What examples of this unfairness are being referred to? I never understand why journalist don't press harder and follow up with obvious questions. Same with "many people are saying" style statements.
The premise is also false - the shield from [liability] applies regardless of the political affiliation, motivation, or actions of the platform. He's trying to convince people that Twitter had some kind of duty to remain neutral, but they really don't. Twitter would have just as strong of a case under current law if they came out and said "yep, no conservative viewpoints allowed here."
At least it'd be clear if they said so, nothing worse than the current situation where they think it but won't say it because it'd be bad for business.
Some prominent conservatives have been banned from the platform, like Alex Jones, but it wasn't due to their views on Keynesian economics, it was for spreading outright lies about Sandy Hook.
Diving deeper into almost any of the examples that people dig up as 'anti-conservative bias' reveals trolling, hateful attacks, or other bad behavior, completely independent of the author's political views, and earnestly deserving of removal.
Are you a conservative yourself?
I'm gonna take a guess that you are not so how would you know?
It's a real question, no trick.
Since you're not a progressive, you can't counter my claim as there's no way you would know about any anti-progressive bias.
Now I can tell you as a conservative, because I experience it every day.
Here's an example:
I have 2 accounts, one that I use for politics and news, conservative leaning, WSJ, Thomas Sowell, Peter Robinson (Uncommon Knowledge), Kimberley Strassel... that brand of conservatism, not talking about the crazy alt-right shit here which I don't follow, and a second account that I use for my work with only software dev stuffs and mainstream/more neutral media, Reuters etc, nothing that could brand me as conservative.
On my political & news account I'm always getting recommendations for CNN and other left-leaning commentators and media (no recommendation for other conservative outlets) at the top of my recommendation list, or some kind of outrageous claim that a right leaning person would have done, for example, right now got:
"Kellyanne Conway compares voting in person to waiting in line for cupcakes".
Another one: "Trump makes unsubstantiated claim that mail-in ballots will lead to voter fraud"
I also got "Don Lemon" on "Trending".
That's the kind of recommendation I'm not getting on my work account, where it's mixed between news (without any outrageous/divise claims unless there's really something crazy that happened that day) and other subjects targeted to my interests.
Is it a scientific proof, no, but once you spend enough time comparing with multiple accounts like that you can see a pretty clear pattern on how they try to influence, and it's not subtle even.
The "unfairness" is a fact check that got attached to a couple of his tweets: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/12652558351245393....
Journalists do press him for details, but they get answers like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNlSRd2w5IA.
> If it's so easy to ignore hard question, why doesn't everyone just do this to avoid criticism from the press?
Have you seen how this administration has been running press conferences? It's not an entirely unprecedented trainwreck (when any administration is in scandal mode, it behaves in such a fashion), but it is unprecedented for how frequently it has had to operate in scandal mode.
Its supporters, of course, point to this sort of thing as an example of the bad liberal media bias that is being mean to the greatest man in the history of this country. The WHPS of the week could spend every single conference reading from a phonebook, and it still wouldn't change anyone's mind on anything.