All because of a private company tagging misinformation designed to disenfranchise voters on their own platform.<p>Here's the actual EO because of the paywall: <a href="https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-Preventing-Online-Censorship.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://kateklonick.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/DRAFT-EO-...</a><p>It's another attention grab to distract from the real issues. Something like >75% of restaurants in my small town aren't expected to survive. This isn't doing them any good.
Twitter didn't censor anything - they didn't remove the tweet, nor did they censor any of the text in the tweet. Not that the facts matter here anyway...
Are there really no non-editorial ways Twitter could have addressed the factual errors? I don’t see the rationale behind picking this fight after so many years, at least in this way.
When Twitter's CEO decided to enter the political game by picking sides this was bound to happen.<p>And before anyone starts accusing me of being pro-Trump, I'm not a US citizen, I've never been to the States, I do personally believe that most of the times he says things that are not by the book or that are just plain wrong (but the "duty" of a politician is not to say the correct things or to do the right thing, it is to get re-elected) but nevertheless I do believe that the mail-voting thing is prone to electoral fraud.<p>I know for sure that were they to suggest a similar thing in my country (I live in Eastern Europe) I'd probably get out on the streets to protest against it (we've had our own share of electoral fraud in our recent history, like "making" dead people vote).