Classic Trump. He does nothing, claims he’s victorious and his fans eat it up.

IIRC, they are not liable if they just host the comments, not if they endorse them. I guess every comment without a "fake /dubious" label is true?

(Cause I'm about to drink a gallon of bleach and eat 2 lbs of raw garlic to ward off Covid as per a tweet's instruction ;) (joking) )

Even if they were the publisher in this scenario and were liable for his comment AND their annotation, there is nothing illegal about it.

I don't think the executive action targets the fact check label on Trump's tweet specifically. I think Twitter did something that really pissed Trump off and Trump is using Section 230 as leverage and a way to extend the narrative of "Twitter is plotting against me so don't believe everything you read."

This is neither here nor there but I have considered my self a republican for the last 28 years of my life. This president's actions make me feel physically ill.

Twitter could put "Everything trump says is false!" underneath every Trump tweet and it would still be perfectly legal.

People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.

How does adding a link prevent anyone, let alone the most powerful person in history, from communicating?

> People have a right to communicate, if a few platforms have the power to block all communication maybe they should be.

Hm.... I don't see how Twitter is preventing anyone from the right to communicate, nor do I sense that Twitter has the power, even if it worked with the next 3 largest social media platforms, to "block all communications." Last I checked, the internet would still exist if Twitter, Facebook, and Linkedin shut down.

So, some kind of socialized national communication place?

Either they're a public utility or they have control (and thus should have some degree of liability) for what is transmitted/published on their platform. They can't eat their cake and have it too!

Platforms have removed harmful content, for example terrorist propaganda or child pornography with 230 protections intact and governments appeared to welcome it so I think you can actually have your cake and eat it too, or at least you could until you fact checked Republicans I suppose

Platforms both enjoy first amendment protection to moderate their platforms as they see fit as well as protection from liability under 230. They are not mutually exclusive, and platforms have been moderating their content for decades. In fact most online communities could not even function if they had no right to moderate.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-no...

They _are_ liable for many things published on their platform. And they are also allowed to moderate content in whatever way they want. I don't see a problem as you are free to go start your own platform and presumably it would be popular if this many people have a problem with the existing censorship.

This honestly seems to be the model that Republicans have been pining for all along, they just don't like that they or their supporters are falling victim to its design.