Swisher instead proposes that tweets considered fake (by an independent jury) be deleted, as social networks do with fake news. Here, however, it is the US president, who has 80 million followers and uses Twitter as his main means of communication. “But Trump is shamelessly making fun of social rules, so eliminating some of his hideous messages will make it clear that certain behaviors are no longer tolerated,” concludes Swisher.
“Trump has no decency, it’s time for Twitter to show some. So far, he has tolerated his messages in the name of the public interest in not censoring world leaders. But one may wonder what the ‘public interest’ is, knowing that a disturbed man sits in the White House, “applauds Karen Tumulty in the Washington Post. Which, however, is Trump’s declared enemy newspaper.
And Twitter annoyed the president because he sanctioned his two incriminated messages (on the risk that the vote by correspondence is distorted) with an invitation to inquire precisely with links to the Post and CNN. Which Trump considers proponents of left-wing fake news, as he immediately replied in a further tweet, against the “Washington Post, Jeff Bezos newspaper [il miliardario proprietario anche di Amazon, ndr]”.
“We knew that the Silicon Valley giants would do anything to interfere with the election and prevent the president from communicating with the voters,” said Brad Parscale, Trump’s head of campaign for the November vote. And he declares war on Twitter: “Relying on the fact checkers of the media who peddle fake news is just a trick to provide false credibility to your clear political trend. For this reason, for months now we have removed our advertising from Twitter. In reality Twitter no longer accepts political advertising.
In the name of the first amendment to the Constitution, freedom of speech in the USA is sacred. “But Twitter is a private company, not a public place,” Kara Swisher objects. And Twitter itself now minimizes: “All messages that contain potentially misleading news are labeled, to add more information. We also did this on Coronavirus, to make it easier to research the facts and make informed decisions about what appears on Twitter, “say Yoel Roth and Nick Pickles, the managers of ‘integrity’ in the San Francisco multinational.
In reality, the Trump-Twitter clash took place, more than on the decision of the democratic California to allow the vote by mail (feared by the president), on a previous tweet in which Trump insinuated that his republican opponent, Joe Scarborough, former deputy and today TV host, was involved in the death of one of his collaborators in 2001. The furious widower of the lady asked Twitter to take action. Which in his case have not arrived, but a few hours later here is the label stuck to two new presidential tweets.
Cristiano Lima comments on Politician:
“Trump’s furious reaction against Twitter indicates that he and his Republican allies will be even more aggressive in the next five months of the election campaign. Senators Marco Rubio and Josh Hawley are now demanding that Twitter be removed from criminal immunity on the content of messages posted by anyone. Furthermore, by adding notices on Trump’s tweets, Twitter differs from Facebook, which has not labeled those same messages also posted on the Facebook presidential page. This could put Twitter in a more difficult position than its competitor towards the administration. “