any explanation.. (…) To date, Google has still not provided a clear – let alone credible – answer as to why Tulsi's political speech was silenced just as millions of people wanted to hear it. ".
In addition to his lawsuit, Gabbard has therefore engaged in a very marked and solemn manner in a current that tends to become increasingly popular in the US political world, both among Republicans and (now) among Democrats , and in particular another candidate, Elisabeth Warren, who publicly denounces the monopolistic powers and the marked tendencies to GAFA censorship; hence Tulsi Gabbard's personal statement on this subject: " Google's discriminatory actions against my campaign reflect just how dangerous its total dominance in Internet search and identification is, and how much the growing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values. It is a threat to freedom of expression, fair elections and our democracy, and I intend to defend myself on behalf of all Americans. "
The NYT article about this case, – which is presented by some other media, including RT.com– is interesting in that it presents a considerable amount of divergent assessments, attaching importance to the action and the candidacy of Gabbard, while expressing very strong doubts on some of its positions, and also on his official position in the race for the presidency. One feels the paper a little hesitant before the event (the Gabbard candidacy in general and its legal action) which it nevertheless considers as historical, and the considerable hostility that this candidacy raises in theestablishment.
" The interest in Ms. Gabbard, who served four terms in the House and is a veteran of the Army National Guard, increased after the debate. She entered the presidential race as relatively unknown and she continues to collect less than 1% of voting intentions, according to the averages of the New York Times polls.
" But his appeal has crossed the traditional boundaries of the parties. She got support from the right and left because of a strong anti-war message. She has also received favorable coverage from influential conservative media like Drudge Report, Fox News and Breitbart.
" Ms. Gabbard's campaign is historic, even in a race where there is potentially the possibility of many unprecedented events… "
The presentation of the Gabbard nomination is now famous, for example in the original and partisan terms where the defined TheDailyBeast.com ; this extremely influential neo-conservative site is therefore working to discredit this very clearly left-wing candidate, particularly on social issues, but developing a totally new anti-war speech and judged as anathema by the democratic leaders influenced by the neocons : " Why Conservative Media and the Far Right Love Tulsi Gabbard-President's Perspective … This enigmatic member of the House has drawn a lot of support from various right wing currents – from Fox News star Tucker Carlson to white supremacist David Duke… "
The height of the paradoxical notoriety and strange sign of the times of a "strange time": an account #NeverGabbard was created, in imitation of the famous account of 2016 #NeverTrump. There is a extraordinary collection accusations against Gabbard, or of course dominates the obvious finding that it is a manipulation of Russia and that Gabbard is a puppet of more than Putin. So this is a boon for the former Special Prosecutor Mueller, currently unemployed, who could hope to return to service and enjoy a job as brilliant as in the case of Trump …
Anyway and for the moment, Gabbard's observation is thatthere is indeed illegal intervention in the presidential campaign, and that it is not, at this point, the fact of the Putin-Russia tandem but the fact of one of the most glorious flagships of the GAFA: " Google is already interfering in the US presidential election of 2020… (…) Google could unilaterally and decisively end the candidacy of a presidential candidate if he wished. "
So this is a completely new case that actually makes the Gabbard application even more "strange" if not " enigmatic "And extraordinary in the sense of" very unusual ". Just this is not nothing: the NYT comes to tell you a candidate who makes less than 1% in her own polls for designation to the Democratic primaries is in the process of lead a campaign that he (the NYT) believes can be described as " historical ". And it appears that Gabbard also has a strategy and a tactic to apply it, to drill this US equivalent of the "glass ceiling" in France for candidates whose system does not want, – but in the US case we would rather talk about a "lead ceiling".
"A strategy and a tactic to apply it"? It seems to us both obvious and logical to speculate that Gabbard has thought a great deal (a month) before launching his lawsuit against Google to aim, it seems to us, at two main goals, – rather than the $ 50 million for his war chest, good to take eventually but not essential:
the first goal is to impose a dynamic of increasing its notoriety on the communication system, especially to the pressSystem that has practiced so far a blackout because it is taking action against Google that can do the US equivalent of a case law and can not be ignored;
because thus, and this is the second goal, it could impose itself in strength and position of strength among the leaders of the fight more and more popular (including some in the pressSystem) against tyrannical monopolies and GAFA censorship.
In this new front opened by Gabbard, the "enigmatic candidate" continues to play the extremes and spoilers according to the obvious calculation that she has nothing to lose in this form of tactics, because she has to follow an off-system strategy to try to impose its presence on the System, – and possibly play of course the anti-System candidate it is according to, for to make a "coup à la Trump" in 2020. (Against Trump in 2020, if we go all the way, History has the sense of the irony of the end-time disasters.)
Of course, she uses other weapons than Trump, including a coherence of speech and a very structured program around his personality that is really not that of Trump (woman, member of an ethnic minority, veteran of Iraq and officer of the National Guard, etc.). His speech and his program may have the paradoxical virtue of not having a priori no chance to pass. In June 2015, Trump had no a priori no chance to pass: he himself did not believe for a second and even, it seems, according to Michael Moore, he did not wish it absolutely. The fact of "not having a chance to pass" sometimes seems to become today as a sign of fate to "D.C.-la-folle".
Whether she wants it or not, whether she knows it or not, Gabbard is a "mess candidate" in a Washington D.C. became "D.C.-la-mad". Therefore, it must not nothing to offer important in his program– essentially, an anti-war foreign policy, – which corresponds to the orderit is customary to believe settled forever in Washington, and this order which is the order of the System, more and more shaken every day… so far, after all, his journey is not so bad.
Posted on July 26, 2019 at 3:25 pm