[12elephant]

There is no objective "ethically correct" anything.

You'll say one thing is "ethically correct", and someone else will say the exact opposite thing is "ethically correct".

Neither of you is right, and neither of you is wrong.

[mthoms]

Given limited resources, you don't think it's undeniably "ethically correct" to direct those resources where they are more effective?

[12elephant]

It doesn't matter what I think. My point is that ethics are subjective, not objective.

[mthoms]

Let me word it another way then.

Given limited resources, don't you think it's undeniably correct to direct those resources where they are more effective?

[12elephant]

Depends on what's being done with those resources.

Example 1 - Drumming up support for a war with Iran. No it's not correct to direct resources to where they are most effective. (According to me.)

Example 2 - Trying to get homeless people in SF back on their feet. Yes, direct resources where they are most effective. (Again, according to me.)

But in example 1 if we ask the same question to a war hawk in congress, they'll give you the exact opposite answer. In example 2 if you ask Ayn Rand, again you'll get a different answer.

No one is objectively right or wrong in any of these cases.

[mthoms]

Quite clearly the question implied "all other things being equal" or "all other factors aside", "what would you do?".

It's funny. I went out of my way to de-politicize the question in order to further the discussion and you promptly re-politicized it in order to muddy it. I suspect it's because you know exactly what I'm getting at. You've avoided the core question no less than 3 times already.

I'll try one more time. Please resist the temptation to play word games or make it political:

If Twitter has limited fact-checking capabilities is it not correct — regardless of politics — to direct those resources where they are more effective?

Therefore (again, regardless of politics), Twitter's actions follow perfectly reasonable logic: that Trump's Tweets would face more scrutiny than say, mine.

Thus, your claim that "the rules are being enforced selectively" can easily be accounted for by Occams Razor: It makes perfect sense that more visible accounts face more scrutiny. It would be highly illogical for Twitter to do otherwise.

https://www.dictionary.com/e/pop-culture/occams-razor/

[12elephant]

I was never talking about fact checking. I'm taking issue to your casting morality as objective.

It is not.

That is all.

[sagichmal]

> There is no objective "ethically correct" anything.

That's correct. Luckily, objectivity is not necessary.