[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.