Also, in this case no one is being censored. It's not like the president isn't allowed to post and is having his "freedom of speech" taken away. This is more like his speech is being responded to, and he doesn't like that others can challenge what he's saying. The very antithesis of free speech.
> Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them, calling it “an expensive process.” The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals.
These sorts of "fact checks" are blatant horse shit that always go in one direction. Some "challenge", the very antithesis of any sort of good faith discussion on the facts.
How should this work exactly? In addition to the reply system - someone can post a reply, to which others can in turn reply - we have a fact-check system - someone can post a fact-check which others can in turn fact-check? Isn't that kind of redundant?
The entire point of the "fact-check" - and what people object to - is the privileged position, that makes direct replies impossible.
Other people aren't able to just slap a fact check directly on anyone's tweet, that all other viewers of the tweet are exposed to with or without clicking through to replies.
If you have something to say in good faith, let me know.
Your argument seems to be that substandard fact checkers exist, so all fact checkers are substandard. I don’t see how it follows. In this case, it’s extremely well documented (and there is bipartisan agreement) that mail in ballots are not a substantial source of fraud.
States that allow no excuse mail in ballots are evenly split between red and blue.
Do you have a specific critique of statements Twitter made in this case?
I don't use Twitter, so I couldn't point out a specific tweet. But offhand, let's say any tweet accusing the Trump campaign of collusion with Russia. I'm sure there are hundreds.
