Fact check: While it's true that oftentimes fact-checkers use carefully crafted semantic arguments and an appeal to authority to validate or invalidate certain claims to sway opinion, they do not perform any censoring themselves.
My favorite is this one, quoted directly from Snopes:
> Hillary Clinton used a hammer to smash her mobile phone during an FBI investigation.
> What's True: One of Hillary Clinton's aides told the FBI that on two occasions he disposed of her unwanted mobile devices by breaking or hammering them.
> What's False: Hillary Clinton did not personally destroy her phone with a hammer.
This sort of thing is sadly very frequent. The thumb is definitely on the scales. Fact checkers show their bias not only in things like this where they bend over backwards to say something is false, but also in what they choose to fact check.
In theory a fact checker is a censor that can only censor content found to be not true.
A regular censor can remove content for any reason, most commonly because it violates community standards or is politically inconvenient for the people in power.
This distinction is important so calling fact checkers a censor is potentially misleading.
Censors only censor content found to be not true by their political operatives. Do you honestly think there has even been a government filled with bureaucrats maliciously censoring what they themselves believe are truth? What kind of comically evil villain do you think were censors in other regimes?
After reading and hearing what Americans think about censorship, I am forced to conclude a significant portion of the population believes that -- so long as someone doesn't look like a childhood disney villain -- they're probably a noble person with noble goals and noble results.
No, fact checkers gives data and hopefully sources and explain why a statement is believed to be true or false. The original statement can still be seen.
Censoring usually completely removes the statement with usually no justification (perhaps national security or whatever).
Not saying this is the case here, but in general these days (mostly?) right wingers completely mistake what censorship means. It seems like someone ignored my opinion is the new standard on censorship.
> Not saying this is the case here, but in general these days (mostly?) right wingers completely mistake what censorship means. It seems like someone ignored my opinion is the new standard on censorship.
You should create a separate twitter, and tweet moderately conservative ideas, and see what happens to that user, and your experience.
I have the unique life perspective of changing political parties from Hillary Clinton (Elected DNC Delegate) -> Libertarian based on my life experience in San Francisco, and personal perception that my original thoughts may have been wrong.
The way I'm treated on Twitter is entirely different. My comments, while not angry or aggressive, or extreme, find themselves hidden below the fold. When just a few years ago they were highlighted and never hidden. Trends I'm not interested in are suggested, I provide feedback to the AI and they are still suggested. I hide terms and they are highlighted. It is very Amorphous, but I suspect there is a machine learning categorization behind the scenes. It's more than coincidence.
