Twitter's desperate attempt to distract voters from focusing on the evils of liberalism

Jacob Driezen:

This piece will not provide a deep historical background of the Trump-Twitter dispute.  We know what is going on.

After years of ignoring propaganda, misinformation, threats, and slander from “bad actors” such as China, Iran, evil corporations, leftist Jew-haters, Michael Avenatti, Hillary Clinton, the Covington accusers, and all the many Democrat-aligned perpetrators of the Russia Collusion Hoax, Twitter has finally made a move, five months before our Presidential Election, to attempt to humiliate Mr. Trump and challenge him on his facts, specifically on a potentially life-or-death matter of electoral survival for the Democrat Party.

A desperate gamble chiefly attributable to a senior partisan activist at Twitter headquarters, though presumably approved by CEO Jack Dorsey, the move was a PR disaster for the company.  It didn’t help that one of the two news pieces cited by Twitter as challenging Mr. Trump’s criticism of default universal mailing of unrequested absentee ballots, was itself not entirely accurate in its facts.  Dorsey has since avoided any more ridiculous “fact check” flags on Mr. Trump’s follow-up comments on the same issue.

But a PR disaster is not enough, and symbolic Executive Orders are just symbolic.  It is time for the Federal Election Commission or the Department of Justice to pursue Twitter for the unlawfully undeclared contribution of “in-kind” (non-cash), non-volunteer services to the Democratic National Committee and/or the Biden 2020 campaign.

The case is, at heart, straightforward.  Twitter is not in itself a media outlet, and thus has no “freedom of the press” defense.  Legally speaking, Twitter and its ilk are closer to telecommunications utilities.  Hence, an argument could be made that what social media companies have done to Republicans and Trump supporters since 2016 is akin to (just a hypothetical example) Verizon sabotaging Republican party phone lines.  Having material value to the Democrats, these actions, by law, must be reported as a form of campaign support.

Of course, demonstrating pervasive bias and its widespread, practical impact and damage is not as straightforward.  Even with a wave of whistleblowers and social media insiders coming forward, it would not be easy to document conclusively and then to convince multiple courts (when the challenge comes) that Trump-supporting persons and media outlets are shadow-banned, harassed, and de-platformed at rates far in excess of Trump’s critics.

However, what Twitter has done in frantically going up against Mr. Trump directly, in a campaign initiated by a cartoonishly partisan Twitter officer whose hateful tweets about Trump and the Flyover States are up there for all to see, in a manner clearly at odds with the company’s hands-off treatment of other politicians and all Democrat loud-mouths, and on a matter touching upon actual holy voting and the sacred counting of holy votes, is to make all that difficult work unnecessary.
...

There is more.

I do not see a downside to the Trump administration doing this.  It will have the added benefit of genning up the GOP base against the unfair treatment it gets from the social media monopolies.

Here are "33 Examples of Twitter’s Anti-Conservative Bias."