Huh? “Privately owned social media platform has too much control over what people are allowed to say using their privately owned social media platform.”
That’s like saying “homeowner has too much control over what people are allowed to say inside of own home.”
It’s their platform. They are allowed to fame any version of “truth” they want. No one is stopping victims of Twitter’s tyranny from voicing their views in any other means they have available to them.
If Twitter announced tomorrow that they were going to retool as a conservative site and would only allow conservative voices on their platform…would that be illegal in any way?
The issue with Microsoft was them integrating Internet Explorer into Windows… not that Windows was the most popular OS. The complaints of Twitter being a monopoly are really complaints that Twitter is too popular.
It would seem that many on the right want the government to step in and create some sort of doctrine that will require fairness by the popular social media platforms.
Facebok employees collected evidence showing preferential treatment of right wing figures. FB policy ppl removed misinfo strikes from Breitbart, PragerU, and Diamond & Silk, according to internal docs. And FB fired a key employee who gathered info:
FB’s policy says publishers must contact a fact checker that gives the rating if they want to dispute it.
But the docs show that people such as VP of global public policy Joel Kaplan have intervened on behalf of conservatives like Charlie Kirk. In some cases checks were removed
A Facebook employee also posted about what internal data showed about Breitbart:
“A Breitbart escalation marked ‘urgent: end of day’ was resolved on the same day, with all misinformation strikes against Breitbart’s page and against their domain cleared without explanation."
