No, the story simply had very little evidence and so had no definitive claims, but for now there is no evidence that those email where planted by foreign agents nor that the content of the laptop was falsified (for example while the Biden campaign dismissed the story they never claimed the emails to be false).
Moreover a witness that was part of that email thread confirmed the conclusion reached in the original story.
That was blocked for privacy violations. And Twitter allowed discussion of the story, just not hotlinks to the story itself which was publishing stolen private content.
We all live in a society that functions the way it does (for good and bad) because we have some shared foundational beliefs in something like democracy. While I have mixed opinions about digital censorship in general, it should not be surprising for a (quasi)democratic society that values free speech to silence those in power who would encourage large groups to question those core values.
This is especially true since western society regularly tries to interpret and judge intent along with what people say, and it has judged that Trump's intent is self-serving and not an honest disagreement, and as a result it has deemed it at least somewhat acceptable to censor him.
This isn't some philosophy or political science class. We are a Constitutional Republic which is a fancy way of saying that we are a type of democracy. One which the POTUS swore an oath to uphold.
Why is it inherently good? If we import 50 million poor people what do you think would appeal to them? Why wouldn't large groups just vote themselves access to other people's wealth? If 51% of people vote to steer a ship into an iceberg should this be accepted because of democracy?
Democracy is a religion, look at Singapore and China and compare them to the West.
I don't know that the /worst/ time to start a conversation about ending the practice of voting for office is when you're losing an elected office, but it's pretty bad.
If he doesn't like it Trump can start his own site where he can say whatever he wants. There's no reason Twitter can't moderate his posts however they see fit, and in fact his position as elected official shielded him from most normal consequences of his behavior.
Consider how judges around the country have responded to his campaign's legal filings, it's not like Twitter was out on a limb here.
All of these networks and forums would be >99.9999% spam if they couldn't do editorial discretion. And they have almost all long taken down anti-Semitic posts, etc. so they don't turn into a cesspool of hate.
Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet.
It is somewhat similar to choosing a title for a article, even if you leave the content unchanged you can significantly change the message or the effect by choosing an appropriate title.
In this context twitter is not simply recommending accounts you might like, or refusing to deliver tweets, they are actually engaging with the speech of the user.
As an analogy consider someone that retweets and article discussing some crimes. this person post a link and says: "I can't believe Person A is actually a murderer", in this case regardless of the article content the poster is exposed to a potential lawsuit in case Person A can prove its innocence.
Twitter is closer to this example that to simply choosing to remove content.
(specifically this does not apply to the removed trump tweets)
>Editorializing is twitter reading the tweet, deciding whether it is true or false, and then showing their decision to the end user together with the tweet.
Nope, that is simply not what editorializing means, in any sense of the word.
Twitter stating a categorically true fact or linking to a resource that debunks factually incorrect statements is not editorializing because they are not giving an opinion. They are adding context with verifiable truths. Which, again, not editorializing because stating a truth is not an opinion.
I'm sure you can dream up all sorts of hypotheticals that makes this sound problematic, such as implying twitter are the ones deciding something is true or false. They don't need to decide that, they just need to recognise a statement as false and then add clarification. If Trump's tweets had any kind of ambiguity then maybe what you say has credence, but that isn't the reality of the situation.
Prepending a warning with twitter decision is editorializing. The fact that they _intend_ to state objective truth is not relevant.
I my example so did the user that shared an article on a murder.
Now, I believe twitter was careful enough not to do anything too stupid, and we all can imagine that Trump's tweet might have been quite extreme. But fact checking in-place is editorializing.
Illegal content, in however the courts have agreed what 'illegal' means. Also spam, to what a reasonable person would consider spam -- and a political opinion isn't spam.
There's a case to be made that Twitter has taken on some of the old role of the press by calling out obviously factually incorrect statements.
I'm all for this. But I'd like to see it formalised in law with criminal penalties for anyone, in any position of public influence, who wilfully tries to mislead the public.
What is true and false? We do not live in a binary world. There are nuances. Facebook recently flagged Palestinian speech. Are Palestinians true/false to object to their position in the world?
The specific example of Trumps behavior in question is objectively false.
Lets not talk about two different situations at the same time. It is perfectly possible to make an appropriate decision and then an inappropriate one; one does not necessarily obviate the other.
Well they have the platform, so they have the power. But more substantively: by applying universal norms such as "lying is wrong" they don't have to make moral judgments, just factual evaluations.
The classic analogy is that a person shouldn't be allowed to shout "FIRE" and thereby cause panic in a crowded theater, when there is no such fire. The right of the one person to (falsely) speak is outweighed by the right of the many people present to their own safety.
Trump saying "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" [1] is clearly equivalent to shouting "FIRE". He has not won the election, he does not have more popular votes or more electoral college votes, and he has presented no proof or substantive argument to contradict this narrative.
That Twitter should put a warning label on statements from powerful people that are objectively false is really the least they can do. To let Trump spread lies without any comment before now has been wholly irresponsible. I wish that Twitter didn't provide a platform for misinformation in the first place.
I'd like to point out that "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a rhetorical analogy that was invented to justify the suppression of legitimate political speech. (Namely to silence opposition to the draft.)
That's true, and was obviously an overreach in 1919. That it was dialed back in 1969 to limit banning speech likely to incite a riot is much more reasonable to my mind.
I do not think it is unreasonable to assume Trump stating he had won was actually an attempt to incite riots and looting. He seems to really enjoy chaos. Into the history books by hook or crook.
> Trump saying "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" [1] is clearly equivalent to shouting "FIRE".
No, it’s not equivalent at all because it doesn’t present any immediate danger. The reason yelling “fire” is a problem is not because it’s a lie, it’s because it requires immediate and possibly dangerous behavior (evacuate as quickly as possible).
There was a bomb threat in Philly yesterday. His speech is dangerous and he should be shut down if it is inciting similar violence and factually false (which it is.) There are armed protestors in Airzona outside of poll counting places:
The limits you're talking about have always been enforced by governments because, ya know, the people agreed those were reasonable. We actually get a say in what our standards of speech actually are.
Not an unelected king who rules by fiat on a platform used by 10's or hundreds of millions of people.
This is Twitter as a company and the people running it choosing what they feel is right or wrong. We can endlessly argue if they should do it, but it is well within their rights to do so anyway.
I wish Hacker News would do the same... Any lie in the name of "sarcasm" which is not explicitly labeled such should be flagged. There is too much of a chance of translation issues not making it clear that the lie is intended for "humor".
Being _unable_ to censor the president is what would be anti-democratic. Only in authoritarian regimes would a leader be able to force private companies to spread their message.
In a democratic country, you have the freedom to choose what you want to support and not support.
There is no democracy on a privately owned platform. Trump can say what he wants, but Twitter absolutely has a choice what, if anything, they allow to be published on their platform.
FWIW, Trump's time on Twitter is winding down. The only reason he hasn't received the ban-hammer from Twitter is his unique position as an elected official. January 20th shortly after noon, he will no longer exist on Twitter.
> There is no democracy on a privately owned platform.
Interesting. Would the right-wing be better off if Twitter were a government-owned entity, thus ensuring that their right to free speech would always allow unfettered access? Would we ever be able to convince them to trust the government enough that that was actually the case? Would they be able to overcome their impulse in favor of privatization over nationalization to allow something like that to happen?
