[tekknik]

It’s not a question of laws used, more psychological factors. Some people seeing those statements made by twitter may believe them blindly. We need people reading into important topics like this and forming opinions without being bated. Part of the problem you’ll also see in this thread. The downvotes here set the tone for the comment the viewer is about to read. Why is it’s view changed at all? Nothing this commenter said was offensive yet on some sites their comment would be hidden entirely.

[sixstringtheory]

What statement was made by Twitter that could be followed blindly? All I saw was "Get the facts about mail in ballots".

You can only infer a bias on that based on your own preconceived notion about Twitter's biases. A completely ignorant and unbiased individual may just as likely think "Twitter wants to show me why Trump is right" as they are to think "Twitter wants to show me why Trump is wrong".

If you really want to have people

> reading into important topics like this and forming opinions without being bated (sic)

then you should be all for this kind of neutrally positioned link to more information. I'm certainly open to entertaining alternatives, though.

[tekknik]

The existence of the link in the first place. You have to be pretty far removed from reality to not know Twitter execs have a left lean to their bias. So the a completely unbiased person will notice that only some tweets show this link and could build a bias based on other psychological factors, such as wanting acceptance from a seemingly majority of peers.

I am for neutrality. I’m also a realist. IFF they could pull this off universally, in that all tweets are subject to these same fact checks, then I’m all for it. Removing personal biases of the person doing the fact checks will be a challenge but we can achieve this through multiple fact checkers with specific biases. Like the bulls and bears statements you find with stocks. But we cannot achieve this, we lack both the peoplepower and technology given Twitters scale. Short of it being universally applied to all accounts it can’t meet the definition of neutral. Therefor, don’t do it at all. Instead someone else using Twitter can reply to his tweets with the fact check. This keeps Twitters hands and potential biases entirely out of a very complicated topic.

[Dylan16807]

> You have to be pretty far removed from reality to not know Twitter execs have a left lean to their bias.

Is that why they only remove nazis if you set your location to germany? That's bias to the... left?

[tekknik]

I mean are you really trying to argue the Twitter execs are right leaning?

[Dylan16807]

I don't know about what they do in their personal lives, but the actions I've seen applied to the site itself don't seem to be left leaning.

[tekknik]

Well, they have posted many times on their position on Trump, which is a left leaning position. Then, rather quickly they throw this fact check on one of his tweets. Regardless of what their actual intents were the actions to me look a bit shady. Especially since the fact check comes down to “no evidence”, which is completely different then proven false.