This is a really bad idea. I'm more sympathetic to Twitter. Even under the First Amendment there's no right to say things that aren't true. Which is more the is

This is a really bad idea. I'm more sympathetic to Twitter. Even under the First Amendment there's no right to say things that aren't true. Which is more the issue than incitement. But this goes way too far: Companies with business before the US and foreign governments should not be making these decisions. The potential for corruption is absolutely huge. Do we really want Tik Tok deciding what the US President can and can't say. This is going to further erode trust in US institutions. To believe Trump isn't lying about the election you have to think there's a massive conspiracy to keep him out of power. Well... Banning people from sharing beliefs doesn't make them less popular. Banning racist speech has NOT worked in Europe. This is disproportionate to what Trump actually did. This is not to downplay the seriousness of a riot inside the Capitol Building. The timing and nature of the act are repugnant and the people who did it deserve to spend some quality time in federal prison. Trump's false rhetoric about the election being stolen undoubtedly (and foreseeably) motivated these people. But I don't think what he said can be fairly read as advocating what happened. There was no threat whatsoever of the government being overthrown. Trump and people like him will ultimately find a way around these actions. And once they do they will cease to be effective. Individual states can probably step in and ban this sort of thing. And I fully expect most Red States to have done so by the end of the year. These tools should be preserved for a true emergency. Which this isn't. The right solution to the issue of disinformation is changing libel laws. NYT vs Sullivan was probably a mistake. And several states have criminal libel laws that could have plausibly been applied here.