This is the same argument that’s been going on for years since youtube set this precedent by banning Alex Jones, other platforms followed suit, and we’ve since seen increased “controls” on who can say what.
These platforms try to play both sides of the fence, by saying they’re just a communication tool, so they’re not legally liable or responsible for the content on their platform, yet retain and regularly enforce a publisher’s rights when it suits them…and all (or at least usually) via guidelines that are either vague at best or outright not defined at worst.
If Twitter is putting “fact check” on the president’s tweets, they should be held responsible for publicly discoursing what their source of facts are.
(Maybe they are - I don’t know.)
At the same time, they should also be “fact checking” everyone on their platform - not just certain people.
I’ve made this argument before about other platforms, but if they don’t have the infrastructure to fact check (or verify or whatever you want to call it) every single piece of content, you shouldn’t be allowed to fact check any content, as it leads to too big of a chance that you’re using this loophole simply to control a potentially worldwide narrative.
And saying JoeBlowXYZ twitter user has almost no following, so we don’t need to fact check him isn’t an excuse. That would be akin to the Wall Street Journal saying they fact check the articles on their front page because those are the most seen, but they don’t fact check the small blurb on page 8 of Section E since hardly anyone sees that.