Sorry, but I am a believer in freedom of choice, private property and capitalism. Facebook and Twitter are private companies and can set whatever rules they want just like JR does here. If you don't like the rule, get the hell out and go to a site more to your liking.
Ya know, there are alternatives to Facebook and Twitter. It is possible to create such sites and treat Liberals the way conservatives are treated there.
Full disclosure: I am on both sites but haven't visited them in years. The last straw for me on Twitter was when I was suspended for 2 weeks for saying "Transgenderism is a mental disorder" This was said in a back and forth in what I thought was a level headed discussion. I was not trolling anyone and certainly did not use profanity. My solution was to say to hell with them and not visit the sites anymore.
“My solution was to say to hell with them and not visit the sites anymore.“
Me too.
But to answer your original question - No, a future Democrat President could not use this same rationale against FR.
The difference is that FR and other forums or outlets which provide commentary and editorial opinions are already not exempted from regulation as “common carriers”. So this would take nothing away from FR.
Twitter and FB claim to be “common carriers“ - they claim to be serving as the “telephone lines“ over which people communicate, and therefore not liable for what gets said’ you whom.
But by “fact checking“ the President’s tweets, Twitter is trying to have it both ways. They want to be protected as “common carriers” but yet they wish to weigh in on the content. FB is playing it smarter by having Zuckerberg go out and say Facebook shouldn’t attempt to evaluate what is true or not true, or what is “right“ or “wrong”. But FB is in violation of common carrier regs as well - the President is making them choose -
FB has already chosen, so No, this could not come around and bite FR in the ass.