(05-30-2020, 08:54 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:

(05-30-2020, 08:44 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: By saying other questionable tweets by public figures should receive the same scrutiny as Trump's, what exactly have I "validated?"

Let's expand on this....

1. What is the criteria to be considered a public figure?
2. How many followers must a user have to qualify for "fact checking"?

Answer those questions yourself. What do you think the bar should be? 

Shouldn't be at all difficult to decide for a tech company that has easy access to broad ranging analytics of it's content and subscribership. It's just a matter of how far down the totem pole you wish to apply the fact check.  

You could say "any person who holds public office and has over 200K followers (random number) and also any public figure (political or otherwise) with more than 1 million followers. (another random number) 
Then you could go on to apply the fact check option to any posts by any joe-scmhoe that is re-tweeted and reaches more than 2 million people. (another random number)

---

(05-30-2020, 08:55 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote:

(05-30-2020, 08:54 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: Twitter isn't "media" by legal definition.  And suggesting unbiased (and optional to click upon) fact check links to all such questionable tweets  (from any public figure) is not in any way akin to "state controlled media." LOL

You are reeeeeaaaaaching.

Its media now....that's what this whole thing is about...

You saying it doesn't make it so. 

Just like Trump's e.o. doesn't accomplish anything due to section 230 protection.

---