See, I don't get this controversy.
Hate speech should be restricted and fact checking fake news is something that the right wingers in USA have been screaming for more than 4 years by now. Just because it is the president doing those things should not make him immune to repercussions.
And if you're going to go with "just let him lie and spear hate speech, this is a public discussion and other more reliable sources should debate him over it instead of being silenced" then there are several things to consider:
a) If the president of USA is the one spreading misinformation, how many people are going to believe him because of his position? Especially when this misinformation he spreads has a risk to leading to deaths, it would be reckless to not fact check him immediately.
b) Hate speech is harmful and should be stopped. It appears that the POTUS is above the law so no legal repercussions are coming for him for stuff like threatening to have people killed if they protest. At the very least Twitter should treat users equally and silence open hate speech as it is a clear rules violation.
c) As for Trump needing to use Twitter because it is his de-facto platform for speaking to people and even setting govenrment policies, he has other platforms. He is a president and if he wants to release statements to be seen by people, he has a huge number of people who have been hired to enable him to do things like that and claiming that Twitter silencing him is the same as it would be for the random citizen is just plain wrong. If I get my social media accounts shut down I can't call a random TV station and get an immediate interview (or tell my people to do that for me.) If dissidents in Hong Kong get their internet blacked out they can't reach people outside Hong Kong to call attention to their plight. Trump has several platforms that he can use including some that are directly under the control of the government.
1. I'm not against fact-checking on principle, I just think it should be done accurately and without bias. Twitter ignored multiple lies from Chinese officials about the Wuhan coronavirus having been introduced to China by the American military, and Ali Khameni's claims that it was a Zionist plot.
2. I don't know where you're from, but in my country, we recognize the right to say things that may be offensive, because we understand that putting up with unpleasant speech is preferable to giving the government power to decide what can and can't be said (with exceptions like defamation and incitement). And Twitter admitted in an email to the White House that the tweet didn't violate any rules.
3. You think this is just about Trump? Or even mostly about him? No, I'm far more concerned about people who don't have the advantages that he does.
2. Censorship? From my understanding, this is a revocation of Section 230 in response to Twitter acting as a publisher and editorializing by means of selective moderation. If that's the case, then it's merely enforcement of legislation as written. If Twitter wants to act as a publisher by curating content and deciding who gets to say and see said content, then they have to give up their safe harbor protections.
Free speech != nobody gets to dispute that I might be wrong. You're not being censored by having an opposing view presented alongside yours.
Trump was not prevented from saying what he wanted to say (including spreading lies about Joe Scarborough--not that I have any love for that wingnut, but nonetheless Trump has been lying about him). Further Twitter did not control who got to see the content he posted regarding the Minneapolis riots which they blocked, since any user could click through if they chose. (When it's not a politician they just delete the tweet, which makes it a pretty damn blatant double-standard in favour of people like Trump.)
Like I said, I don't really care about the fact-checking itself. It's just a symptom of a bigger problem.
As for the "double standard in favor of politicians"... outright deleting tweets by politicians could very easily be construed as interfering with government processes. I don't blame Twitter for not wanting to open up that can of worms.
Also, actual news reporters are getting arrested or shot at by police in USA.
HOLY HECKING CARP! *THAT* is an infringement of your first amendment and where are all those "first amendment inspectors" now?
Right here. You think I'm not against that? Unlike some people, I'm consistent in my principles. Much as I think CNN is full of shit, Jimenez and his crew did nothing to warrant the cops' response.
Yes, I recognize that private companies have the legal right to not let themselves be associated with unsavory speech... unless they're being used as public spaces. The SCOTUS ruled that a company town may technically be private property, but because it's used as a public space, it has to allow first amendment protections. And nobody can tell me with a straight face that Twitter is not being used as a public space. I don't give a shit about who these social media companies are biased in favor of, just how much power they have over public discourse.
At the end of the day twitter is a business. A business that makes its money through advertisements and celebrity endorsements. It's shown in the past that if a platform allows hate speech or controversial statements that advertisers will take their business elsewhere. As a corporation they only care about money. Conservatives decided a long time ago that corporations are people too and that money equals speech so that corps could legally donate to their campaigns. So if companies like hobby lobby can take on a religious affiliation to keep women from getting birth control. Twitter can decide how information is presented on their platform.
Weren't you against authoritarian libertarianism just a few days ago? I have zero sympathy for genuine haters who get censored, but when push comes to shove, I'm going to bite the bullet and defend their right to use de facto public platforms to spread their bullshit, even if it kills me inside to do so.
Not to mention how Twitter doesn't apply its rules rules consistently, and sometimes censors and cracks down on completely innocuous stuff, like their recent suspension of Imam Tawhidi for sharing an anti-terrorism cartoon.
And again, I feel like you're misunderstanding my positions. I'm not a conservative and I'm against corporate personhood.
There's a Twitter alternative called Gab that's run by groypers, and as you can probably imagine, it has a strong hard-right bias that tends to manifest as having double standards against left-wingers. If it were Gab that were the ubiquitous social media site, rather than Twitter, would you still be against the government forcing social media sites to choose between abiding by the first amendment and keeping their safe harbor protections?
Fact of the matter is, Dorsey had every opportunity to walk back on the censorship and double standards. But out of stubbornness, pride, insanity or just plain foolishness, he doubled down. Say what you will about Zuckerberg, at least he had the good sense to change course when it became clear the feds weren't going to stop breathing down his neck unless he did. To be frank, after all of Twitter's double standards and flouting regulations, I hope Trump shoves the long dick of the law so far up Dorsey's ass he spends the next twenty years coughing up jizz.
Gonna ignore the comments that were posted in the meantime, because they don't have anything substantive to say pertaining to the topic that I haven't already discussed.
