First, the 2-post tweet in question from Trump:
For the first time ever, Twitter posted a fact-check link immediately under both halves of this tweet with an execlamation point and a link that reads "Get the facts about mail-in ballots." When you click on that link, you are taken to this page:There is NO WAY (ZERO!) that Mail-In Ballots will be anything less than substantially fraudulent. Mail boxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged & even illegally printed out & fraudulently signed. The Governor of California is sending Ballots to millions of people, anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there, will get one. That will be followed up with professionals telling all of these people, many of whom have never even thought of voting before, how, and for whom, to vote. This will be a Rigged Election. No way!
https://twitter.com/i/events/1265330601034256384
The headline is "Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud" and it goes on to say that:
There's quite a bit more stuff on this so-called "fact-check" page. Go read it....interesting stuff.On Tuesday, President Trump made a series of claims about potential voter fraud after California Governor Gavin Newsom announced an effort to expand mail-in voting in California during the COVID-19 pandemic. These claims are unsubstantiated, according to CNN, Washington Post and others. Experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud.
Now...the response from the Trump administration? An executive order...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/twitter ... weets.htmlAccording to a draft of the order obtained by CNBC, Trump would direct the Federal Communications Commission to propose and clarify regulations of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. It would also encourage the Federal Trade Commission to take action against companies engaging in “deceptive” acts of communication. The working draft of the order cites Twitter by name.
The statute targeted in the executive order is commonly criticized by lawmakers across the political spectrum for shielding Big Tech companies from liability for their users’ content. Section 230 was created to allow online platforms to engage in “good Samaritan” moderation of “objectionable” material without being treated like a publisher or speaker. In effect, some conservatives have claimed, it also allows them to get away with removing political views they object to. Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook have vigorously denied such accusations.
Ahead of the White House’s announcement about the executive order, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said he would introduce legislation “to end these special government giveaways.” He’s previously introduced a bill that would grant companies the liability protection if they submitted to audits to ensure their algorithms and content-removal practices are “politically neutral.
“If @Twitter wants to editorialize & comment on users’ posts, it should be divested of its special status under federal law (Section 230) & forced to play by same rules as all other publishers,” Hawley wrote in a tweet.
========================================
My thoughts
First, Twitter is a privately owned company. I believe they have the legal right to respond in any way they see fit to any of its users' posts. It is really no different than MW on this site responding to any post by anybody in any of these otherwise public forums.
Now that said, I don't think Twitter should be in the business of directly engaging in political debate with any politicians, let alone the President (who is up for re-election). That should be up to the opposition party and their supporters, NOT the platform itself. Their so-called "Fact-Check" page reads more like something you would see put out by an opposing political party's campaign than a neutral strictly fact-based response. This page loses credibility for me the moment Twitter cite's CNN, of all sources, as its FIRST fact-check source. I mean seriously? CNN? That network is vehemently anti-Trump and as yellow as journalism gets, and they're who you cite to challenge the truth of one of the President's statements? That to me is beyond unbelievable.
It is also fair to point out that there is a big difference between an "unsubstantiated" claim and a "proven false" claim. Is the new burden on politicians moving forward (or at least, Republicans) that every post on twitter must be able to be proven to be true? Since when did Twitter become the arbitror of truth?
Bottom line is I think Twitter was way out of line here. They're effectively filling the shoes of the Joe Biden campaign, and doing something even Biden can't do - posting a link directly below one of the President's posts. Even Mark Zuckerberg this morning said that social media should not be in the business of fact-checking the President.