
Twitter Is Wrong for Censoring and Fact Checking - perezbox
https://perezbox.com/2020/05/social-platforms-should-not-be-arbiters-of-truth/
======
schwartzworld
> A platform that chooses what is “right” and “wrong” is a platform that
> oversteps the their authority and breaks the bond between itself, the
> internet and its users. We don’t have to go too far in history to see what
> happens when a platform, body of people, are given that level power.

Ah, the old slippery slope argument. Whether or not Twitter has a
responsibility to fact check tweets, they absolutely have a right to do so.

Its too bad the author didn't give some examples to back up this boldly stated
opinion

~~~
afiori
In the specific example given in the article twitter was "fact" checking an
opinion with a different opinion.

Personally I would say that whether a tweet deserves a warning is mostly
independent on whether it is factually true. It is far too easy to lie with
only factually correct statements.

------
stormdennis
Something similar recently happened on the BBC where the presenter of
Newsnight unilaterally decided that her opinion on a political story was
important to the viewing public.

~~~
glimmung
The majority of the viewing public seemed to agree, and to consider her
perspective largely factual reporting rather than opinion. Many people were
more concerned by the preposterous defences of Cummings' stunt than his errors
of judgement themselves.

The partisan condemnation of her reporting, and the BBC's craven response,
have been widely ridiculed.

------
CompanionCuuube
Be careful what you wish for:

Facebook applies dubious “false info” fact-check label to Patriot Act video
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23356373](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23356373)

------
imustbeevil
Twitter is like a homeowner removing graffiti.

Your right not to be forced to publish someone else's words is a _more
important_ application of the first amendment than someone else's right to
force you to publish their words.

------
jugg1es
Sure, but if you're going to say that Twitter should not do any fact checking,
then they have to hold all users to the same ToS. Twitter is clearly not
holding Trump to the same standard as everyone else for 'news-worthiness'
reasons, but that means Twitter needs to then do some other sort of policing.

------
olliej
It absolutely is not.

If you're a major figure in international politics intentionally spouting
actual lies, then your lies should be exposed.

If you're encouraging violence your posts on a private medium then that
private company has every right to remove that content from their privately
owned platform.

This post said that they randomly "decided" to start enforcing the policies.
They've been enforcing them on everyone, just not Trump because he has
demonstrated time and again that he will threaten and penalize any company or
organization that doesn't act as a completely subordinate organization to him
personally.

Twitter has clearly had enough and decided to make him aware that he isn't a
special and unique snowflake. He doesn't get any special treatment. He doesn't
get to encourage violence. He doesn't get to outright lie to the public.

If he doesn't like those rules he can go off to 4chan, or dailystormer, or
wherever else he feels sufficiently safe and coddled.

~~~
tomohawk
And those people with the wrong skin color can just go to that other
restaurant that will accept them. This restaurant is a private establishment
and we have rules!

~~~
olliej
What on earth are you talking about?

No one is censoring him for his skin color, his religion, his beliefs, his
political view point.

He isn't being censored for being POTUS, or Republican, or anything else.

His false statements are being linked to "here are the actual facts"
documents. Those posts are still completely visible, there is no censoring, he
just not being given carte blanche permission to provide objectively false
information.

His threats of violence, and encouragement to that end are the only things
being hidden by default - you can still see them.

The latter is still not equivalent to your argument. Not even remotely.

I don't get to reject to serve someone because of their religion, gender,
orientation, or race. But if someone comes to my store and starts shouting
that we should harm other people, then yeah I do get to kick them out. There
is no debate here.

Racists and the like always love to compare suppression of threats and calls
to harm others to denying service to others on the basis of who they are.

Twitter doesn't kick nazis or homophobes off the platform. _Unless_ they start
calling for harms to others or actively state that other people don't have the
right to exist.

