According to Twitter, the reasons they added the warning to Trump's tweet as as follows:
- Trump claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.
- Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.
- Five states already vote entirely by mail and all states offer some form of mail-in absentee voting, according to NBC News.
Also, keep in mind that Twitter did not add the warning just because they thought the information was incorrect. They added the warning because they believe it was incorrect AND because they felt it's purpose was "manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes" (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-inte...).
I'm not sure how I feel about points 1 and 3, but point number 2 seems like a pretty fair reason to label the tweet with the warning, IMO. Trump provided factually incorrect information about voter registration to his millions of followers.
I agree I don't want them to decided what is right and wrong, but if they hold themselves to the rules of only labeling confirmed incorrect information about civic processes. I have no problem with what they are doing.
> The people made the platform successful, let the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction.
That's not what is happening anymore though. Large chunks of Twitter are not run by "the people" anymore. Twitter is in an endless battle with large groups of bots designed to present carefully curated misinformation as organic.
It's easy to say Twitter should just be hands-off and let the people decide, but that isn't an option unless your definition of "the people" is small special interest groups who have paid bot farms to push their message.
This is the conclusion I think I am coming to on this issue. So long as only verifiable facts are presented as a counter point, then it isn't really even editorializing, let alone censorship. Editorializing is defined as presenting an opinion - if you present a verifiable primary data source and nothing else, you are by definition not editorializing.
- Trump claimed that mail-in ballots would lead to "a Rigged Election." However, fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud.
- Trump falsely claimed that California will send mail-in ballots to "anyone living in the state, no matter who they are or how they got there." In fact, only registered voters will receive ballots.
- Five states already vote entirely by mail and all states offer some form of mail-in absentee voting, according to NBC News.
Also, keep in mind that Twitter did not add the warning just because they thought the information was incorrect. They added the warning because they believe it was incorrect AND because they felt it's purpose was "manipulating or interfering in elections or other civic processes" (https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/election-inte...).
I'm not sure how I feel about points 1 and 3, but point number 2 seems like a pretty fair reason to label the tweet with the warning, IMO. Trump provided factually incorrect information about voter registration to his millions of followers.
I agree I don't want them to decided what is right and wrong, but if they hold themselves to the rules of only labeling confirmed incorrect information about civic processes. I have no problem with what they are doing.
> The people made the platform successful, let the people decide what is wrong and what is right, what is true and what is false, what is fact is and what is fiction.
That's not what is happening anymore though. Large chunks of Twitter are not run by "the people" anymore. Twitter is in an endless battle with large groups of bots designed to present carefully curated misinformation as organic.
It's easy to say Twitter should just be hands-off and let the people decide, but that isn't an option unless your definition of "the people" is small special interest groups who have paid bot farms to push their message.