I'll make a thread of Trump-defenders who wave their free speech flag but don't even understand how 1A only limits government speech and not private actors like Twitter. Not to mention Twitter only labeled the false info which we prefer rather than deleting it. here is @dbongino. 
I mean c'mon here. not only are the issues practically non-existent but @GOPChairwoman here is claiming 83% without even noting her math is based on 5 of 6 incidents. ***5 of 6***. Twitter must be laughing at this nonsense. It's not even something which will make them revisit.
here is @TomFitton, again no legit arguments here. Twitter isn't picking any side except labeling what they determined to be a blatantly false claim which impacts election integrity. If anything they waited too long and I expect their concern about Trump's rage held them back.
this statement is false by @parscale so don't use it. Twitter banned political advertising globally last October. foxnews.com/tech/twitter-t…
so the point being the real concern is when Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, etc entirely remove posts they deem to be false. Policy-wise, that's actually easier for them and again they CAN do this as private platforms. 1A only protects against government restrictions.
But it's much preferred if they instead label, slow down, remove velocity+reach benefits of their platform for posts rather than censor them. Twitter did this here. Their problem is it's probably more embarrassing for Trump than removing tweet which would be a single press cycle.
now this is right. and again, there is a different, proper conservative concern whether social media platforms should have more liability for decisions they make, content they choose to recommend and drive awareness, etc.
