[k32]

> This is precisely why it's important that Twitter calls out when things are stated as fact without evidence.

Twitter is a platform for stating things as fact without evidence. 120 (or whatever it is now) character limit is not suitable for having cogent conversations.

[onion2k]

For what it's worth the limit is 280 characters. Your entire post, including the quote, would fit with room to spare. Tweets aren't that short.

As for posting without space to have a cogent conversation, sure I can accept that. The answer is to not post that thing on Twitter. It isn't to just have the conversation anyway and ignore the fact that you're not providing evidence behind what you're saying. Twitter's 'censorship' of their platform doesn't stop anyone posting on different platforms that allow longer posts.

[Out_of_Characte]

"Twitter's 'censorship' of their platform doesn't stop anyone posting on different platforms that allow longer posts."

We're talking within the scopes of twitter as a communicative platform. Wether or not other platforms exist and how much more or less censorship and tokens you get is irrelivant to the discussion on wether it is morally right for twitter to flag tweets it deems 'misinformation' Twitter as a platform has no register of what they can and cannot judge. Twitter does not replicate ANY evidence on what they call misinformation. Twitter does not even provide proof on what they call misinformation. Just the label at the bottom. Twitter also categorises criticism on mainstream 'facts' as the same 'misinformation'

How would you like HN if ITT everyone disagreed with twitter censorship and you would be labelled on every post ITT as 'misinformation'? would you think that constitutes as a usefull HN guideline?