(05-30-2020, 08:14 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(05-30-2020, 07:04 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: Look, I hate Trump as much as anybody, and I would love to see his tweets fact-checked, but in this case, I think he is right.  Twitter cannot start fact-checking without admitting that it is not just "manufacturing the paper on which the news is printed."  Once they start controlling what is printed on that "paper," they are should be treated the same as if they were the New York Times or Fox News, and subject to the same set of rules and regulations.  

It's a tricky situation.  People have been urging Facebook to start regulating content for several years, and Facebook has resisted because they understand this issue.  Once you start regulating content, you become liable for content.

Adding a link beneath a tweet that leads readers to several articles from a variety of sources on the topic so that they may decide for themselves whether it's accurate is not "controlling what is printed." 
It is walking a bit of a tightrope over it though. 

It's like flagging a tweet as "possible BS." 
Sort of  like when your phone reads "potential spam" for an unknown number.  You're free to answer the call and find out if it's your aunt Sally or just another a scam re-fi offer.

I think adding a link is exercising control over what is printed.  It introduces bias into the content, because the Twitter fact checkers have to decide which tweets deserve a fact-check.  Twitter has a perfect right to do this, to be sure.  Twitter has a First Amendment right to be as biased as they want.  But at that point, they are a publisher like any other publisher, and they have resisted that legal classification, because they don't want any legal liability for what gets published on their platform.   

I think a court would agree with me.

---