Conservatives are being invited to pressure Twitter to explain confessions by its own workers that the social-media platform can "shadow-ban" opinions it opposes, without even informing users.

WND reported on an undercover video from James O'Keefe's Project Veritas in which former Twitter software employee Abhinov Vadrevu explained "shadow banning."

"One strategy is to shadow ban so you have ultimate control. The idea of a shadow ban is that you ban someone but they don't know they’ve been banned, because they keep posting and no one sees their content. So they just think that no one is engaging with their content, when in reality, no one is seeing it," he said.

See the conversation (Caution, offensive language in video):

TRENDING: Alan Dershowitz sues CNN to halt 'malicious' attacks on innocent people

Now MRC Action, affiliated with the Media Research Center, is inviting people to comment directly to Twitter on the issue.

The organization previously sent an open letter to the board of directors and CEO but has not received a response.

The letter, from MRC President L. Brent Bozell to Twitter chief Jack Dorsey and others, noted the Project Veritas evidence.

"The purpose of this letter is to ask if censorship of conservative voices is the official policy at Twitter. If not, what steps are you going to take to remedy this situation and release to assuage the public of Twitter’s commitment to free speech?"

On Wednesday, MRC Action said there was no response, so its staff members concluded: "It's time we step it up a notch so Twitter knows we won't let this go. This is a media issue that affects all conservatives."

They urged Twitter users to file an issue report ticket with Twitter "and demand they STOP CENSORING CONSERVATIVES."

A Twitter page provides forms to file a complaint.

MRC Action explained Twitter has 68 million users in the U.S., and one quarter of Americans are Republican and another 46 percent independent.

"Imagine how many users could be 'shadow-banned,'" MRC Action said.

MRC offers talking points:

Is censorship of conservative voices the official policy of Twitter?

Does Twitter have its own political and cultural agenda?

Do you believe that it is okay for users to post information with which you disagree?

Would you say Twitter embraces free speech? If so, how do you explain Twitter employee's attitude toward conservatives?

"Remember to be respectful (no foul language), but be firm in your demands," the request advises.

WND has reported on the three other Twitter videos released by Project Veritas, too.

The fourth, just released last Wednesday, shows a former Twitter engineer admitting that the company cancels accounts, on the instructions of China, "a lot."

The video:

Another video revealed a worker's desire to expose anything from President Trump that might cause him harm. In another, Twitter workers boast of having access to explicit images Twitter users have sent each other in direct messages, which generally have been considered to be private.

The third video: (Warning of offensive language and imagery):

The first:

WND also reported growing concerns that Twitter and other social media companies are deliberately changing policy and practice to restrict and exclude conservative conversations online.

Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh has identified what he believes is the ideology behind it.

"These people are pure – they would never think of themselves this way – but these are pure Stalinists. While they're running around call[ing] Trump a Stalinist, they don't even know what it really is," he charged.

He pointed out that Facebook's newly announced change in its newsfeed, which aims to give greater visibility to posts from "friends and family," as Breitbart reported Tuesday, actually does much more.

"The subtext is that it will decrease visibility to pages run by publishers and news sites."

John Hawkins wrote Saturday at Townhall that his Right Wing News website is shutting down because of Facebook's change of rules.

"Remember the mainstream media liberals going out of their minds because the Russians reached almost 150 million people with their $100,000 Facebook ad buy? In July of 2015, in just a week, the Right Wing News Facebook page reached 133 million people," he reported. "Because conservatives were sharing content they were interested in, little ol' Right Wing News (well, I guess nearly 3.6 million Facebook likes isn't so little) was driving the same amount of web traffic as some of the biggest newspapers in America. Barack Obama's Facebook page was 36 times bigger than our page; yet we had seven times as many people talking about our content."

Then Facebook changes its rules of use.

"So, why would Facebook want to kill extremely successful Facebook pages that its users enjoyed?" he wrote. "One of the reasons goes back to something I told multiple reporters during the 2016 election. I believe that all of the thriving right wing Facebook pages activated large numbers of what I like to think of as 'instinctive conservatives.' You know, the sort of people who love God, guns and America, but who don’t follow politics day to day, read National Review or consume any of Milton Friedman's books. From what I could see on Facebook, that group of people LOVED, LOVED, LOVED Donald Trump and I believe they were responsible for getting him the GOP nomination and probably even got him over the hump in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. I think the liberals that run Facebook came to that same conclusion."

Breitbart explained the company's actions couldn't be attributed to pursuit of higher profits, something it ethically owes its shareholders.

Citing the most recent downgrade, Facebook "has taken a financial hit from its decision."

"The company's stock fell by 4.5 percent upon the announcement of its newsfeed changes, personally shaving $3.3 billion off Mark Zuckerberg's personal net worth. That suggests that Facebook is happy to suffer financial pain in order to step back from their de facto role as the megaphone of new publishers."

Hawkins said, however, the messages contained are messages "the liberals who run the company don't want out there."

The social media campaign also has affected WND, with declining revenues in recent months despite strong traffic reports.

"The dirty little secret that the social media giants are at war with the independent media is out now," said Joseph Farah, co-founder and CEO of what started out 20 years ago as WorldNetDaily.

"It's no longer a secret. It's a fact. The cabal is trying to strangle Breitbart, Daily Caller, WND and the rest. They seek to kill us all. We in the independent media have known this for a long time. We tried to play by their rules, but the rules kept changing for us. They took our money under false pretenses. They lied and deceived about how their operations worked. They have depended on our good nature not to file a class-action lawsuit against them because we're too busy or don't have the resources to take on the social media cartel. But enough is enough is enough."

Some have gone to court.

Dennis Prager's PragerU is suing YouTube for "presenting a conservative point of view."

Hawkins reported: "Just to give you an example of the sort of content YouTube thinks is over-the-line, here are some of the videos it demonetized: Why America Must Lead, The Ten Commandments: Do Not Murder, Why Did America Fight the Korean War, and The World’s Most Persecuted Minority: Christians."

He continued: "Furthermore, YouTube's radically liberal parent company Google is being sued by James Damore for targeting white men and conservatives. Incidentally, Damore was fired from Google after he wrote an internal memo for other employees to read (something that is common at Google) called, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion. Don't kid yourself because if you are conservative, 'diversity' and 'inclusion' don't include you."