As long as the sources can be checked, challenged, and counter-opinions can be voiced, I personally don't think it matters that much. It's the blind acceptance of statements and accusations that match our existing world view that we need to combat, I think.
In other words, we just need more speech, not more restrictions on speech.
-- reply to below because I'm restricted and at comment limit (ironic, eh?)
> Isn't that exactly what Twitter did? They left the speech up, and added a note below it expressing their opinion that a particular link demonstrates that the tweet was not factual.
Anybody can reply to a comment on twitter and cite the facts, and people can reply to those comments and contest or argue them. The specific difference is Twitter's "fact checking box" cannot be replied to - which makes them the ministry of truth.
All Twitter had to do was create a @twitterfactchecks handle and reply to the posts in question - perhaps promoting their reply to the top so that it is most visible, but then people could reply to @twitterfactchecks contesting their opinion (a fact check is always an opinion, if you didn't get what I was hinting at above.)
> Anybody can reply to a comment on twitter and cite the facts, and people can reply to those comments and contest or argue them. The specific difference is Twitter's "fact checking box" cannot be replied to - which makes them the ministry of truth.
Surely you see the irony of your trying to regulate how Twitter formats their free speech on their own platform?
