6 ms·

The gameplan might be to build a direct connection between the vast financial resources of the republican party and their ability to influence online audiences.

by pr_nik 6y ago

The gameplan might be to build a direct connection between the vast financial resources of the republican party and their ability to influence online audiences. This has already worked quite well with the Super PACs which amount to unlimited anonymous donations to parties or candidates. This was declared legal based on the 1st amendment in 2010. The same goal could be pursued here: cite 1st amendment and rule by decree that fact-checking violates 1st amendment principles, fight it out up to the supreme court (which is firmly in republican hands) and then write it into law for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, sue social media providers for ridiculous sums if they provide fact-checking prior to the election. Technically, you still have a democracy, albeit one that is no longer united in its perception of reality.

deathgrips 6y ago
The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. The issue is Facebook pretending to be a publisher when it is in fact much more like a newspaper editor. You don't get to run a private company with unparalleled influence over US politics and not play by the rules of other media companies.
- vkou 6y ago
  Actually, the issue is that his primary campaign strategy consists of saying completely unsubstantiated bullshit, and that the introduction of any kind of fact checking would fly in it's face. What rules do newspaper editors have to play by, exactly? Most of the major outlets are 24/7 propaganda machines. Calling any particular politician out on lying is hardly controversial for them, depending on who the politician in question is.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    I don't buy this. If Clinton had won, she would have went after Facebook with tough regulations over Russians using that platform to influence the election. Both parties see Twitter and Facebook as a problem because they change the power landscape. If you want to know what rules newspapers follow, ask a journalist about their laws and ethics rules and ask a lawyer about publisher rules. I can't give legal advice.
    - vkou 6y ago
      That is just two sideism. No other recent administration has behaved in as petty, insecure, and personally vindictive a manner as this one. Hell, half of the 2016 campaign was about jailing the other candidate. Nobody else in any of the recent races has behaved in such a way. No president since Nixon is so quick to fly off the handle over being called out on what they are saying. If Biden were running on a Jail Trump campaign in 2020 (since it is now politically acceptable to do that sort of thing, I guess), you may have a point that the two sides behave the same way. They don't. As for journalists - do you seriously think most of the talking heads on Fox News follow journalistic ethics? If you do, I don't think conversation is necessary - because we don't have a common understanding of either the content of Fox programming, or of ethics.
      - deathgrips 6y ago
        I was calling out the partisan perspective on this ("the federal government only does bad things because Trump is bad"). Call me whatever you want but I don't think the world revolves around Trump. Most people in the federal government just keep doing their jobs as usual and he doesn't have the interest or competence to interfere. >Hell, half of the 2016 campaign was about jailing the other candidate . . . That's not what we're talking about. People (who don't actually care about free speech in principle) are saying that this is a free speech violation in principle (legally, it is sound). The FCC might attempt to treat social media companies like newspapers. This is not a big deal. Bad orange man has not censored newspapers. Your tweets are safe.
        mcphage 6y ago
        > Most people in the federal government just keep doing their jobs as usual and he doesn't have the interest or competence to interfere. Is this executive order one of those cases?
- michaelt 6y ago
  You think Trump is demanding that Twitter appoint an editor to vet (and maybe fact check) all his tweets before publishing them, like a newspaper editor would? I think that is not what Trump is asking for.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Twitter already arbitrarily approves, edits, and removes content. It seems like he wants the FCC to treat them like a publisher.
    - ljm 6y ago
      I sincerely doubt he'd be drafting this order if, say, Joe Biden's tweets were the ones getting fact-check labels added to them. I can see it being a step towards Trump/Republicans using such an order to suppress criticism though; let's say... a Democrat campaign ad that attacks Trump or calls him out. Either way, the only intention behind this drafted order is entirely self-serving. It's a complete knee-jerk reaction.
    - quantummkv 6y ago
      > Twitter already arbitrarily approves, edits, and removes content. By doing this Twitter is behaving as a publisher. Then why should Twitter not be treated like one?
- doublesCs 6y ago
  > The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. From wikipedia[1] (my emphasis): > The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Also, called it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322683 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    If you don't like it, speak on another platform that doesn't edit and censor user content.
    - doublesCs 6y ago
      My point is that the government passing laws because they don't like what's happening on a platform is textbook first amendment. That you can leave the platform has no bearing on the first amendment. The first amendment says "the government CANNOT do this". It doesn't say "it can't do this, unless users can leave".
      - deathgrips 6y ago
        Believe it or not posting the first amendment isn't a unique message that no one has heard before. I'm not sure why it's relevant here. Of course the government is upset about something. We pass laws to fix problems. If we see no problem, we don't pass a law. The White House wants the FCC to treat certain social media companies as if they were newspapers. That's it. Do you think there is a first amendment issue with how the government is treating newspapers right now?
        doublesCs 6y ago
        > I'm not sure why it's relevant here. Of course the government is upset about something. We pass laws to fix problems. If we see no problem, we don't pass a law. It's relevant here because the constituion is the highest legal document in the country. Something that republicans selectively forget.
- pr_nik 6y ago
  Admittedly, that is one big issue. But from a purely political angle, Trump is trying to control the narrative to increase chances of re-election. This narrative will have to include undercounted COVID-19 fatalities, and understated economic effects of the failure to contain the pandemic. It cannot work if it is presented side-by-side with best estimates of actual numbers. Suppressing these numbers is the obvious goal here and leveraging money and political power over the legal system are the means.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    I don't buy this. Both sides have been calling for regulation ever since Russians used Twitter and Facebook to meddle in the 2016 election. These are unaccountable companies with unparalleled influence on our elections. If they influence which lawmakers get chosen, they should have to follow minimum standards of conduct.
    - loopz 6y ago
      Fact-checking is protected free speech. Introducing fact-checking links are one of many remedies for external meddling that social platforms have done since last election, ie. to combat "fake news". This juvenile reaction from a president is working against the population making informed decisions made up of facts, not manipulative deceptive made-up unsustantiated statements. As the president also tries to suppress voter engagement, one might even conclude the current administration is working as if anti-democratic as well. The intentions seems to be; to work for oneself and fire everyone else.
- raesene9 6y ago
  All social media sites effectively curate content by dictating what is allowed on the platform and what is not, and removing content which doesn't meet those requirements. This isn't just about facebook and twitter, it's about every site that allows user generated content, reddit, Hacker News, Instagram, heck even Stack Exchange counts, I'd imagine.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    As long as those sites curate according to their transparent terms of use these rules wouldn't apply to them.
    - raesene9 6y ago
      I'd argue there's no such thing as "transparent terms of use" that wouldn't be open to legal challenge. Twitter and facebook have terms of use, they're as transparent as any other site in that regard. Reddit has banned whole sub-reddits and shadowbanned others, Hacker news has human mods who make qualitative decisions to curate conversations on this site. This hits every forum, every newsgroup, every site that has user generated content.
    - basch 6y ago
      That's not at all how the law reads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (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; Moderation does not have to be systematic, transparent, unbiased, or applied fairly. The combined parts 1 and 2 of the "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material" mean that you are not responsible for the speech you host, but you can also not be compelled to host speech you choose not to host.
- threatofrain 6y ago
  > The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. First amendment is the issue, what do you think "publisher" vs "platform" is about? It's about who should be sued for bad speech. What happens if FB is responsible for everything you say? More censorship. What happens if you are responsible for everything you say? Less disclosure. Right now we have a situation where the platform owner can collect the fruits of popularity, while the platform users experience basically no-liability gossip. More speech, but are we healthier as a society for it? Maybe sometimes the answer isn't always making sure we have more free speech. Also I'm not sure how lawsuits help out in the world of little people, because only big people can sue, and they only sue big targets.
shripadk 6y ago
That is not what I think is the issue. The issue is that Twitter is behaving like an editorial. What Twitter did is effectively singling out a politician for his views without any regard for being unbiased (which is what a platform should be). I don't see Twitter attaching disclaimers to the tweets issued by any other politician or World leader. I can give multiple instances of politicians in my country misusing Twitter to spread propaganda and outright lies. If Twitter wanted to rebut Trump it could have done it by commenting under the Tweet just like everyone else. The moment Twitter assumes an editorial role upon itself it is no longer a platform but a publisher. > The gameplan might be to build a direct connection between the vast financial resources of the republican party and their ability to influence online audiences Assuming that there is some "game-plan" is far fetched. If Twitter hadn't done this there wouldn't be a hue and cry in the first place. No one asked Twitter to attach its own opinion to the tweet. It did it on its own volition. The fact is that Twitter is heavily tilted towards the left. Jack Dorsey is himself a self-declared left-leaning liberal. India has had its fair share of random banning of right-leaning accounts with those accounts not violating any Twitter policy. After hue and cry those accounts are reinstated. Once reinstated, there is no explanation given as to why the account was banned in the first place and why the account was reinstated. And it has happened multiple times! If you are going to preach about democracy and fair play then first start at home. Else it will just reek of hypocrisy. And people hate hypocrisy more than lies. At least you know when someone is lying. But you never know when someone is being a hypocrite until you dig his/her past!
- loopz 6y ago
  Instead of digging into the distant past and guessing intentions, one can just fact-check them and make informed decisions at elections based on facts, not self-serving unsubstantiated claims. One needs to use a first filter first.
  - shripadk 6y ago
    But how is Twitter qualified as a fact checker/arbiter? Twitter just cannot assume that role onto itself unless it is specifically chosen to be one and has reported itself as one to the relevant authorities. And once it does that, it binds itself to the regulations that govern an arbiter. Will Twitter subject itself to such regulations? And who decides whether the citations are factual? Does Twitter decide it? If Twitter decides it then isn't it behaving like a Quasi-Judicial body? If it is like one then it is no longer a platform. You cannot call yourself a "platform" and then suddenly decide to change the character of your business and behave like an arbiter. There is a reason why you mention your nature of business while setting up your company. That way the authorities know what regulations will apply to you. If Twitter is behaving like a publisher and the publishing regulations do not apply then you are creating a monster in the process! And for what justification? Just to take on a politician whose term is fixed? Twitter is going to exist even when Trump isn't the President. By allowing Twitter to get away with this you are going to be setting a precedent for other companies to behave in a similar fashion. Then what is the point of rules and regulations? No one will follow it. Every company will decide to modify its nature of business as it sees fit.
loopz 6y ago
Fact-checking is itself freedom of speech. Notices of fact-checking references is freedom of speech as well. Content was not removed in those instances, and a private platform has private rules. A legitimate President must abide by the same Laws of the land as everyone else, and not expect special treatment or to censor speech that fails to please own ears. The latter is dangerously working against the Constitution and 1st Amendment.
- shripadk 6y ago
  Notices of fact-checking can be given as a reply to his Tweet. Just like everyone else. Twitter has its own account to rebut anyone if it wants to. If Twitter starts fact-checking by invading his personal virtual space then why don't I, a regular user, have the same tools available at my disposal? I also have issues with some politicians in my country who tweet nonsense/falsehood and would like to have my opinions attached to their tweet. Is that possible? If not, why not? Okay if that is too much power in the hands of a user then why isn't Twitter applying the same policy to politicians all around the World? Which other politician is Twitter doing the same to? If it is singling out Trump then it is "special treatment" meted out by Twitter to a politician. Do you see how quickly the cookie crumbles? What Twitter has done has a chilling effect. If it cannot justify on what policy it decided to attach a notice to a politicians tweet it won't stand a chance in convincing that it is just a platform and not a publisher/editorial. Especially if it targets a single politician and the rule was not used for any other politician.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Visiblity of fact-checking is within Twitter's private domain to control. It could be a separate post, shown above everyone else's. It makes little sense to make special laws micro-managing technical designs of private platforms. That someone blatantly bullies people and lies on such a platform, would get anyone else banned or at least posts moderated. Lying/deception, defamation and "hate" speech is not protected speech. Some of it may even be punishable by Law. Twitter still has the option to ban the president. This is not censorship either. Prudent moderation is being performed daily on many social platforms. Maybe it is time to review the power of social media platforms (so I do see your point). Though, I suspect a prudent review would end unfavourably for bullies, trolls and liars, at the very least for unprotected speech and especially speech violating established Law.

by pr_nik 6y ago

deathgrips 6y ago

The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. The issue is Facebook pretending to be a publisher when it is in fact much more like a newspaper editor. You don't get to run a private company with unparalleled influence over US politics and not play by the rules of other media companies.

vkou 6y ago
Actually, the issue is that his primary campaign strategy consists of saying completely unsubstantiated bullshit, and that the introduction of any kind of fact checking would fly in it's face. What rules do newspaper editors have to play by, exactly? Most of the major outlets are 24/7 propaganda machines. Calling any particular politician out on lying is hardly controversial for them, depending on who the politician in question is.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  I don't buy this. If Clinton had won, she would have went after Facebook with tough regulations over Russians using that platform to influence the election. Both parties see Twitter and Facebook as a problem because they change the power landscape. If you want to know what rules newspapers follow, ask a journalist about their laws and ethics rules and ask a lawyer about publisher rules. I can't give legal advice.
  - vkou 6y ago
    That is just two sideism. No other recent administration has behaved in as petty, insecure, and personally vindictive a manner as this one. Hell, half of the 2016 campaign was about jailing the other candidate. Nobody else in any of the recent races has behaved in such a way. No president since Nixon is so quick to fly off the handle over being called out on what they are saying. If Biden were running on a Jail Trump campaign in 2020 (since it is now politically acceptable to do that sort of thing, I guess), you may have a point that the two sides behave the same way. They don't. As for journalists - do you seriously think most of the talking heads on Fox News follow journalistic ethics? If you do, I don't think conversation is necessary - because we don't have a common understanding of either the content of Fox programming, or of ethics.
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      I was calling out the partisan perspective on this ("the federal government only does bad things because Trump is bad"). Call me whatever you want but I don't think the world revolves around Trump. Most people in the federal government just keep doing their jobs as usual and he doesn't have the interest or competence to interfere. >Hell, half of the 2016 campaign was about jailing the other candidate . . . That's not what we're talking about. People (who don't actually care about free speech in principle) are saying that this is a free speech violation in principle (legally, it is sound). The FCC might attempt to treat social media companies like newspapers. This is not a big deal. Bad orange man has not censored newspapers. Your tweets are safe.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > Most people in the federal government just keep doing their jobs as usual and he doesn't have the interest or competence to interfere. Is this executive order one of those cases?
michaelt 6y ago
You think Trump is demanding that Twitter appoint an editor to vet (and maybe fact check) all his tweets before publishing them, like a newspaper editor would? I think that is not what Trump is asking for.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Twitter already arbitrarily approves, edits, and removes content. It seems like he wants the FCC to treat them like a publisher.
  - ljm 6y ago
    I sincerely doubt he'd be drafting this order if, say, Joe Biden's tweets were the ones getting fact-check labels added to them. I can see it being a step towards Trump/Republicans using such an order to suppress criticism though; let's say... a Democrat campaign ad that attacks Trump or calls him out. Either way, the only intention behind this drafted order is entirely self-serving. It's a complete knee-jerk reaction.
  - quantummkv 6y ago
    > Twitter already arbitrarily approves, edits, and removes content. By doing this Twitter is behaving as a publisher. Then why should Twitter not be treated like one?
doublesCs 6y ago
> The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. From wikipedia[1] (my emphasis): > The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Also, called it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23322683 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_...
- deathgrips 6y ago
  If you don't like it, speak on another platform that doesn't edit and censor user content.
  - doublesCs 6y ago
    My point is that the government passing laws because they don't like what's happening on a platform is textbook first amendment. That you can leave the platform has no bearing on the first amendment. The first amendment says "the government CANNOT do this". It doesn't say "it can't do this, unless users can leave".
    - deathgrips 6y ago
      Believe it or not posting the first amendment isn't a unique message that no one has heard before. I'm not sure why it's relevant here. Of course the government is upset about something. We pass laws to fix problems. If we see no problem, we don't pass a law. The White House wants the FCC to treat certain social media companies as if they were newspapers. That's it. Do you think there is a first amendment issue with how the government is treating newspapers right now?
      - doublesCs 6y ago
        > I'm not sure why it's relevant here. Of course the government is upset about something. We pass laws to fix problems. If we see no problem, we don't pass a law. It's relevant here because the constituion is the highest legal document in the country. Something that republicans selectively forget.
pr_nik 6y ago
Admittedly, that is one big issue. But from a purely political angle, Trump is trying to control the narrative to increase chances of re-election. This narrative will have to include undercounted COVID-19 fatalities, and understated economic effects of the failure to contain the pandemic. It cannot work if it is presented side-by-side with best estimates of actual numbers. Suppressing these numbers is the obvious goal here and leveraging money and political power over the legal system are the means.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  I don't buy this. Both sides have been calling for regulation ever since Russians used Twitter and Facebook to meddle in the 2016 election. These are unaccountable companies with unparalleled influence on our elections. If they influence which lawmakers get chosen, they should have to follow minimum standards of conduct.
  - loopz 6y ago
    Fact-checking is protected free speech. Introducing fact-checking links are one of many remedies for external meddling that social platforms have done since last election, ie. to combat "fake news". This juvenile reaction from a president is working against the population making informed decisions made up of facts, not manipulative deceptive made-up unsustantiated statements. As the president also tries to suppress voter engagement, one might even conclude the current administration is working as if anti-democratic as well. The intentions seems to be; to work for oneself and fire everyone else.
raesene9 6y ago
All social media sites effectively curate content by dictating what is allowed on the platform and what is not, and removing content which doesn't meet those requirements. This isn't just about facebook and twitter, it's about every site that allows user generated content, reddit, Hacker News, Instagram, heck even Stack Exchange counts, I'd imagine.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  As long as those sites curate according to their transparent terms of use these rules wouldn't apply to them.
  - raesene9 6y ago
    I'd argue there's no such thing as "transparent terms of use" that wouldn't be open to legal challenge. Twitter and facebook have terms of use, they're as transparent as any other site in that regard. Reddit has banned whole sub-reddits and shadowbanned others, Hacker news has human mods who make qualitative decisions to curate conversations on this site. This hits every forum, every newsgroup, every site that has user generated content.
  - basch 6y ago
    That's not at all how the law reads. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (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; Moderation does not have to be systematic, transparent, unbiased, or applied fairly. The combined parts 1 and 2 of the "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material" mean that you are not responsible for the speech you host, but you can also not be compelled to host speech you choose not to host.
threatofrain 6y ago
> The 1st amendment isn't the issue here. First amendment is the issue, what do you think "publisher" vs "platform" is about? It's about who should be sued for bad speech. What happens if FB is responsible for everything you say? More censorship. What happens if you are responsible for everything you say? Less disclosure. Right now we have a situation where the platform owner can collect the fruits of popularity, while the platform users experience basically no-liability gossip. More speech, but are we healthier as a society for it? Maybe sometimes the answer isn't always making sure we have more free speech. Also I'm not sure how lawsuits help out in the world of little people, because only big people can sue, and they only sue big targets.

shripadk 6y ago

That is not what I think is the issue. The issue is that Twitter is behaving like an editorial. What Twitter did is effectively singling out a politician for his views without any regard for being unbiased (which is what a platform should be). I don't see Twitter attaching disclaimers to the tweets issued by any other politician or World leader. I can give multiple instances of politicians in my country misusing Twitter to spread propaganda and outright lies. If Twitter wanted to rebut Trump it could have done it by commenting under the Tweet just like everyone else. The moment Twitter assumes an editorial role upon itself it is no longer a platform but a publisher. > The gameplan might be to build a direct connection between the vast financial resources of the republican party and their ability to influence online audiences Assuming that there is some "game-plan" is far fetched. If Twitter hadn't done this there wouldn't be a hue and cry in the first place. No one asked Twitter to attach its own opinion to the tweet. It did it on its own volition. The fact is that Twitter is heavily tilted towards the left. Jack Dorsey is himself a self-declared left-leaning liberal. India has had its fair share of random banning of right-leaning accounts with those accounts not violating any Twitter policy. After hue and cry those accounts are reinstated. Once reinstated, there is no explanation given as to why the account was banned in the first place and why the account was reinstated. And it has happened multiple times! If you are going to preach about democracy and fair play then first start at home. Else it will just reek of hypocrisy. And people hate hypocrisy more than lies. At least you know when someone is lying. But you never know when someone is being a hypocrite until you dig his/her past!

loopz 6y ago
Instead of digging into the distant past and guessing intentions, one can just fact-check them and make informed decisions at elections based on facts, not self-serving unsubstantiated claims. One needs to use a first filter first.
- shripadk 6y ago
  But how is Twitter qualified as a fact checker/arbiter? Twitter just cannot assume that role onto itself unless it is specifically chosen to be one and has reported itself as one to the relevant authorities. And once it does that, it binds itself to the regulations that govern an arbiter. Will Twitter subject itself to such regulations? And who decides whether the citations are factual? Does Twitter decide it? If Twitter decides it then isn't it behaving like a Quasi-Judicial body? If it is like one then it is no longer a platform. You cannot call yourself a "platform" and then suddenly decide to change the character of your business and behave like an arbiter. There is a reason why you mention your nature of business while setting up your company. That way the authorities know what regulations will apply to you. If Twitter is behaving like a publisher and the publishing regulations do not apply then you are creating a monster in the process! And for what justification? Just to take on a politician whose term is fixed? Twitter is going to exist even when Trump isn't the President. By allowing Twitter to get away with this you are going to be setting a precedent for other companies to behave in a similar fashion. Then what is the point of rules and regulations? No one will follow it. Every company will decide to modify its nature of business as it sees fit.

loopz 6y ago

Fact-checking is itself freedom of speech. Notices of fact-checking references is freedom of speech as well. Content was not removed in those instances, and a private platform has private rules. A legitimate President must abide by the same Laws of the land as everyone else, and not expect special treatment or to censor speech that fails to please own ears. The latter is dangerously working against the Constitution and 1st Amendment.

shripadk 6y ago
Notices of fact-checking can be given as a reply to his Tweet. Just like everyone else. Twitter has its own account to rebut anyone if it wants to. If Twitter starts fact-checking by invading his personal virtual space then why don't I, a regular user, have the same tools available at my disposal? I also have issues with some politicians in my country who tweet nonsense/falsehood and would like to have my opinions attached to their tweet. Is that possible? If not, why not? Okay if that is too much power in the hands of a user then why isn't Twitter applying the same policy to politicians all around the World? Which other politician is Twitter doing the same to? If it is singling out Trump then it is "special treatment" meted out by Twitter to a politician. Do you see how quickly the cookie crumbles? What Twitter has done has a chilling effect. If it cannot justify on what policy it decided to attach a notice to a politicians tweet it won't stand a chance in convincing that it is just a platform and not a publisher/editorial. Especially if it targets a single politician and the rule was not used for any other politician.
- loopz 6y ago
  Visiblity of fact-checking is within Twitter's private domain to control. It could be a separate post, shown above everyone else's. It makes little sense to make special laws micro-managing technical designs of private platforms. That someone blatantly bullies people and lies on such a platform, would get anyone else banned or at least posts moderated. Lying/deception, defamation and "hate" speech is not protected speech. Some of it may even be punishable by Law. Twitter still has the option to ban the president. This is not censorship either. Prudent moderation is being performed daily on many social platforms. Maybe it is time to review the power of social media platforms (so I do see your point). Though, I suspect a prudent review would end unfavourably for bullies, trolls and liars, at the very least for unprotected speech and especially speech violating established Law.