Somehow, when people demand censorship or content "vetting", it never is themselves they are worried about, is it? You are confident in your own judgment, it's the unwashed masses who need it. You are perfectly capable of discerning lies from the truth, it's always someone else who isn't capable.
Well, let's see. If only we had some sort of referendum where everyone (of a certain age) gets to, I don't know, cast some sort of ballot for a person that might in turn help us determine precisely such capabilities and then after that some sort of ongoing polling of representative samples of those people to see how that goes over time in relation to the number of lies the person they originally voted for subsequently tell to judge correlation. Like an "approval" rating of some sort. Then we could compare the approval rating by, say, party affiliation against the number of lies and other deliberately deceitful statements and claims made by their preferred person as a general guideline to help estimate the ongoing impact of those lies.
Of course, it does operate under the assumption that such people are generally intelligent enough to understand that such a person telling such falsehoods is a
bad thing and that they are rightfully supposed to equate a lie or deceitful comment by such a person as being detrimental, so the fact that such a person did
already tell lie after lie after lie and made so many deliberately misleading and deceitful comments before such a "vote" took place is problematic to this end.
Because, one would think--as you apparently do--that everyone can in fact tell a blatant lie without it needing to be pointed out to them by the medium being used to spread those lies. But at the same time we have millions who evidently either couldn't figure out for themselves that their preferred candidate was in fact telling deliberate falsehoods, or they could and they just didn't care.
So, again, it would seem logical that polling those people to see their reactions over time would be helpful and lo and behold, we do actually find some correlation between approval ratings in those polls and how many once loyal are now not so much. Not among a core 10-15%, of course, as that's just a typical fanatic devotion of people that are simply too stupid or too indifferent to care, so they can easily be written off as irrelevant pieces of shit that they so clearly are.
I mean, along with being able to tell blatant lies, we can also tell who among us are irrelevant pieces of shit, right? There's some low hanging fruit for you.
But for the other 85-90% that originally supported someone who pretty much ONLY tells blatant lies and deliberately deceitful bullshit, questions remain as to why in the world THEY are not intelligent enough to abandon a serial liar whose tweets are actually inciting violence and causing deaths and shifting blame and the like.
And we should also factor in WHY such a person is objecting so strenuously to being fact checked--along with why they even started and insisted on continuing to use a platform that previously had only served for comedians, c-list celebrities and obese basement dwellers to fart out irrelevant musings--in the first place. If it's really no big deal to include a fact check--since we are ALL fully capable and equally intelligent and can easily discern all of the wheat from the chaff--then that cuts both ways and no one should give a tiny shit about an independent confirmation provided by the platform.
There is the old
lady doth protest too much syndrome going on here, so that's even more revealing. I have never been in a situation where I would be upset by anyone on this board, for example, saying: "I fact checked his claims and concur with his findings." Or, for that matter, "I fact checked his claims and found the following issues with his findings."
But then I'm not a demonstrably unbalanced, sociopathic serial killer with tremendous power that some 60 million people voted for and about 40 million continue to inexplicably give a pass to in spite of all of the blatant lies I keep telling them.
So, to that flipside, since there is no harm in Twitter pointing out the obvious (the "blatant"), and no liar can object to their lies being pointed out, and the 60 million people who voted for Trump surely already also see the blatant lies and don't care that he's blatantly lying to them, then there is no harm whatsoever in Twitter doing whatever the fuck they want to in regard to his Tweets.
Though they should have simply banned his ass the first time he incited violence or hatred or racism or encouraged people to inject disinfectants and promoted false science and the like, so they've got a LOT of catching up to do.
Trump and Zuckerberg sitting in a tree / Messing up our democracy 
on Twitter: "You can always rely on Trump to incite violence." / Twitter
