3 ms·
> They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public. Why should a private company have this power? I don't think that peop
by username90 6y ago
> They didn't remove his message. They merely pointed out it was misinforming the public.
Why should a private company have this power? I don't think that people who run a successful website automatically are qualified to fact check the president and insert blurbs directly in his messages. That needs to be regulated some way.
- rbanffy 6y agoIf you are using my product to harm others, I should have the right to try to minimize the damage you cause.
- username90 6y agoThis tool is not regulated, they could use it to cause harm. It doesn't matter if it was used for good this one time. And no, them being a private company doesn't matter. Currently they have a lot of power thanks to them having a lot of important users, and now that they are starting to use that power we need to quickly come up with regulations for it.
- perl4ever 6y agoYour tone is as if they were editing his message. I don't believe they were doing that in a way that would create any confusion as to what he wrote, were they?
- username90 6y agoIt doesn't matter, they didn't post a message like everyone else instead they made an official statement using their own privileged way. It is fine to do it on this message, I don't see the harm, but if this continues and people gets used to that blurb then Twitter will definitely start misusing it sooner or later. I don't think that companies should have this kind of power to influence public discourse, I might not agree with Trump but I really think that we need to limit the power big tech companies have.
- perl4ever 6y agoTwitter already limits and controls virtually every other user, so is that a problem, and if so, why is this the trigger?