But here's the thing: that's fine! I can see why people would think that Constitutional protections of individual free speech apply on social media, but regardless of if you think they do or not, then adding editorial content to the posts should be protected as well.
Do you think the 1st amendment protects your posts because they're "speech"? Yes? Then Twitter also has free speech on it's own platform, even if it's biased.
Do you think the 1st amendment does not protect your posts, because Twitter is a private company? Yes? Then Twitter is also allowed to say whatever it wants on it's own private platform.
There's a difference between censoring, which is a whole other discussion, and adding editorial or fact-checking content, and I just don't see how anyone can argue that Twitter can't do the latter.
edit: there's also a difference in individual free speech and companies having free speech, but I think Trump is the last person who can make a stand on the idea that commercial interests can't be operated based on individual preferences.
One key quote:
> On California, Twitter is right that Mr. Trump is wrong. But on voter fraud, it’s complicated. There isn’t evidence of widespread fraud in mail voting. That doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. Last year a close House election in North Carolina was thrown out because of accusations that a Republican operative illegally collected absentee ballots, including incomplete ballots that his workers allegedly filled in. Investigators then also charged him with doing similar funny business in 2016.
They have been and will continue to "fact check" liberals and democrats too.
This reminds me of the dishonest framing of the IRS supposedly targeting conservative non profits for audits.
Yes, it is true Obama's DOJ targeted these groups.
What you'll never hear from the GOP talking points is that the IRS also targeted liberal groups for the same audits.