Please explain the noteworthy parts of a private entity giving political entities special treatment. I’ll take my answer off the line. Thanks.
Yes, Twitter is a private platform. But is it legal for the government to aid them in their censorship effort?
Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed?
If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech?
Since it's the government(s) actually telling them what to censor, yeah?
> Suppose Twitter had a policy against religious speech. Would it be legal for the government to identify instances of religious speech on the platform and forward it on to Twitter moderators, knowing it will certainly be removed?
Yeah? But they can't TELL twitter to do so, because that would be a violation of freedom of religion. So they - like many other parties - can report tweets just like everyone else.
> If you think that would be legal, would your mind be changed if the government helped Twitter to develop its rules against religious speech?
You mean like what China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc are doing already? That's all legal - according to the country's laws, anyway.
Moral however, that's a different matter. But I never considered either Twitter or the US government to be moral.
> Dicks. Dicks were censored.
Dicks for the big guy.
The reporting in 2020 had emails that showed Hunter arranging meetings with Joe that Joe denied, texts telling associates not to refer to Joe Biden by name, as well as an email where Hunter would be holding money for "the big guy."
It looks like this could be quid pro quo official corruption, but there's not enough there yet to be sure. It needs to be investigated.
We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Bill Clinton because it looked like his real estate investment was too good to be true and he had a dodgy tax deduction. We appointed a special prosecutor to investigate Trump based on non-specific allegations of collusion. The evidence here is at least as strong as it was in those cases.
Change it to a knitting forum that bans crochet posting, the principle is the same. Is it government censorship if the government helps the knitting forum to develop the anti-crochet rule, and then acts as watchdogs?