>Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet. No

>Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet. Nope, that is simply not what editorializing means, in any sense of the word. Twitter stating a categorically true fact or linking to a resource that debunks factually incorrect statements is not editorializing because they are not giving an opinion. They are adding context with verifiable truths. Which, again, not editorializing because stating a truth is not an opinion. I'm sure you can dream up all sorts of hypotheticals that makes this sound problematic, such as implying twitter are the ones deciding something is true or false. They don't need to decide that, they just need to recognise a statement as false and then add clarification. If Trump's tweets had any kind of ambiguity then maybe what you say has credence, but that isn't the reality of the situation.