Why was the tweet deleted?

@LeopoldBloom It's being reevaluated for accuracy, not deleted.
Deleting it would be admitting it was a lie... And our political class never lie😂

@FreeSpirit1 It's being "reevaluated" because Musk fired most of the staff and the remaining ones are working 80 hour weeks to implement his plan to charge a monthly fee for the blue check mark. So much for "free speech." Unless you're implying that Musk is a government shill. I mean, he should be - he makes most of his money as a federal contractor.

@LeopoldBloom Twitter didn't take it down the White House did, you're thinking of the old Twitter who censods

@FreeSpirit1 You're right, the new Twitter has no content moderation. What's trending now is a bunch of tweets saying Trump died.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trumpisdead-trending-on-twitter-in-moderation-test-for-elon-musk-2022-11

How's that freedom of speech working for you?

It's working great, Twitter isn't a publisher it's a platform, when a platform censors an actual publisher like Twitter did to the NY Post then something is screwed up. Twitter told The NY Post it couldn't test the veracity of a story the Post put it's name on , so the veracity of it is up to them not Twitter. It's simple to some of us.
If someone posts Trump died it will be cleared up fairly often quickly by users if it's false. @LeopoldBloom

@FreeSpirit1 Everyone knows it's false. Same if someone posts that the Holocaust never happened or slavery was good for Black people. The question is whether advertisers will want their ads next to crap like that. Twitter's users aren't the platform's customers; they're its product. The customers are the advertisers, and Musk is in the position of having to figure out how to impose enough moderation to satisfy them while not pissing off the conservatives who think free speech consists of saying anything you want without consequences.

If you want to see a platform with no content moderation, look at Gab or Parler. The problem is that advertisers aren't interested in them, and when a site becomes a right wing echo chamber, engagement drops off. After the 2020 election, Parler had several million active users, now it has several thousand.

Musk has to make Twitter generate a billion dollars a year just to service his debt, let alone pay for staff, offices, and servers, not to mention profit. He's trying to cut costs by laying off staff, and increase revenue by charging for the blue check mark. If that doesn't work, he'll have to sell off his Tesla stock just to keep Twitter afloat. It will be hilarious if he tanks the platform and loses his fortune in the process.

@LeopoldBloom So if The NY Times has a story they are running and puts up a link to it on Twitter you think it's twitters responsibility to know the accuracy of the story before they allow links to be shared? Is the fact that the people running the story say it's accurate enough? Content moderation is not the same as blocking stories from being shared. How about two people debating an issue and Twitter getting involved and choosing one side over the other and banning someone? Moderation is not acting like a publisher.
You say it will become a right wing echo chamber, a left wing echo chamber is what those on the right are calling it now . Twitter needs to be in the middle and not choosing ideological sides.

@FreeSpirit1 Twitter is a private platform and can make any rules it likes. Musk is already suspending accounts of people who criticize him. Twitter actually had decent content moderation before; it wasn't a right or left wing echo chamber. Parler and GETTR are right wing echo chambers. TruthSocial isn't because it doesn't have any moderation. I see a lot of left wing content there because nobody is bothering to check on the 200 people who still use it. The Facebook papers revealed that left wing sites were being banned while right wing ones like Breitbart were just given a warning and allowed to remove content.

With no moderation at all, sites do turn in to right wing cesspools. Look at Gab sometime.

@LeopoldBloom It's still private and can do as it wishes but not act as a publisher in my opinion. Moderate it , keep it it civil but when It moderates opinion it's asking for trouble.

@FreeSpirit1 It's not acting like a publisher when it moderates user's posts based on terms of service that users agreed to when they signed up. If the ToS are too restrictive for you, you can go somewhere else like Gab that only limits blatantly illegal content.

The mistake you're making is thinking that the users are the site's customers. The users are its product. The real customers are the advertisers who pay the bulk of the site's income. Twitter can't just run on user fees even if Musk thinks he can increase income by charging for the blue check mark or for premium service. Commercial advertisers won't want their ads running next to posts expressing "opinions" like the Holocaust never happened or Black people were better off as slaves. From a business standpoint, Musk has to figure out how to balance moderation on one hand to avoid pissing off the right wingers who think they should be able to say anything they want with no consequences, while not driving away advertisers who don't want to be associated with anything controversial.

@LeopoldBloom The NY Post asked Twitter where in the rules does it say a newspaper needs to have Twitter involved in the editorial process of it's work, Twitter never replied and just said it was a mistake, but the mistakes always seem to lean ideologically against one side of hot button issues.
If Musk says Twitter will no longer do that I don't see how anyone can complain

@FreeSpirit1 We'll see if Musk censors stories that are critical of Elon Musk.

If Twitter was favoring liberal issues, that balances Facebook which gives special consideration to conservative outlets.