You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all. I think you should learn how to follow a conversation.

If a utility company is privately owned and it's denying service because you have 'different opinion about utility prices' thus threatening your life will you stand it?

> You can talk to your boss and face consequences, but we're talking about the case of not being able to talk at all.

No, we're not. Trump's tweets are still there. He retains the ability to post. All Twitter did was exercise their own free speech by adding a note below it.

Yeah, how about your speech being marked retarded every time? The court has this power and it can declare a person incompetent. But does twitter have this kind of authority?

Also I was not talking about the link being left, I was talking about your account terminated.

There's no inherent right to go unchallenged when raising unsubstantiated claims. Providing facts-checking can be seen as a service in those cases where it is important that the public make informed decisions based on facts. Social media has been mandated to combat fake news, and this is within their mandate, as well as outright banning any person or post on their private platform.

It may be good to raise the issue how much power social media should have, but please don't conflate the issue with personal vendettas of some public figures, or too much toleration of relativistic alternative facts.

hey! if fact-checking is a service, they could un-bundle it. Let the user choose! Let Twitter and Facebook and etc be platforms after all!

>It may be good to raise the issue how much power social media should have

I was specifically talking about this issue and it's the commentators that went to "personal vendettas or introduction of relativistic alternative facts."